Will the trickle of Bernie supporters suffering Burnout become a flood?

[kennetha]

A few of Bernie's supporters are starting to experience what only can be called burnout, as his lack of a concrete agenda for action becomes more apparent, as his willingness to stoop to lower and lower levels of campaigning turns off more and more people, and as the fact that he isn't really advancing the progressive cause by trashing our overwhelmingly likely nominee becomes more obvious each day.

So far, it's just a trickle of a trend. Will it turn into a flood? Perhaps if he gets thrashed in the NY Primary while he is off hobnobbing at the Vatican ... but only time will really tell.

Here are two recent examples of BurnOut.

First from the Guardian and Lucia Graves

Early on, Sanders would bristle when the press asked him about Clinton. He was hostile to any line of questioning encouraging him to take a swipe at her, as embodied perhaps most famously in his “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” comment.

More recently, during a debate in South Carolina, he lashed out at the media for continually goading him to attack Clinton. “I cannot walk down the street – Secretary Clinton knows this – without being told how much I have to attack Secretary Clinton,” he told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell during the network’s Democratic debate in January, adding: “I am trying to run an issue-oriented campaign.”

This was the Bernie Sanders I knew and loved. But it’s a Sanders that’s becoming harder to recognize as talk turns increasingly to finessing primary math and the petty politics of debate schedules.

His team has grown more and more obsessed with helping their candidate clinch the nomination, a plan that’s now based on convincing more superdelegates to come to their side ahead of the convention. And this comes after his campaign initially decried Clinton’s lead among superdelegates as undemocratic.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/12/bernie-sanders-betrayed-hillary-clinton-attacks

Next from the Nation and Tom Hayden

But the fracking debate continues to leave permanent scars. Despite the governor’s historically high approval ratings, the fracktivists take every media opportunity to thrash him personally. They rack up names on online petitions, but so far have failed to gain political traction. Their apocalyptic view has only worsened. In addition to personally attacking Brown, whose approval rating is 56 percent, they have brutally attacked NRDC and “establishment” environmentalists for not achieving a moratorium in California. Their tactics build their online membership, but turn off or confuse more mainstream Californians.

The Democratic primary may deepen this antagonism and result in defections among Hillary supporters. Hillary wants limits on fracking: a ban where individual states have blocked it, like in New York; safeguards against children’s and family exposures; a ban where releases of methane or contamination of ground water are proven; and full disclosure of the chemicals used in the process. Bernie’s position is that he’s simply against all fracking.

But Hillary’s position goes beyond what virtually any state has done. The New York Times writes that she “has pledged to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to pay for her ambitious climate plan” and intends to install 500 million solar collectors in four years. If and when Obama’s Clean Power Plan is upheld in the federal courts, now a likelihood after Justice Scalia’s death, that will bring a even greater change.

Meanwhile, Bernie’s total fracking ban leaves the question of how to do so unaddressed. His energy platform is comprehensive, but he offers no strategy to implement the Paris Summit in the short term. Instead, Bernie will call his own summit of experts in the first hundred days he is president. There is no recognition of the overwhelming wall of opposition from the Republican Congress, which can only be broken on state-by-state organizing. The climate clock is ticking towards doomsday. Where are we moving next, beyond waiting for the overthrow of Citizens United?

http://www.thenation.com/article/i-used-to-support-bernie-but-then-i-changed-my-mind/

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. God I cant wait for this process to end, it is so frustrating to see

both sides unfairly attack both of our good candidates.

[MynameisBlarney]

3. It's worse than in '08

With all the PUMA BS going on.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

6. If every person reading this doesnt vote for the nominee in November, there is a

chance this country could spiral out of control and into massive chaos.

Not exaggerating.

[MynameisBlarney]

15. I'm right there with ya!

I'm a Bernie supporter, but if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm still gonna vote Blue.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

20. Fantastic, tell EVERYBODY who will listen you that you are doing that!

[Fawke Em]

35. I won't.

But it's more about her than Bernie. I told my family long before Bernie threw his hat in the ring that if Clinton was the nominee, I couldn't in good conscience vote for her. I've voted for the Democratic nominee since I was 18 years old in 1988, but the party no longer seems to represent the average working person, so I'll have to find other candidates to support.

[Demsrule86]

47. So we are to assume that President Trump...

will represent you better and you will love his court picks...at the point the revolution is gone...have you considered what will happen to women, minorities,union,trans, gay and everyone else for God's sake. I call that selfish...Hillary is better than any GOP and to post otherwise is a disgrace.

[workinclasszero]

67. Because...Trump will bring the revolution?

Of course the road to the "revolution" will be littered with the bones of me and my family and millions of others but many Sanders supporters could care less because they are financially and socially secure in the first place.

You got to break some eggs to make an omelet, right?

[Politicalboi]

55. Whatever

I will not vote for the one who suppresses votes to win over my candidate. The other side chose wrong on the first female president. Hillary is a joke. And even if she wins, we ALL lose.

[jillan]

8. Thank you Jackie! I appreciate that post.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Thank you for maintaining a level head.

it has devolved from attempting to talk about issues to constant mudslinging that has little or nothing to do with the actual candidates.

[larkrake]

2. GOOD TRY but pure BS

[KPN]

10. Yup.

They want us to go away. So they spread news that we are so we get discouraged and do so.

What they don't understand is that we don't rely on MSM or those sources for our information. And the movement isn't going away any time soon.

I suspect they will go away before we do.

[Vincardog]

26. Yup I hope they will go away before we do

[northernsouthern]

4. This is not a loaded post at all...

Meanwhile, Bernie’s total fracking ban leaves the question of how to do so unaddressed.

My favorite line. Well you want to ban smoking but how do you make those signs that say no smoking? It is so hard, it is way easier for a complex bill with loopholes that allows the not donors exploit and to keep drilling. I wonder if this is proof that HRD camp is about to collapse, it must be hard to keep up all of this negative posting.

[anigbrowl]

16. That doesn't make sense

You think banning fracking is as simple as making a sign saying 'no Fracking'? Sorry, it's not enough to say you're against something, having a plan requires being able to answer questions on how you intend to change the law and so on. When people say 'it's simple!' in politics they might as well be saying 'i"m ignorant!'. It's not simple, and if you don't have a plan then you're not going to succeed. My #1 objection ot Sanders through this whole campaign is that his goals are laudable but his policies are maddenly vague, to the point that he doesn't seem to have any worked out on major issues. Saying he's going to convene a summit of experts in the first 100 days...yeah sure, and by the time that comes to the floor of Congress for a vote a quarter of his first term will have already elapsed, at best.

[Vincardog]

28. It could be that policies have to be promoted by Congress. Take your poutrage up with them. Step 1

Demand Simple Clear Policies.
Step 2 Demand detailed policies to deliver on step 1.
Step 3 Complain that either the Simple Clear polices from step 1 are too simple or that the detailed policies can't be passed by the current do-nothing Congress.

[anigbrowl]

31. I have always demanded detailed policies

I don't think this is too much to expect from Presidential candidates, on the simple basis that people deserve to know exactly what it is they're voting for. Not having a policy is a sign of unpreparedness.

[Vincardog]

34. You act as if we were electing robots. If you support Bernie's platform vote for him as I will If no

...

[anigbrowl]

42. That's right, and I've found it a useful guideline to do so

Speeches and personal conviction ain't worth shit in Washington DC. I give a great speech, I could move you to tears, but that doesn't qualify me to be President. I much prefer a somewhat cynical politician who knows how to get things done over a stirring ideologue. I make political decisions based on logic, not emotion. I save emotion for my artistic and sexual life.

[Vincardog]

45. I see the logic in the revolution Bernie is (and has been) calling for. I suspect we'ill never agre

[anigbrowl]

46. No, we won't agree. I have a very low opinion of revolutionaries.

They're rarely around to help when the shit meets the fan and never seem to anticipate the bloody aftermath of the revolutions they start when people start fighting over the spoils. I come from a country that went through revolution followed by civil war in living memory and have noted the same pattern happening over and over again through history, so I'm highly skeptical of self-appointed idealists.

[northernsouthern]

65. Ouch revolutionary burn.

No, we won't agree. I have a very low opinion of revolutionaries.

So negative...

They're rarely around to help when the shit meets the fan and never seem to anticipate the bloody aftermath of the revolutions they start when people start fighting over the spoils.

I come from a country that went through revolution followed by civil war in living memory and have noted the same pattern happening over and over again through history, so I'm highly skeptical of self-appointed idealists.

That seems like a revolution of taking over a country by war, not a political revolution of tring to create a improved society. Not sure who was fighting over the spoils to suffrage or civil-rights? Also your line about revolutionaries not being there to help...

John Brown
Martin Luther
Gandhi

Yeah, there is a reason they are not there, to complain about them being absent is a bit funny....

[anigbrowl]

66. Have some burn cream

I stand by my comments. 'Rarely' means sometimes but not often, and while I have a good bit of respect for Gandhi he fucked a lot of things up too. Perhaps you have forgotten that India and Pakistan used to be the same country but they ended up splitting in two soon after independence because Gandhi was too self-important to compromise with the Muslim league and downplayed the issues they cared about within the Congress party, lowering Indian Muslims' confidence that their interests would be fairly represented by a Congress government.

I think your understanding of history is shallow and based on iconography rather than historicity.

[northernsouthern]

69. Wow!

I can't wait to tell my Indian friends that I just meat a European that blamed Gandhi for the fact that India and Pakistan are not one country. I was always told it was Britain (Winston Churchill), the whole empire thing and then the nationalists from both sides...but hey..

"My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God."

I am sure the guy that said that was too self-important to compromise with the Muslim league as you say.
Some one should tell Nathuram Godse that he shot the wrong person then...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse
Godse concluded Gandhi was siding with Muslims & Pakistan. He reasoned killing Gandhi would help Hindus, Gandhi's followers currently enchanted wrongly with him, and thus they'd take to calls of violence against Muslims more easily.

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart.

Again, you have a problem with this Ghandi that thought that Brittian creating a split in the Palestine was wrong?

Ghandi DID NOT support a two state system, he was killed for that. I have a german friend that likes to blame the Jews for WW2, we can blame whomever we like, that does not make it correct.

Do you also hate John Brown? Being from the south not only did we skip over him in class, but we also had children's songs that made fun of the song about how he died, but his message continues on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

I think your understanding of history is shallow and based on iconography rather than historicity.

Oh, nice and fancy. Iconography was something we studied in school, I assume you are not using it in the since of a visual art but using it as using it in this case to refer to the fact I listed popular revolutionaries by name instead of just using a the word revolutionary as a single straw-man insult that you did to the other poster? I think you are far more, what was it you said shallow and iconographic in your replies. But hey, like I said my friends will love that you are blaming Gandhi (I don't even think I have heard a British friend claim that).

[anigbrowl]

70. Yawn

Unlike you I don't form my opinions based on Wikipedia articles, but on close study and long thought. Simply dumping a bunch of copypasta isn't an argument, and treating Gandhi's assassin as an objective political theorist rather than a clueless fanatic just shows how shallow your approach to history is. But hey, posture away - it gives me something to giggle at when the puppy's asleep.

[northernsouthern]

71. Double yawn.

Unlike you I don't form my opinions based on Wikipedia articles, but on close study and long thought. Simply dumping a bunch of copypasta isn't an argument, and treating Gandhi's assassin as an objective political theorist rather than a clueless fanatic just shows how shallow your approach to history is. But hey, posture away - it gives me something to giggle at when the puppy's asleep.

Good for you, you are going against the known facts, fight that stream.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/
http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Studies have sown it is just as good. So if you want I can comply with your requests, do you have a list of acceptable resources? It would be good to know what you think is inaccurate about the two wiki articles I link just to refer to the names of the people? I just added because I was afraid they may not be in one's...what was it you said.. shallow base of knowledge. I am glad you think Gandhi is a bad person thanks for all of your links, they were very helpful...oh wait you did not source anything, you just talked as if you knew what you are talking about, works for Trump why not you? Sorry if I touched a nerve with truth, perhaps your poo posture as you say is the cause for you very sensitive to nerves, perhaps you should try standing on something more solid like facts, I am told opinions can be bad for your posture.

It is good to know the people with arguments as shallow as yours are not supporting the same candidate, not sure if I am ok with a person that flat out blames the repressed for downfall of their people. Then again perhaps I was too harsh on Britain and all good their empire did. They did help Kenya out tons and Hillary told me that is where Obama came from.

[anigbrowl]

72. Bwahaha

I wouldn't rely on Britannica as my primary source either. You should try reading books sometime; much as I live Wiki an article of a few thousand words isn't going to give you the same insight as reading multiple books on the subject. If you think it is, then you're a sucker. It's pretty amusing that you think I'm the shallow ones, though. Would you like a bibliography?

Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins
The Great Partition by Yasmin Khan
Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie

Three should be enough to get you started, not that I expect you to read any of them.

[northernsouthern]

73. Sources is all I wanted, I am so mostly proud of you.

Three books are as good as any. As far as one source being better a book is nothing better than a well sourced webpage. I have done research in to the silk trade with celtic Europe preroman expansion north... It took me down several rabbit holes. I had to finally write one of the authors to find that he just sent me to one of the other books that had sourced him. I gave up because it seemed they had just feed of each other's lies. Not familiar with Khan as a historian, but I know of Freedom and Rushdie (not Midnight). Was that so hard to do a source? I am so proud of you, now join the 21st century and start using links for pdf for the books. Chapters and page numbers help too, if I made a statement in any of my college classes and said here's a book to back it up, my teacher would have failed me.

[northernsouthern]

30. Yes it is simple.

Not sure about me, but from how I understand the, the less loopholes the easier.Once you allows a loophole for smoking in clubs you suddenly have a million places that become clubs. That is just based on what happened in our town. It is far easier to do what they did in many places, no smoking. People don't accidentally go for traditional oil and end up fraking. "Well jeez, I was drill'n for some oil and the drill went horizontal by accident, and accidentally introduced high pressure sand and liquid and started collecting oil. Shucks I am such a dullet head!"

No fraking that is used to grab at the shale oil or the like no relying on traditional means would be a very easy group to target. They can say no cutting trees, or collecting antlers in a park, that is how it works. They say no "whatever" and boom a law. Done! Well that is over simplifying, there will be fighting to get it past, but that's how it works. You don't just say that is too hard, I give up. Hillary is starting from the weak position with loopholes, that just means more will get added. That is why Bernie said you don't ask for what you want because then you just lose, it is negotiation...which is why Obama choosing the judge did is such a bad thing, because the best we could get is a weak choice.

[anigbrowl]

36. I think your view is naive.

You should be aware that I don't consider fracking an inherently bad thing in all circumstances, or fossil fuels for that matter. I prefer to see less of both but we are not yet at a place where nuclear and renewable energy can fully replace fossil fuels.

It seems to me that you (and to some extent Sanders) are afraid of negotiation because you expect to lose in negotiation situations so instead you prefer a no-compromise policy. I believe that adhering to such an inflexible policy is counter-productive and will prevent you from getting to the table in the first place. I wonder if the issue here is that you (and by extension Sanders) don't have any negotiation skills so you're afraid to get into any situation that would require negotiation in the first place.

However, I think the ability to negotiate and compromise is a key one for a President. If I wanted a list of moral absolutes about which there could never be any compromise I'd go to church. In matters of public policy matters are rarely so clear-cut that that there is consensus support for absolutist positions. Some issues I would never compromise on, eg I am dead against torture of any kind. Others I am pragmatic about, eg I am firmly against the death penalty but I also recognize that it's Constitutional, per the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment.

[northernsouthern]

44. Again...

You are saying he can't I am pointing out a simple fact that he can. I have relatives that are lawyers in Texas for the oil companies, I know that it will be a hard fight since so many people are corrupt, but starting from Hillary's position gets us worse. Also from all I have heard fraking is just possible because of the price of oil, it is not economical if they are not protected from lawsuits and the like. Many wells employ varieties of fraking to extend the well life, but fraking as a ends to the means is the least productive and most damaging. As far as you being a bit pro oil, there in is part of your actual argument. You are ok with the destruction of or environment for gain. And as for...

I wonder if the issue here is that you (and by extension Sanders) don't have any negotiation skills so you're afraid to get into any situation that would require negotiation in the first place.

...you may need to check if you have a gas leak. As I said in the response before, you never start from a weak position, Hillary does, Bernie has a history of fighting and getting things altered...remember the Amendment king? Well there is the actual evidence you need. AS for absolutes? Did I not just say that is how one bargains. But don't worry we can just keep fraking away and sooner or later with will no longer be defined that way, it will be called off shore drilling.


Also just because it says life or limb does not mean that we have to kill a person...that is why some states do not do it.

[anigbrowl]

48. Your belief that he can do it is not a fact, just an opinion

You are certainly entitled to this opinion and I encourage you to vote for Sanders in line with your beliefs, but I am not as convinced of his political abilities as you and I don't think he's king of anything. Sorry, I am just not that impressed by his Congressional record and have never thought of him as an effective power broker in the past. Prior to this election cycle I've always thought of Sanders as a good guy, but not as an especially shrewd or effective politician. Please note that I am not trying to change your mind about him, but pointing out that I have valid reasons for holding a different opinion from you.

As far as you being a bit pro oil, there in is part of your actual argument. You are ok with the destruction of or environment for gain.

No I'm not. I have one of the smallest environmental footprints you could imagine. But I recognize that that the fossil fuel industry can't be wished away because there's no consensus on how to trim our energy demand overnight and that it takes time to build replacement capacity with renewables and nuclear power. For you to claim that I'm OK with environmental destruction is a lazy mischaracterization on your part, a way of dodging the hard question of how you'd ration energy if you suddenly had the power to do so. What I said was that I don't consider fracking/oil extraction an inherently bad thing in all circumstances - for example, we're not going to give up using plastic any time soon, and nor should we because plastic has many legitimate uses as well as many illegitimate wasteful ones (I'm quite happy to support taxes or bans on plastic shopping bags, for example).

Also just because it says life or limb does not mean that we have to kill a person...that is why some states do not do it.

Of course it doesn't, but the fact that is says means that the possibility is not excluded, so therefore it's Constitutional. I expect the DP to fade away on a state-by-state basis so that's where I put my advocacy efforts, as opposed to making empty legal arguments at the federal level that are obviously doomed to failure.

[northernsouthern]

49. We are almost 100% hydro up in our area.

It is possible with current technology to do way better, but we choose to not try. Many places in Europe are trying. Batteries have their own issues, but the research in to microbe powered batteries looks interesting. If the environmentalist are correct it is getting to the point were we may have don damage to our planet that can not be turned around fast enough to not cause starvation and death on a large scale. We can grow crops earlier and earlier up here, I think it is a good fight. I am from the area where fraking has damaged Oklahoma and when I was a kid and visited that state we never once dealt with an earthquake. The damage to ground water in an area that often relies on aquifers just seems like a horrible thing to allow. As for sander's record, I don't see how you think Hillary's is better, I am from her state, we ranked at the base of so many things. They did better than the other governor we had for a short span, but she was on the Walmart board, and there is nothing good about that place. Alice Walton killed a guy while driving drunk. They Waltons have done quite some damage, and the Clintons sure did not help, Arkansas is anti union, Tyson pollutes huge swaths of land, ever been riding a school bus home past a hazardous waste/bio hazard sign? I have, every day. Do you ever feel like Iraq was a big lie? I did from the very start like most people I knew, the fact Hillary fell for what GW said was a sign of weakness. You can have your opinion but I do not like baseless attacks, and this is just another .

[anigbrowl]

52. I'm European so you don't need to convince me about green energy

I gave up reading about half way through because it was just a mishmash of different things with no clear focus. Sorry I don't have time for that.

[northernsouthern]

54. Lol

Really, good comeback. I am trolling a message board, but I am too busy.

BTW found a good image for your logo...

[shadowandblossom]

61. that's a dishonest tactic in light of all their long, earnest, and polite responses to you.

signing off.

[northernsouthern]

62. Was that sarcasm?

It is so hard to tell at times...

I gave up reading about half way through because it was just a mishmash of different things with no clear focus.

This was the polite and earnest response?

[anigbrowl]

63. I gave you a couple of pages worth of considered discussion before giving up.

Clearly I wasted my time.

[northernsouthern]

64. Don't lie

You gave up when you decided revolutions were too hard. I for one don't think so. As for your time? I can't be the judge of that. Would you have been doing something better with it? A revolution perchance?

[haikugal]

5. Bernie Burnout??

[Sky Masterson]

12. They think that if they hope hard enough that it will magically happen.

What they don't realize is that shit like this just makes us angry and more determined.
Hell, the Media has been telling us for weeks that Bernie should drop out, yet his crowds are humongous and he can raise a million bucks by sneezing.
Bernie Supporters aren't by NO means burnt out.
We are still on fire with the Bern.

[haikugal]

23. Magical thinking and disinformation rule in camp weathervane.

Nice picture and your words are on point! We will NEVER vote for the lesser evil again!

[Sky Masterson]

24. Tell me about it

And thank you.

[IamMab]

7. Their plan B after Sadners is to crash Cleveland and try to get Rand Paul into the mix somehow.

That way they'll get to vote for the candidate they really wanted to support this whole time.

[KPN]

11. That comment indicates to me that you are not really

a Democrat.

[IamMab]

13. Whoever smelt it dealt it, Bro.

Face it, the dudebros aren't fooling anyone this time around. Themselves, maybe, but no one else.

[anigbrowl]

17. Neither are a lot of ostensible Sanders supporters nt

[Fawke Em]

39. And so?

You need Independents to win a general election. Indies aren't that jazzed about Clinton, which is why I suspect she'll lose in November.

[BlindTiresias]

18. Nothing but a fever dream.

[Fawke Em]

37. What horseshit.

I've volunteered for Bernie in at least three states and I've never met anyone who was a Rand (or Ron) Paul supporter. (I did jokingly tell Rand to stump for Bernie in Kentucky on Twitter, though, not that he'd listen to me.)

BTW, I'm female, nearly middle-aged and Southern. None of that fit that lame "BernieBro" crap.

[frylock]

43. Did that come to you in a vision?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. From the same article in The Nation

Hillary is, well, Hillary. I remember seeing her on Yale’s green in 1969, wearing a black armband for peace while a kind of Armageddon shaped up during the Panther 21 trial and Cambodia invasion. Even then, she stood for working within the system rather than taking to the barricades. Similarly, in Chicago 1968, she observed the confrontations at a distance. If she had some sort of revolution in mind, it was evolutionary, step-by-step. In her earlier Wellesley commencement speech, she stated that the “prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life is not the way of life for us. We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living.” But from there it was a determined decades-long uphill climb through those same institutions that had disenchanted the young Hillary.

There are two Hillary Clintons. First, the early feminist, champion of children’s rights, and chair of the Children’s Defense Fund; and second, the Hillary who has grown more hawkish and prone to seeking “win-win” solutions with corporate America. When she seems to tack back towards her roots, it is usually in response to Bernie and new social movements. She hasn’t changed as much as the Democratic Party has, responding to new and resurgent movements demanding Wall Street reform, police and prison reform, immigrant rights and a $15-an-hour minimum wage, fair trade, action on climate change, LGBT rights, and more.

The peace movements from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, too, are a living legacy that fuels the public majority against sending ground troops into the fiery jaws of war another time. Bernie voted for the war in Afghanistan, but correctly faults Hillary for her hawkish impulse towards regime change. We are likely to live under a what amounts to a war presidency until either a new catastrophe or new movement leads to an alternative to the “Long War” on terrorism.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Here's Graves two months ago bashing at Bernie, so how is she 'switching' now?

The senator from Vermont had almost parlayed a win in New Hampshire and a near-tie in Iowa to frontrunner status. And then he reached for petty one-liners.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/12/bernie-sanders-squandered-lead-hillary-clinton-democratic-debate

And her piece today is great because it cites as supporting evidence Rebbeca Traister who spent 2008 saying Obama supporters were 'Obama Boys' and very sexist and cult like.

Monday, Apr 14, 2008 03:47 AM PST
Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!
Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.
Rebecca Traister
http://www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/


So she's doing reruns and citing another rerun merchant....please get new tropes!!!!

[Katashi_itto]

21. Cool Story Bro!

[bobbobbins01]

22. Except its all bullshit

and everyone knows it. Strange how no one is saying this about Hillary, considering she dropped 60% since her campaign began. She never wins people over, she just has people reluctantly vote for her until any other viable option comes along. Her candidacy is depressing and pathetic.

[haikugal]

25. She is repellent.

[redstateblues]

27. As Bernie has become to me

after saying he would run a positive campaign he has nothing to offer except personal attacks. He started listening to Tad Devine- it's ruined Bernie's brand and has made Devine fabulously wealthy

[Fawke Em]

41. Pointing out her miserable record is not an attack.

He even pointed to her corporate-owned war hawking record when used the word, "unqualified." He's never attacked her personally. Her surrogates, on the other hand, red-bait, goad, lie and berate Bernie personally all the time.

[Nanjeanne]

29. OMG!!! Two people!!!! OMG!!!!! It's a flood!!!! OMG!!!!!!

[Puglover]

32. I dunno?

The day your OP's get more then double digit recs?

[Skwmom]

33. Like the phony Bernie supporter Tom Hayden?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511715703

[frylock]

40. No, I'm sure the fake converts will continue to write articles and posts.

[anotherproletariat]

50. I'm one of the more vocal Hillary supporters in my dorm, and in the past week I've had five

people tell me that they are switching support to her since they don't want to throw their vote away on Sanders, since he is so far behind. Our class Facebook page is pushing the theory that a convincing win for Hillary will end this thing once and for all, and for many that is a worthwhile cause. Only one mentioned anything about being disillusioned with the Sanders rhetoric, but hey, I'll take it.

[jmg257]

51. "His team has grown more and more obsessed with helping their candidate clinch the nomination" NOOO!

The horror.

[HERVEPA]

53. Does the trickle coming from Kennetha's .... Oh, never mind.

[noretreatnosurrender]

56. Another Tokyo Rose Post

What a surprise. Give up Sanders supporters!

[libtodeath]

57. Honestly,do you think anyone takes you seriously?

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Another day, another "hyuk hyuk" attack on Sanders supporters.

Because obviously some people have nothing to talk about except the people who support the other candidate.

[Gothmog]

59. If Sanders loses NY, we will see more defections

[kennetha]

60. Agreed

Only the diehard Bernie or bust folks will still hang on.

But at some point, it will be too embarrassing and futile even for Bernie to want to continue.

[NurseJackie]

68. I'd say that it's undeniable and exceedingly likely to happen. After all ...

... out in the real world, in real life, outside of the confines of this web site, Bernie supporters are reasonable and intelligent people who would prefer that a Democrat wins the White House instead of giving it to the GOP.