In the end she needs Sanders' supporters. Her job as a leader, is to reach out to Sanders and his supporters and get them behind her. I still think she and the DNC need to give him the primary Prime Time spot during the convention, and they need to give other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus a large percentage of the time during the convention. That move, along with a good progressive VP candidate (I think Dennis Kucinich for reasons I've detailed before) would go a long way to helping secure the nomination. And as pointed out by @newtboy, her supporters in '08 were Democrats, so it isn't nearly the same story as what Sanders is doing now. The Democrats will continue to vote for her, it is the independents that you need to turn out and vote against Trump. Trump is doing better than expected at getting the Republicans behind him, and their hatred of Clinton can't be understated. Not to mention of course fears of indictment and other issues ahead of Clinton, such as the likely hood the Republicans would try to impeach her first thing... even if they don't impeach her, they'll stonewall congress like they have against Obama anyhow. They need to get the independents out to vote against the Republicans and have a Senate change as well, and I don't see them really working to that end yet, which mystifies me to no end.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

That's funny, didn't you just say I believe the lies people tell? ;-)
Bernie is AHEAD of Clinton in newer national polls, and beats her in EVERY POSSIBLE situation...against Trump, Cruz, or Kucinich, while Clinton barely wins against Trump and Cruz, and looses to Kucinich.
"Better solutions" is an opinion. In my opinion, his solutions are FAR better than any others offered by other candidates, and are supported by more people than any other candidates ideas.

You've been had by the media who wants a Clinton VS Trump race. Please note, many of Clinton's biggest donors are media corporations...and it shows in their coverage.

I got to disagree that they need the Tea Party vote... well they need the Tea Party's great love, Fox News, Rush. and all the other far right nutters, so they try to appeal to the Tea Party more specifically, but I think that's why they've lost the last two elections.

McCain, had he ran as the centralist candidate he has been in the Senate, was very electable. Unfortunately for the party he stepped to the right in his campaign to appeal to what would become the Tea Party. Then he went over the deep end by choosing a VP candidate that was certifiably crazy and too far to the right for the Nation to take seriously. All in an attempt to appeal to the far right.

Then the party mishandles Obamacare. Rather than own up to it, and say "hey, this is the same plan we tried to pass 3 times into federal law. The Democrats wanted a single payer system, Obama was promising a government option, but they in the end took our plan." Instead they try to run the thing into the ground, and build on the far right anger over it, rather than appeal to where the Nation actually was. Obama's re-election was largely because of Obamacare, something the party and it's media machines like Fox don't understand. To be fair in 2008, I don't think anyone could have predicted the rise of Obama, but the fact his message took off so well, should have been a sign to the Republican party the country was trying to move back to the center from the pull to the right of the Bush years.

Romney could have ran with that further, saying how Romneycare is the model for Obamacare and that his state was the one who really started the ball rolling. Romney as he was as governor was far more electable at the national level than the Romney we got during the campaign... and again there is an appeal to the Tea Party with a Washington Insider but solid Tea Party member in Ryan.

The Republican party has a near solid slam dunk if they put up Rubio/Kasich ticket. It's a moderate ticket that has broad appeal to the masses of America without making most liberals/progressives so afraid that they'll show up in droves the way a Trump ticket does (or a Cruz ticket to a slightly smaller extent). The far right would still vote for Rubio/Kasich over Clinton/Sander (or Clinton/Warren, Clinton/Kucinich... she needs a solid, well known progressive to give her the best chance of winning), so the Rubio/Kasich is safe from all sides.

I agree though, a Trump ticket spells doom for the party period. Not only do they loose the Presidential election, the fact so many Republicans fear Trump's near Fascism will mean they might stay home, and the liberals/progressives will show up in greater than normal numbers to insure he doesn't win, which means a possible to likely loss of control of the Senate. Cruz won't scare away the Republican base as much, but still bring out more liberals/progressives than normal, which likely means a loss of the Presidential election, but perhaps not as much of a loss of the Senate. A Rubio/Kasich combo ticket is safe and gives the best broad appeal... or course if they did go Rubio, they'd tie him up with a Tea Party candidate to pull those votes in, as they don't understand they need to really shed those people and let them form their own party... I think they fear that Fox News, Rush and the like will follow the new Tea Party line rather than the mainstream Republican party and they want that attention... they are so wrapped up in the echo chamber now they don't see the nation is far more to the center than they are willing to go. The fact that Obama is far closer to Regan era style Republicans than most anyone in the race today speaks volumes to how disconnected the party is from reality.

Meanwhile, I'll wish for a Sanders/Warren or Sanders/Kucinich ticket... though realistically, he needs a young moderate up coming Democrat to broaden his appeal... and let's face it, odds are it'll be Clinton, whom I fear the Republican's first day of action will be to try an impeach her over the email and Benghazi... I mean we've had what? 3 or 4 times as many hearings on how she handled Benghazi than we had over 9/11, even though there are tons of fishy things going on with that too (without having to go into crazy conspiracy theories). So go... Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren.

And so are Republicans and Democrats. The problem is dumbass voters who vote for pawns of lobbyists that actively work to undermine our country. And the only way to break that cycle is to elect the one motherfucker who flips them the bird. Ron did that. Dennis Kucinich did that. Bernie Sanders does that. It doesn't matter what side of the isle we vote--it matters that we vote out the special interests.

I agree she'd probably be better than Hilary, and probably more electable too as the right (especially the Tea Party) hate's Hilary and Bill so much they'd pull out all the stops to make sure Hilary lost. They'd probably come out in force against Warren as well, but the loss wouldn't be as big. I'd say the progressive's best hope lies with Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich (oh to dream) or some other high end member of the CPC. Bernie has explored the option, but unless he's willing to run on the Democrat ticket, I'd think it'd end up hurting the progressive cause due to the first past the post voting system we're stuck using here. Ralph Nader would be another good option, but again, he'd have to run the Democrat ticket, which is unlikely. I could see Sanders coming to the Democrat ticket if they'd put him on the main post, with Warren as VP perhaps...

Aye, there's the rub. Who's at fault for successful candidates who become disappointing office-holders... candidates who make promises they, alone, don't have the power to deliver (thereby just saying whatever it takes to get elected), or people who vote for said candidate, actually believing he/she can/will do everything they promised to do? So many (all?) of our elected officials, including Obama, are simply best-of-a-bad-lot, emotional, or litmus test selections. "Hope" was a brilliant campaign slogan. What else can we do?

You want to impeach Obama, choggie? (@chingalera) Why? We probably dislike him for very different reasons, but he'd just be replaced by another pod-Pres, no assembly required (strings pre-attached). I could get behind a Grayson, Warren, or Kucinich, but the machine would never allow such a monstrosity to exist, as it's still trying to self-correct from the last two deviations. Like you said, nuke it from orbit, double-tap, start over, same docs. Only way to be sure. Hopefully it won't come to that, but I have little hope for a country more familiar with McDonald's dollar menu and Kanye's Twitter than said docs that started it all. Is our children learning? Nope.

@dystopianfuturetoday Lefties don't see this as a scandal. At least I don't. Scandal or not scandal is not the issue here, and I think the term diminishes just what has been more fully illuminated in the last week for many people. The way the government of/by/for the people/people relationship has devolved into warden/inmate; the way money has infected and rendered ineffective our political process; the complete dissociation of electorate and elected, the lie that is representative government; the treatment of those who risk everything to expose abuses of our privacy and other freedoms (all legal, as interpreted by the abusers); Patriot Act... greatest product name ever marketed. For me, this was the straw. I've had it.

"If we are going to fix it, it will require thought, discussion and hard choices.

Check. Check. Public will bears easy choices. Pen or sword? Now, there's a hard choice.

Your video, Dennis Kucinich on Iraq Lies, Govt Accountability & GMOs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Too bad Kucinich is now a contributor to Fox News.

upvote for Dennis Kucinich!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.

There's a reason Ron Paul is hated by both parties a simple one too. He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole. By keeping the people at the forefront of his mind and not his "Party".

I'm sick of all this Left/Right bullsh*t it's time to do what's right for this Nation regardless of petty political agendas.

[edit] And I know exactly how the system works thank you very much. It work through the bowels of corruption and greed.

I think it's high time we flushed the system as it is and started anew.

>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.
I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

@Auger8

If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.

I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry