The Party of Obama and Hillary not Nina Turner and Bernie Sanders

I say that after watching Nina Turner's absurd rant on Rachel Maddow last night. She more or less claimed that Bernie won even though he didn't.

Bernie is going to Philadelphia she piously declared and the Democrats have to all bow down before St. Bernie.

Maddow said that the Democrats will gain by bringing Bernie into the party. I don't know. It depends at what price.

Not at the price of making it a Left wing Tea Party, a la Bernie Sanders.

Not if we have to give Bernie our soul. The Dems have been a pretty successful party. We've won 4 of 6 Presidential elections, winning the popular vote 5 of 6 times.

I think part of it is what we've been Center Left not Far Left like Nina and Bernie.

Meanwhile. Nina Turner as a woman refused to even acknowledge Hillary's victory. She acts like she and Bernie are these avenging angels who the Democrats must tremble before and do what they tell us to do.

Nope. Bernie lost the election. He gets some input and consideration but doesn't take over. It's Hillary's party not his and it's going to stay that way as this is our party's choice.

I see some positive signs that maybe Bernie is landing the plane now.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/time-for-bernie-to-land-plane.html

Certainly his meeting with Obama is a great sign; that he asked for it is an every greater one.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/bernie-and-obama-to-meet-thursday.html

But let's hope Nina Turner isn't anywhere near the discussions. She is from planet Dead Ender.

My way or the highway is not the right posture for Democrats either.

While I'm ecstatic Hillary is the nominee, this is a long term fight as well. We need to remain the party of Hillary and Obama.

Thankfully Obama is still a young buck and will be around the next eight years.

P.S. If you want the difference between a Bernie party and Hillary party, this piece by Matt Yglesais illustrates it well.

"One of the clearest differences between Clinton's approach and Sanders's is that Bernie's campaign was overwhelmingly focused on a handful of big ideas — rally slogans — while Clinton's was drenched in policy detail. Over the course of the primary, her campaign generated 53 different policy proposals and put out more than 200 pages' worth of text detailing those proposals."

"This was in part a divergent strategic decision on the part of the two campaigns, but it also reflected underlying differences between the candidates. Clinton is someone who, on a personal level, likes to immerse herself in details and at times demonstrated a clearer understanding of the content of Sanders's Wall Street proposals than Sanders himself did."

"Mastery of details didn't matter to everyone — if you believe the existence of private sector health insurance companies is fundamentally immoral, then you're not going to worry so much about the fact that Sanders's cost estimates aren't accurate — but at times it made a real difference. Nobody doubts that on an emotional and intellectual level, Sanders is deeply committed to regulating the financial sector. But the fact remains that behind his speeches about breaking up big banks was a plan that would leave vast swaths of finance unregulated, while Clinton's more nuanced plan covered much more ground."

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11871254/hillary-bernie-trump