If she were a man.....

[kstewart33]

Here's an excerpt by Michael Tomasky at Daily Beast on how Clinton should handle Bernie:

Excerpt:

It was a good sign that Tad Devine told The New York Times Tuesday afternoon that Sanders would “reassess” things Wednesday morning. Of course, that was Devine talking—the only one of Sanders’s top crew who is actually a Democrat and who has to mend fences to eat lunch in this town. At the same time that Devine was speaking these conciliatory words, the Sanders camp sent out a cheeky, we’re-not-done-yet fund-raising solicitation featuring a photo of Bill and Hill at the Donald’s wedding.

So the signals from Sanders-world are mixed. One thing’s for sure: There is no expectation that Sanders will behave like Clinton did in 2008 (in supporting and campaigning for Obama). It’s worth examining why.
.....

On the other hand… the media’s expectations of these people hinges so greatly on the personality types they establish, and that the media just accept them. No one expects Sanders to be a team player because he’s a guy (emphasis on guy) who has always agitated outside the system. Whereas everyone expects Clinton to behave properly because she’s a woman (emphasis on woman) who has always been the type to do what’s expected of her.

If this were two men, the onus would clearly be on the one who’s behind to play ball and do the responsible thing. But I can’t help suspecting that the media are going to put the weight on her in these next few weeks: Will Hillary accept Bernie’s conditions?

She shouldn’t accept conditions. But she absolutely should take steps to mollify his voters. She’s going to have to. However, she should do it like someone who’s ahead 57-43 should do it. She should say: Sure, I’ll adopt a couple of your positions. But I have a couple of conditions of my own. If I hear the words “Goldman” and “Sachs” coming out of your mouth one more time, if I see any more fund-raising appeals that paint me as the harlot of Wall Street, the deal is dead, and I’ll call Chuck Schumer and make sure that you don’t chair the Budget Committee if we retake the Senate, but instead you have the post-office renaming subcommittee. And I may drop some of that oppo I have on you that I’ve never used. You know the stuff I mean.

Note: I put the last statement in bold because I've long believed that some facts in Bernie's biography would ultimately do him in.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/26/it-s-all-over-but-the-shouting-hillary-clinton-crushed-bernie-sanders.html

[SharonClark]

1. Like tha bold statement at the end

I wonder about that, too. Interesting that the media never really investigated him, is that because Hillary never brought up any of his questionable behavior and activities? It's like he was born the day he entered the Senate.

[skylucy]

4. sharonclark---Yes. I have also wondered about that. I assumed it was because he was never a front

runner, but perhaps it is time for the MSM to put all the biographical information out there. Just the facts so that the polls regarding who has the highest "negatives" more accurately reflect reality.

[DemonGoddess]

2. K&R!

[CajunBlazer]

3. Agreed

But the reason that Hillary didn't touch the "friend of communist leaders and communist countries " issue is because it wouldn't have been near as disastrous in the primaries for Sanders as it would have been in the general election.

However, the everyday man and woman on the street haven't a clue about this stuff and it would ruin the nations image of him forever. The people of Vermont probably know all about it and would still elect him again, but any effectiveness in the Senate (not that he ever had much) would be gone. He might as well retire.

[Fla Dem]

5. SNAP! Loves me some Michael Tomasky!

Yep at some time Hillary and her team, and the Dem party should start playing hardball with Sen Sanders. He had his fun, running as a Dem in name only, taking advantage of the DNC's infrastructure, mailing lists. etc, collecting $millions$ from his supporters and getting the media coverage he would never have gotten had he run as a Ind, Democratic Socialist. He would have gotten as much publicity as all the other 3rd party candidates listed here.

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/?other=other

[Cha]

7. Same here.. this is priceless.. and along the lines of what some of us have been thinking.

[Cha]

6. I knew the signals would be mixed and didn't believe a word Devine says.. BS is too

entrenched in ugliness to change on a dime.. it's going to take more to get it in his head he's lost.

She shouldn’t accept conditions. But she absolutely should take steps to mollify his voters. She’s going to have to. However, she should do it like someone who’s ahead 57-43 should do it. She should say: Sure, I’ll adopt a couple of your positions. But I have a couple of conditions of my own. If I hear the words “Goldman” and “Sachs” coming out of your mouth one more time, if I see any more fund-raising appeals that paint me as the harlot of Wall Street, the deal is dead, and I’ll call Chuck Schumer and make sure that you don’t chair the Budget Committee if we retake the Senate, but instead you have the post-office renaming subcommittee. And I may drop some of that oppo I have on you that I’ve never used. You know the stuff I mean.

I love this.. thank you, Michael Tomasky!

Thank you for this, kstewart.

[kstewart33]

8. You bet. nt

[Fla Dem]

9. Bernie has always been "my way or the highway."

His congressional career is littered with votes he cast against Democratic bills because there was either something minor in them he didn't like, or didn't include some cause he was backing.

I don't expect him to do anything for the Clinton campaign.

[Cha]

10. I know.. he's not changing at this late date.. We'll all do it without him.

Love Tomasky's 'tude!