will do. One of my closest work associates is gay. She is as leftie as they come, despises Clinton with a passion, but sincerely believes Trump might swing the country back to more open and condoned violence towards gays.
I believe Hillary will get us into WWIII. That would kill gays, and Muslims, and lots of American young folks who would be drafted, and innocents all over the war zones.
Limited terror and death, or just go whole hog and make it universal?
If you just ignore the likely killings, and simply look at oligarchical infrastructure of our government, Trump is more likely to challenge lobbyists and overturn Citizen United than Hillary, who has not seemed to be bothered one bit about that inequality thingie.
I think we stand a better chance at protecting our gay brothers and sisters than protecting the world from cluster bombs.
Up until the hawkish Clinton stepped up her AIPAC speech, I was teetering.
No more. I will not vote for her, and believe the world is safer with Trump.
And that, my brothers and sisters, is just how totally fucked up this country has become.
Pick your poison, vote accordingly.

It's not at all realistic to think Bernie can overtake Clinton in the pledged delegate count. And it's equally unlikely that Clinton will be able to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone - she will need the super-delegates to put her over the top. But probably everything will be smoothed over prior to the convention, so that the DP can put on its happy face and present a "united front" to the American public. Clinton will toss the Sanders people a few crumbs, which will have zero practical impact in terms of a new Clinton Administration's policies, or in terms of making the workings of the party apparatus, and/or the nominating process, fundamentally more fair, honest and small-d democratic.

By repeatedly proclaiming that preventing a Trump presidency is the most important goal going forward, Sanders has left himself with little option other than to endorse Clinton, regardless of what concessions she chooses to offer. Not so with his supporters. Many can and will walk away from the Democratic Party rather than support an unreconstructed right-winger whose agenda and policy prescriptions they view as antithetical to their beliefs, and contrary to their own perceived self-interest. Count me among those.

In the 1850's the Whig Party's inability and unwillingness to articulate a clear and unambiguous position on the issue of human slavery proved to be its undoing, and the Republican Party rose from its ashes. The overriding issues today, while more subtle, are no less profound: One, the complete disenfranchisement of all but the ultra-wealthy in determining public policy, and the resulting exploitation, degradation and impoverishment of the many by the powerful few; and two, the ongoing wholesale abuse and destruction of the earth's physical environment, represented most dramatically by the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming.

Neither of the mainstream parties are the least bit willing to address these two inter-related problems in any serious way - indeed, both have and will continue to function as enablers and facilitators for those committed to maintaining the status quo. To those who now see the "fierce urgency" of, in Frederick Douglass' words, resisting the injustice and wrong being imposed upon us with words or blows or both, rolling over yet again to support the (alleged) lesser evil just won't do. What the Sanders campaign has demonstrated to me, above all, is that a critical mass of voters now exists in this country that is no longer willing to tolerate more of the same. If the anti-slavers of 150 years ago could translate such sentiments into a new and potent political movement, why should we not believe that, blessed as we are with the Internet and various other sophisticated and effective tools for organizing and communications, their modern day spiritual descendants cannot do the same?

Good article. Thanks for bringing it here, Tom. I hope Bernie is able to get some concessions from HRC for the Democratic Party. It's never been as far left as I am, but I've been willing to accept it for all these years. I'd have to live in Europe to be represented, and I wouldn't mind that. But I can no longer afford to leave as I used to be able to do. Be that as it is. Still the DNC is no longer recognizable as democratic. I do object to that, and to DWS as the chair. Surely we should be able to better distinguish ourselves from the GOP.

I liked how Sargent ended his post

Clinton, too, is signaling an openness to an endgame like this. And she might actually mean it.

I don't trust HRC one millimeter, and I don't trust a single thing she says. I don't even characterize her as an authentic Democrat. I hope she makes concessions for the Party, but I will not vote for her in the general. I won't vote for Trump either but I'm less afraid of his presidency than HRC, who'll privatize SS and get TPP passed, promotes fracking and chooses to holiday with war criminal Henry Fucking Kissinger. There is no way she can earn my vote. It's not for sale. It's not even for rent, as poor as I am.

And Bernie is no longer running, I will happily vote for Trump. I agree with him on the Iraq War, trade policy and 'Crooked Hillary'.

One way or another, the endgame of the Democratic Party.

I don't believe for a second that Sanders has come closer to "unifying" w/Clinton. Not after what just happened in NV. He's an old activist, he knows what it means when people invent stories of violence and thuggery about a movement. Means they're getting ready to send cops in to crack skulls.

I think that's why he and Weaver responded so much more aggressively to this than to the myriad other fraud.

way for Sanders to support Clinton, if he doesn't get the nomination. In my mind it would completely negate what he campaigned on and what he stood and voted for since a long, long time.. I also don't believe in any sort of "pushing the Democratic Party establishment and platform to the left" by demands that Sanders might make at the convention. Those would be kabuki pushes that bounce back the moment the elections are over and Clinton would be President.

There is no unity possible. Clinton has a devastating cold war mentality and an imperial foreign policy mind and she is not willing to fight corporate powers and influence. Bernie can't give in to those, otherwise he betrays his supporters.

I don't mean to demonize Clinton. I came to understand her only since she decided to want her own political career, especially during her SoS time. Before that I didn't think much about her (wasn't aware how deeply she desired a political power role for herself, but was not that opposed as I am now. It helped me a lot to watch especially the very early and old interviews HRC gave and also similarily very old Sanders interviews. They are very different in character and ideology and have both been since they were young. Sanders is a good sports. But if a game is rigged, there is no sense to play as if the game is fair and as if good sportsmanship could change a rigged game into a fair one. Your electoral process is just so bad, that it's impossible.

Obi-Wan will be saying,

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.