ACRIMONY

This is completely irrelevant to what i'm saying.

Nimh means "No, it's me, Habibi," which was his name at Abuzz, and i've called him that for years. You really are tedious.

If Hillary does as expected and wins Pa., Conn., and Maryland, do you think Sander's will encourage his supporters to lighten up on the Hillary criticism for the good of the democrat chances in the general? Right now it seems the latest is going after Bill Clinton, dragging out those old stories. I expect that from republicans, but I expected better from so called liberal and progressives.

There is a balancing act that Sanders and his supporters are going to have to figure out.

They can either "lighten up" on Hillary for the short term good of the Democratic establishment. or then can keep pushing for progressive changes in the Democratic party that will be good for the country in the long term.

The idea that we should accept the Democratic party taking a step backwards without any protest for the good of the Clinton campaign is a little hard for me to take.

With Trump as the competition, I think we can afford to push a little for the good of the country.

There are valid issues that should remain front and center in this election.

- The influence of big money on our political system.
- The US military role in the world and the use of military force.
- The use of torture and drones in the war on terror.
- Social and racial justice.
- Economic fairness and the growing income inequality in the US.
- Universal healthcare and the need for a single payer system.

All of these issues will be lost as soon as Clinton is nominated. There will be no discussion and no one to take the progressive position (which is supported by a significant number of voters).

I don't want to see Bill Clinton's sex life getting dragged into this election cycle.

I do want these valid issues pushed further into the national debate. The policies and positions on these important issues that were taken during the first Clinton administration are absolutely relevant.

It isn't fair for Clinton, or for the Democratic party establishment, to stifle these issues that are so important to people who votes they would like to take for granted.

I think you can do both. Sanders can continue to push for the policies you want without calling Clinton "unqualified" and "compromised".

I don't think he can do both. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be challenged on the issues. She will continue to hit back hard, and to take great offense, at pretty much anything Sanders says.

On both the "unqualified" remark and the "compromised" remark Sanders was very specifically commenting on her ties to big money interests. This is one of the important issues. Hillary is dodging the issue by playing the offense card.

The most ridiculous line in this campaign was her comment that she can't be the establishment because she is a woman.

She will take offense at anything. It is a effective way to beat back a progressive campaign and it is frustrating to the Bernie supporter who she will rely on for votes in the general election.

I agree with engineers observations. It is possible to do both.

Well then, please explain how?

If you were working on the Bernie Sanders campaign, and your goal was to promote progressive issues, challenge the Democratic establishment and motivate the progressive movement, what would you do?

How would you push forward these issues without doing what Sanders has been doing? The Clinton campaign wants Sanders to stop pushing and to just accept the status quo. That isn't a way to make progress.

I reject your characterization.

90+% of what Sanders says on the stump doesn't involve Clinton. Easy enough to avoid that.

Its really is that simple. The 90+% is where the meat is anyway.

This sort of stuff happens in each and every primary. The contenders try and make a case for why people should vote for them rather than the other candidates, and yes, it's often a bit negative. This particular dem primaries campaign was not particularly aggressive as compared to the 2008 one, during which a lot of s..t was dished. And it's almost over.

Tempest in a teapot, take 29873454689!

I agree. For Sanders to run a serious campaign, he had to attack Clinton. If the calculus shows he can't get there, now is the time to stay on message while foregoing the attack.

I agree that he will need to progressively close down the ad Hillarium angle of attack as a preparation to the convention, at least go easy with the most gratuitous personnal attacks.* But he dished less of those than Hillary did on Obama in 2008, me think. He ran a very principled campaign, that got a bit slippery and negative during the build-up towards New York. That was understandable given the stakes I suppose, but I like him more when he stays away from negativity.

* Factually-based critiques are of course always topical and welcome.

(thanks for being here Engineer, and for keeping your head cool)

I agree with those who say you can continue to push for those policies of which I agree with, ideally, and refrain from trashing Clinton unnecessarily. I hope he continues until the last state votes, I just want the negative from both sides to stop as it not good for a progressive agenda going forward. I hope the Bernie movement continues after the election as I think the "meat" of his campaign are all good for the country. Hillary will probably need reminding often.

That's great, should get an Internet award of some sort.

I agree. Of course that race was very close pretty much all the way to the convention and Clinton did back off when it was clear she'd lost. That is where I think Sanders is. If he is still in it, he should swing for the rafters, if it is over, he should still campaign on his issues and maybe find some down ballot candidates he wants to help.

Setanta will soon give me the "best answer" award for his thread. Any moment now... Keeping my breath... ;-)

I've read a reasonably convincing report today that young voters are not likely to stay home in November. I am somewhat mollified by that--the Democrats really need to take control of the Senate, and they'll need a good voter turn-out to accomplish that.

I know that you have called him that for years and it's exactly that that I found odd: that you still used a decades-old username all the time. I thought you might think it was his real name is all and it was just an innocuous comment about what his real name is. Doesn't surprise me that it rubbed you the wrong way, as almost anything seems to.

As for finding me tedious, right back at ya you big grouch!

Have a nice life, don't bother to write. If you didn't ignore what i've written in my posts and attempt to lecture me in a condescending manner, you might find me less "grouchy."