The old gray lady today chides Bernie Sanders for not "moving on," in a news analysis piece, even though in a straight news piece from eight years ago, it laid out how she pretty much did the same.
That said, she did officially concede three days later.
So, let's see what happens by Saturday. I think we've seen enough
In the meantime, Obama has officially endorsed Clinton, and while not endorsing her, Sanders followed by saying he was ready to work with her on beating Trump.
So, except for Clintonistas who WRONGLY expect some immediate groveling, we probably don't need to wait until Saturday.
Until then, it's not officially a deal inside Democrat-land, but de facto, it really is. After that, and especially if we go past the whole weekend, it might be "a deal."
That said, if it further tears down the current national Democratic shithouse, it could be good — but only if it leads to Sandernistas heading to Plan B (Bernie himself won't). If it leads to Sandernista hand-sitting or something, then it's not so good.
4 comments:
All this talk of a deal is a bit puzzling to me. Yeah, Bernie has historically been willing to make deals, but what has either side really got to offer the other?
The DNC/Clinton camp wants Bernie to drop out and endorse Hillary. They'd also maybe like to get their hands on his mailing list. Since Bernie has specifically and repeatedly pledged to go to the convention, it's hard to see him withdrawing before that. Likewise, even if he could stomach an endorsement, much of his contingent would see it as a betrayal and ignore him, and I'm not sure even the mailing list would do the Clintonites much good.
On the other side, I can't imagine them giving Bernie anything of substance, even if he could justify taking something like a cabinet post "for the movement". Certainly not a leadership position in Congress or the party. A commitment to push some policy like single-payer healthcare? He'd be a fool to trust them, even if they were willing to take a public position.
Yes, input into the platform and maybe a speech at the convention -- both of which the DNC would wipe their butts with. So where's the deal?
There's one Senate angle; if the Dems regain control, he's the Budget Comm chair IF they let him still caucus with them. If Senate Dems get to 51 without him and he wouldn't play ball, they could push him out in the cold. Dunno if that's enough incentive for him or not.
Otherwise, I'm with you.
I also don't see what's in it for Warren to be Clinton's Veep. A lot of people would react the same way, on followers of hers.
I think the notion that Warren might be the VP pick is ludicrous. After she's spent decades campaigning to be the "First Woman President!", is Hillary going to share the spotlight with an interloper who's more popular than she is? Don't be silly. And yes, of course she's that petty. None of this has ever been about anything other than Hillary's ego and bank balance.
Jags, I wish you were right, but I just retweeted a CNBC Tweet where Warren said she "wouldn't rule it out."
(I'm @realDonaldTrump on Twitter.)
Post a Comment