With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future. A Los Angeles Timesarticle titled Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom highlights why Clinton’s campaign is stuck in political quicksand:
Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.
Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates.
At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?
When federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House.
Yep, that's right, the FBI wants to talk to Clinton, so Goodman is demanding that she immediately concede the entire race to Sanders.
This is the dumbest pile of rodent intercourse activity I think I've read. It's indistinguishable from the "legal analysis" you would find on your average right-wing blog these days. Look, I've not had the chance to vote yet in Kentucky's primary and right now it's still a toss-up for me, but when you're making the same arguments Republican talk radio blowhards make in order to dismiss Clinton and her voters out of hand, there's something fundamentally wrong with your argument.
It's not just Goodman, however.
One of the biggest question marks for Democrats heading into a 2016 general election that should be a cakewalk with a candidate like Donald Trump on the other side is what happens to Bernie Sanders’ supporters if he loses the nomination to Hillary Clinton.
Some will inevitably fall in line and find a way to get excited about the likelihood of America’s first woman president. But many others may end up feeling just as alienated from the political process as they did before Sanders entered the race and just decide to stay home.
For instance, there’s Susan Sarandon.
The actress and activist has been a powerful surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail over the past few months, and during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Monday night, she said she doesn’t know if she can bring herself to vote for Clinton if it comes down to it.
“I think, in certain quarters, there’s growing concern that the folks that are into Bernie Sanders have come to despise Hillary Clinton or reject Hillary Clinton and that should she be the nominee which is as yet undetermined, they will walk away,” Hayes said.
“Tha’'s a legitimate concern,” Sarandon replied, “because they’re very passionate and principled.”
“But isn’t that crazy?” the host asked. “If you believe in what he believes in?”
“Yeah but she doesn’t,” Sarandon shot back. “She accepted money for all of those people. She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage, so these are people that have not come out before, so why would we think they’re going to come out now for her, you know?”
That's just stupid garbage. If you as a Sanders supporter are falling back on Republican anti-Clinton arguments, you have completely failed to make your case to Democrats that they should be voting for Sanders.
Look, I understand the argument that you're worried about Clinton's vulnerabilities, but she's winning right now and most likely will end up the nominee. It's up to Sanders to make the argument that he would be a better choice, and so far I'm not seeing it.