One of President Obama’s first executive orders in 2009 was to close GITMO. But he has to go to congress for the funds. They have blocked him ever since. he tried again in 2011, and he tried again today Only 6 Democrats stood with him. But as per usual the majority of Congress was against him.
90-6. Voting w/ Obama to close Gitmo: Durbin-IL, Harkin-IA, Leahy-VT, Levin-MI, Reed-RI, Whitehouse-RI
Bernie has not been one of those senators.
I agree 90% with this analysis, except that I voted for Nader :). I lived in NC, which had 0% chance of going for Gore, so I figured voting my conscience was completely acceptable. (In closer local races, I voted more pragmatically.)
Gore didn’t lose for any one reason; there were a lot of problems with his campaign, including terrible luck with ballot-design. But one of the problems was his failure to vitalize progressive voters, to the extent that a lot of folks saw insufficient difference between him and Bush on issues near and dear to them. His loss, I believe, made Obama’s win possible, as people saw progressives as a demographic worth courting.
BTW, and I ask this respectfully, could you drop terms like “Berniebots”? They add nothing to the conversation.
As for the thread, here’s what I encourage Sanders supporters to do:
I’m confused by this advice for the general election. Are you expecting some to write in Sanders?
I prefer using the term Bernie Babies over Bernie Bots. Hardcore Bernie or Bust people act like spoiled toddlers.
Writing in Bernie Sanders during the general election would be pointless. He’s not a 3rd party candidate like Nader was.
In November, the most petulant Bernie Babies will either sit at home in mommy’s basement, pouting and doing hits off the bong or else they will throw their vote away on a joke candidate like Jill Stein.
:smack: Brain fart. I began the post thinking about people who said they’d vote for Jill Stein or some such, but by the time I reached that sentence I forgot what I meant. In that sentence, sub in “candidate of your choice” for “Sanders.”
Dale, I made the request to Martin, because his otherwise thoughtful posts full of interesting analysis are IMO marred by his unnecessary namecalling. I’m not sure your posts are in the same situation.
foolsguinea, I think you are getting a bit carried away. I feel I’ve established that I’m not an HRC fan – I think she’s one more Establishment hack politician – but I don’t see how she’s so dramatically worse than any of the others. Sure, she might turn out to be Nixon, but so could anyone else (what was Slacker saying about having backed Edwards as the* safe* choice?). I don’t see any reason to think she would be worse than her husband, who I wasn’t a huge fan of but who looks like Thomas Jefferson compared to the stooges who preceded and succeeded him. And compared to anyone the Republicans are going to nominate, Hillary looks like an amalgam of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Moses. Just lie back, close your eyes and think of the Supreme Court, then start preparing for those 2018 Congressional races. That’s if you live in a swing state, of course. If not, feel free to join me on the Jill Stein bandwagon.
A slaveowner, a guy who suspended the constitution, and a dude who conspired to murder his enemy’s children? Harsh!
She’ll do all that before February, 2017!
I guarandamntee you the RNC has this ad ready to roll.
If she’s running against Cruz, even the RNC will include tiny print that says “But she’s still better than Cruz.” 
I would add only this: “and think about the Supreme Court. Think long and think hard.”
It’s hand-waving to ignore the fact that HRC was narrowly beaten in a high-stakes national contest by none other than Barack Obama. Bernie’s blistering winning streak was in his own home state, in a small electorate, running as the incumbent half the time if I’m not mistaken. The graduation speech is never delivered by the valedictorian of summer school.
Do you think picking the “weaker” candidate is satisfying? Do you think giving up on the Democrats and letting Donald Trump win is satisfying?
The Clintons appear to me to be guilty of high crimes. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton on principle, even if I more generally agreed with her. To do so is to sin in the same way as the Republicans who voted to re-elect Dubya.
I have left one party over high crimes; I can leave another. Or I can be a populist Democrat who doesn’t vote for Bourbon Democrats, like it was a century ago.
What high crime again? And have you forwarded this information on to the Justice Department? If you have actual probable cause that either Clinton has committed a crime I implore you to share it.
OK, sure.
I voted for Kerry in 2004 because Bush was a criminal. How does that translate to voting for someone who sold the services of State to profit her husband’s corporate entity? She made the Foundation a pimp and Foggy Bottom its whore, and all for oil money from Norway, UAE, and Algeria.* I can’t trust her,* and you can’t make me vote for her.
That’s not ideology. That’s ethical principle. Ideologically, I think someone like HRC would be a tolerable President. I don’t trust her ethics.
I get what you’re saying.
Look, the “hard core” of Greens and Liberty Union diehards to whom even Bernie is just another corporate sellout, they’re already not voting for the Democrats. But you don’t want to lose anybody else to them, or to the non-voting protest counterculture.
A state Kerry either lost by a sliver, or won by a sliver and then lost to election fraud; analyses vary. I’m not saying your directives were wrong. The hard core are kooky.
But apparently you need the whole coalition to win; something Democrats started to figure out in 2006. If Dean or Kerry had had a plan to avert war with Iran, and to clean up Bush’s crimes, I think they’d have been viable in the general.
Kerry didn’t play to the anti-war crowd enough to mobilize the squishier anti-war voters, and he didn’t run on his own experience as a veteran who’d criticized the Pentagon. If he was running to the right, it didn’t work: he let the Swift Boat guys define his experience, he didn’t make enough inroads among the good ol’ boys, and he was never going to win over the jingoists. I guess he chose wrong.
Hillary would mobilize Second Wave feminists, but leave youth and anti-war voters on the table. If she wins on that, it’s great for her career and her ego, and a lesser evil to the leftish. But playing mainly to older, elite voters may be bad for the party over time.
Oh, and I listen to Sia, and I voted for Kerry & Obama. I’m not that much a hipster stereotype.
Maybe I haven’t been clear.
There are feminist arguments to put Hillary in the Oval Office that are worth considering. There are some pragmatic reasons to put her on the ballot for this office, this term.
Now, long term, the Democrats are dead without the Bernie base. That is also true.
I would like to be able to call for all Democrats to work together, whoever is the nominee. Strategically, and as a partisan, that seems sound to me.
But I have lately become convinced that if/when we get a clearer picture of Clinton Foundation finances, Hillary is likely to become unacceptable to me, and to others. Not so much over policy, but over ethics and judgment.
So here I am, saying, “Oops, I can’t vote for her after all.” So much for party unity. 
So I have fallen back on trying to hold the party hostage, which I was previously flirting with using more as a bluff.
I try to console myself that Trump at least seems to almost agree with me on socialized medicine, and he still might win. But I’m a conservationist, and Trump is terrible.
I’m sorry, guys, this is not how I wanted this campaign to go.
It’s not either-or. You’re not just excluding the middle here, you’re excluding the whole vast continuum between the poles of pure idealism and absolute cynicism.
Vermont is deep blue NOW, it wasn’t when Sanders started his career. Before Bernie, Vermont had elected exactly two non-GOP Congressmen since 1856. It had a GOP Senator as recently as 2002.
Obviously either candidate could win or lose in the general election. But as one of the arguments made by Clinton supporters is that she is markedly more electable, it seems important to me to point out that it ain’t necessarily so.
I am deeply ashamed for my part in contributing to the first thread in the history of the SDMB to have wandered off topic by the fourth page, and will address the OP directly soon, if I have time.
You’ve become convinced of the nature of some facts that you acknowledge you don’t even have? Typical Fox/Berniebot character insinuation stuff there.
It isn’t. Your version is in your own imagination.