Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton (cnn.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton (cnn.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday July 12, 2016 @04:40AM from the crossing-paths dept.

It's official. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday endorsed former presidential rival Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee ahead of the party's July convention. Sanders said Clinton will make an outstanding president and that he is proud to stand with her. "Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty," Sanders added. CNN reports: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president," Sanders said at a joint rally here. "Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and I congratulate her for that." The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged his support to his former rival: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States." Clinton, speaking after Sanders, declared: "We are joining forces to defeat Donald Trump!" "I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side," she said. "You know what? We are stronger together!" Full remarks of Sanders can be found on this blog post.

31 of 644 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The DNC overlords always get their way by The+Real+Dr+John · 2016-07-12 04:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

The Corporate Overlords want Clinton. Resistance if futile. Anyone who votes for Clinton is enabling more of the same, ad infinitum.

--
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
1. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tripleevenfall · 2016-07-12 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure - but all this "principled opposition" that Sanders supposedly brought turned out to be no so principled as we thought.
  Clinton and Trump both epitomize everything that is horrible and deporable about American politics. People like to pretend that they wouldn't vote for someone just for wearing a (D) or (R), but this election is the test. Will you vote for one of the worst two candidates ever, just because of their party affiliation?
  If so, you can't complain about your choices ever again, because you put your stamp of approval on this.
2. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Yunzil · 2016-07-12 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.
  Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.
3. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ganjadude · 2016-07-12 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
4. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by gfxguy · 2016-07-12 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Disagree - don't want Trump, but Hillary with a strong republican congress might repeat the Bill Clinton era. Hillary with a strong democrat congress is going to railroad a lot of garbage through... the best years have traditionally been with opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
5. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-12 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority for about 17 weeks, from the delayed confirmation of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy.
  Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks? The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.
  HAHAHAHAHA...oh, you're serious. You've actually forgotten "You'll need to pass it to know what is in it?"
6. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-12 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years." .. In what way was Obama obstructed? What did he want that the R's blocked? They rolled over every single time. Have you not been paying attention? This is why Trump is so popular.
7. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Archangel+Michael · 2016-07-12 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook. Enough Democrats will hold their noses and vote for her, that she will likely win. There are very few people who actually "want" her, but that is all they have for the D. The fact that Trump, who has negatives almost equal to Hillary won the GOP sweepstakes is also very interesting, especially when you look at Bernie's campaign successes.
  The fact that Bernie called Clinton "unqualified" throughout his campaign, and is now supporting her is a testament to the Party politics that both D and R people have expressed in the election this year. That alone helps two people, Trump (outsider) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian.
  My guess is, when push comes to shove, nobody gets close to 50 % of the popular vote. If Gary Johnson gets closer to 20%, there will be a HUGE uproar as neither Trump or Clinton will get 40%. My biggest hope is that Johnson gets very close to 30%, and wrecks the idea that the president (Clinton / Trump) has any sort of mandate to do anything.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
8. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary
  Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
  You may not like Obama's policies. There are a lot of Obama's policies I don't like, but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president, and that he'd cause a huge depression, and that he'd take away all of our guns, and that he'd put people in FEMA camps for being white, he's done pretty well. Most people agree, according to his approval polls. Although, of course, it could just be people realizing that no matter what they think of Obama, he's going to be better than the next president, whoever that might be.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
9. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ganjadude · 2016-07-12 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president,
  and i would argue that DID happen. dallas, orlando, ft hood. boston, san bernadino sure number of casulaties dont match but i just pulled 6 terroristic acts out of my ass that took place under obama. i would guess you are using 9/11 level to refer to total deaths but id argue its the fear instilled that counts not the numbers
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
10. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · 2016-07-12 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.
  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just cried a little bit as you forgot the years they ran Congress...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
11. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by budgenator · 2016-07-12 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Clinton is still on precarious legal ground,
  She can still be charged with failing to safeguard classified information,
  She can be charged 18 U.S. Code 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally,
  The FBI still has an RICO investigation going on The Clinton Foundation and
  There's at least two instances of perjury.
  What could Putin add that was any more damning; Clinton supporters just don't care, they either think Hillary can do no wrong or they're in the #anybodybutTrump camp.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
12. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by GameboyRMH · 2016-07-12 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As I'd expected, my respect for Scott Adams is further diminished...but to a vastly greater degree than I could've imagined.
  He first tries to nitpick away Trump's history of bigotry (arguing that most of it isn't technically *racist* therefore it's nothing to worry about) and then he goes into straight-up apologism on the topic of the subset of Trump's rhetoric which is unmistakably racist (and therefore not OK, unlike other forms of bigotry apparently?). He even praises Trump for using racist rhetoric, painting it as a clever tactic to be admired. Wow. Finally he plays the "colorblind" card, blames Trump's opposition for "talking about race" and trivializes dog-whistle racism in case my eyes weren't at full roll before. Does this stuff work on white American baby boomers? It doesn't work on me for sure.
  He says that Trump isn't a loose cannon in business even though he's famous for "altering the deal" with construction contractors and other smaller companies. He makes the same mistake that Trump himself does, mistaking an overwhelming advantage in economic power for "deal-making skills."
  Then I start reading his defense of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim travel and I feel like stopping, but I push on through this nonsense. This is boilerplate Islamophobic spiel that no intelligent person would take seriously. Fuck you and your Islamphobia, Scott Adams.
  Then his apologism for Trump's mysogyny and homophobia ties it all together into a grand finale: He deflects by repeating Trump's Islamophobic and anti-Mexican bigoted arguments, argues that he can't be mysogynistic because he wants women to own guns (like everyone else), but also because he hires women in his companies and insults others equally (Also like everyone else! Is doing the same for women that he does for others noteworthy or not?), and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven.
  As a footnote he says that he's voting for Hillary because he's worried about his safety if he votes for Trump (uh, what?) and then notes that as a 1%er life is super-good for him right now and he's worried Trump could raise taxes on him while he's pretty sure Hillary couldn't.
  Fuck Scott Adams. I had no idea he was this much of an awful human being until now. So thanks for linking that article. I'm still a "rabid anti-Trumper" but now I hate Scott Adams too.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
13. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Solandri · 2016-07-12 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.
  It took them so long to pass Obamacare because the legislation was so far left that even the moderate members of their own party wouldn't vote for it, and they spent weeks negotiating and offering concessions to each one of those members to assure they'd have the votes to pass it. If the Republicans had passed legislation in a similar fashion, the Left would be screaming about how corrupt and an affront to democracy the whole process was.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate
  
  To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring several Republican senators aboard; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7 â" when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties â" due to disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. Then, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedyâ"a longtime healthcare reform advocateâ"died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote.
14. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  sure number of casulaties dont match but
  
  Maybe you don't remember what happened after 9/11. The economy crashed. Two wars were started. Air travel was halted.
  None of the events in the past eight years even come close to that sort of effect on us as a nation. I mean, we're talking about jetliners being flown in skyscrapers and the Pentagon, for chrissake. Are you so mental over a black president that you don't see the vast difference?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
15. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2016-07-12 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I /hate/ this argument.
  The election is not a game where you root for one of two sides and you "lose" if the other side wins. It is one of the few opportunities where "The People" get to give their say on which sort of government they want. By voting for a candidate, you say, "this person represents my interests best, he is the one I want to lead the government for the next 2 (representatives)/ 4 (president) / six (senator) years.
  Even if the person you support does not win, your are still expressing your opinion on which things you want the government to support. The other candidates /will/ take notice of these opinions if it threatens their own chance of victory. If a significant percentage of people vote for the third-party candidate who promised to ban H1Bs, you can be that the major candidates will take that up as their rallying cry too (especially the one most threatened by that third-party candidate). It might not happen overnight, or even during the next election cycle, but if enough votes are at risk, the other candidates will modify their own platforms rather than lose the election.
  Yes, it's probably true that ultimately only a Democrat or a Republican will get into office; historically and mathematically, the odds are in their favor. However, that's no reason to throw away one of your few opportunities to control your own government. Vote for the candidate who best reflects your own beliefs - whether he (or she) is a member of the two major parties or represents a third party. Yes, by doing so the "wrong guy" might get into office this year but honestly, that isn't as horrible as is often suggested (if the Republicans win this election, they aren't going to ship all homosexuals off to Gitmo, nuke Iran and forcibly return women to the kitchens; similarly, if the Democrats win, they aren't going to take away our guns, make us all take gay lovers and declare universal socialism).
  The only ones who benefit from the idea that "voting for a third party is a waste" are the major political parties, who would prefer to maintain the status quo.
  It's also important to remember that change takes time, especially since our political system is designed to be inefficient (and we should be grateful for that; you should be scared whenever government makes fast and sweeping changes. It will either be poorly thought out policy that will have a lot of negative repercussions or policy designed to benefit a very few). Just because "your side" doesn't "win" this round doesn't mean you should give up on them and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent you as well. If you - and enough other people - believe in something, your voice will eventually be heard.
  So if the other guy stands for what you believe in better than the Democrats or Republicans, vote third party, even if you feel that by doing so you might be helping Clinton or Trump lose because they don't have your vote. It's the only real way you have to get the politicians to notice you.
16. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by jcr · 2016-07-12 08:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession.
  He's the president who's impeded recovery more than anyone since Roosevelt.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Gary Johnson it is, then by blockhouse · 2016-07-12 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.
Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.
1. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-12 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There is actually a lot of common ground between Bernie and Gary. The only thing that is radically different is their economic policy. If stopping the international war machine and increasing personal freedom matters more to you than how high the minimum wage is, it makes perfect sense to switch from Bernie to Gary. Gary is the only horse in this race that is running on a peace platform.
2. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · 2016-07-12 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box.
  Maybe... Just maybe there are other reasons to vote for someone other than political platforms... Like integrity and honesty. Say what you want about Ron Paul he was honest and consistent in the decades he was in congress as was Sanders. They both were independents for much of their political careers and joined the major party because our system favors 2 parties. They wanted to change things from the inside and because of that there was an aurora of optimism around their camps.
  The only thing I trust Clinton to do is be a dishonest politics-as-usual hack that epitomizes Machiavellian government. At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
  You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.
3. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · 2016-07-12 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?
  Why would I care what Sanders thinks after his endorsement undermines one (or many) of the reasons I was voting for him? Well, at least a liar said she would adopt his positions that I may or may not agree on. There are many positions Sanders took that I disagreed with, why would I care that Clinton is adopting those positions? For example, free college.
  
  So you're effectively voting for Trump then?
  
  Never heard of a protest vote have you? One reason to vote for Trump during the primaries was to protest the GOP treatment of Ron Paul last election when they changed the rules to ignore his delegates. That rule change came back to haunt the GOP when Trump became the only person to be able win the nomination according to the rule change (win majority in X number of state).
  If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump.
Re:read the polls by alvinrod · 2016-07-12 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.
Considering how many times she's changed her position on just about everything, he's only succeeded in getting her to talk about supporting those positions until she decides not to in a few months. I didn't agree with him on some of his positions, but I knew where he stood on them. Sanders had the integrity that suggested he would hold to his word. The only integrity Hillary would know is an LLC by that name that's contributed to her campaign.
Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-07-12 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.
I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).
Re:read the polls by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-07-12 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or just bet on the candidate with CIA ties. It's been sure money since '80.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · 2016-07-12 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors

Let's assume that under Gore 9/11 still would have happened. The biggest problem in Bush's response was the horrible incompetence he showed. Part of that was his advisors fault (both their poor ideas and their arrogance), and after four years, with more experience, Bush did improve, but Gore already had quite a bit of experience in 2001, and it's unlikely he would have tried to colonize two countries as a result.

I'll give you an example that clearly shows Bush's incompetence. After 9/11, basically every country in the world supported America, and there was a lot of good will. Within a month, Bush had turned that around and nearly every country in the world was protesting the actions of America, even some of our strong allies. He failed to build on the good will, and turned it into opposition.

For a comparison, consider the actions of Bush Senior in Iraq.......the middle east was horribly divided, yet with careful diplomacy he managed to get every country in the region to accept if not actively aid in the Iraq invasion. The exact opposite of his son.

Now, arguably Gore might not have been as good as Bush Senior, but if you look at presidential skill as a bell curve, then Bush Junior was clearly two standard deviations below the average, and it's unlikely that Gore would have also been that bad.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Credit where credit due by DougDot · 2016-07-12 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our country's two-party system gave us the following two choices to be the next President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Does anybody else see a problem here?
But credit where credit due: the 350 or so million dumbed-down 'Murikuns will get one of them come November 8. And they will have earned the right.
Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by phantomfive · 2016-07-12 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?
She was cleared from indictment in the emails case. Note that this endorsement came shortly after that announcement.
That was Sanders' last chance for the nomination. At this point, an endorsement is just saying "I like her better than Trump" which is not an unreasonable position for Sanders to hold, and is not inconsistent with "She's not fit."

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by ScentCone · 2016-07-12 06:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

The many things that the State Department's Inspector General and the FBI have pointed out were wrong about her avoiding public scrutiny of her official documents, regardless of the FBI director's conclusion that he would not expect a federal prosecutor working for Obama/Lynch to be certain they could convict on the more obviously criminal elements of that, have nothing to do with why Sanders called her unfit for office. He had his own reasons for that. As you well know.

The FBI didn't "clear" her of wrong doing, they simply chose not to suggest an indictment - even as they pointed out her long series of lies and carelessness throughout the entire thing - both as she (to be generous) skirted her responsibilities while Secretary, and while under oath later as she provided false answers about her conduct before congress. If anything, Sanders was hesitant to discuss her obvious lies about her time as SoS while the facts were still being discovered. The FBI just described the facts, which include direct, blow-by-blow refutations of her many direct, purposeful lies on the subject. But they weren't looking into whether or not she perjured herself, they were looking into whether or not there were things like classified material rattling around on her personal mail computer at her house. Which it turns out there was, and many other things she lied about.

So, Sanders' previous observation about her unfitness for office (which was all about her posture on voting for the war, her beholdeness to large financial industry campaign supporters, and her personally enriching her family from millions of dollars of foreign government donations to her family business while those countries had business before her as SoS), would only change if:

1) He never meant it in the first place, which makes him a liar. Or,

2) He suddenly thinks those things didn't happen. But he's not that confused, since of course they DID happen. Or,

3) These things were never really all that important to him, which makes him a hypocrite, and his assessment about her unfitness for office was him being a dishonest blowhard on the subject, and he actually likes her values, her decision to go to war in Iraq, and the way she raises money for campaigns and has become personally very wealthy. Which would make almost all of his speeches lies.

He didn't say, "I like her better than Trump," and he hasn't said, "I like her despite the fact we all know she's a corrupt liar." This is just him angling for more air time for his socialist agenda, that's all. He's willing to look hypocritical or even deceitful in exchange for that.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:read the polls by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-07-12 07:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hillary has obviously always wanted universal health care
Then she shouldn't have worked so hard to impeach Nixon.
Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-07-12 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or, he's level-headed and pragmatic enough to understand that for whatever Clinton's faults; genuine, imagined, or made up from whole cloth by the republicans:
1) Trump would be incomparably and catastrophically worse.
2) He's not going to be the Democratic party nominee.
3) We live in the real world, and not some Fantasyland where a third-party or write-in candidacy would be viable.
Clinton wasn't my first choice either. But I'm not going to sit at home pouting in November, content to let the country burn, because the majority of the Democratic party didn't also want Sanders to be the candidate. Apparently, Sanders agrees with that sentiment.

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:read the polls by HeckRuler · 2016-07-12 08:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Inside the Democratic Party? He's barely a member himself. He only registered as a democrat in 2015 so he could run on the ticket. The 30 years before that he was an independent.
And I highly doubt he's going to try and fracture the Democrats by forming a new party. I mean, that's turned out SO WELL for the GOP and the TEA partiers.
I've little doubt that once Hilary gets into power, she'll simply ignore him. Hell, now that she has his endorsement, and the primaries are all but over, it's the traditional time to flip your party the bird and move yourself on over to the moderate center to appeal to the swing voters.
What I want to know is what does a political mover and shaker do once they reach the top? When there's no longer anyone you have to kiss up to.