Originally Posted by Ezekiel
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by Ezekiel
You mean like Clinton didn't concede in 2008...
What are you talking about?
She didn't concede immediately after Obama was the presumptive nominee. That's what I'm talking about. It took her a while.
Sorry, Zeke, on this you're just plain wrong. I think you are misremembering: This is a transcript of Hillary Cli... the Democratic presidential nomination. Yes, it was four days after the last primary, but anyone who thought she could give a concession speech that night was delusional, just as anyone who thinks Bernie should have last night. It's what he does before the convention that is important.

Sanders acolytes, like many Obamaites in 2008, put him on a pedestal and invest him with superhuman traits and every wish they want fulfilled. The truth is, he's a politician. He's spent 30 years running for and serving in Congress and the Senate. He's from a very small State with a quirky constituency which has insulated him from some of the worst effects of it, but he's still "played the (political) game" for decades. He loved playing the outsider, the "independent", for all of those years, and like Trump, will have a hard time changing that role. But, if he wants to have an impact on the party, he will have to concede gracefully, as Clinton did 8 years ago, or go into the twilight alone.

If he does concede, say this weekend, he will have a great impact on this election and will become a leader. It's his choice.


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich