It's not like he's bashing Hillary. It's not like he hasn't made it clear that he'll be working with her campaign to defeat Trump. The gleeful bashing of Bernie by many, many HRC supporters is childish and counterproductive.

I don't expect it to stop. In fact, my guess is that the petty malice will only increase.

A little self-discipline would cost little. Your candidate won. The losing candidate is doing her no harm. Maybe you all really do feel you don't need the votes of Bernie's supporters.

The lack of graciousness on the part of winning Hillary supporters is only matched by the lack of graciousness exhibited by Hillary supporters when she lost in 2008.

Can't you celebrate without attacking Bernie and his supporters?

non American American'?

<snip>


During February and March of this year, the big question was Bernie's Jewishness. Was he Jewish enough? Too Jewish? Tremendous effort was put into tracking down the determinedly nameless kibbutz at the very bottom of his CV. Today, the tone of Bernie think pieces has changed (for the most part) to more measured appraisals of his candidacy: How has Bernie’s campaign changed the Democratic party? Will we see a continued movement or has the radical flame Berned out?
But in one corner of the Jewish blogosphere, it seems, ‘Bernie the Jew’ is still a hot topic. On June 7, the ultra-conservative National Review magazine published a piece called "Bernie Sanders, the Non-Jewish Jew and Non-American American" by Dennis Prager. The tone was hardly elegiac; indeed Prager’s boiling anti-Bernie rant prompted the Forward’s Helen Chernikoff to tweet a comparison of Prager to Austrian mayor Karl Lueger, inspirer of Adolf Hitler and practiser of strategic anti-Semitism. It was Lueger who famously pronounced, “I decide who is a Jew.”


<snip>

Prager goes on to link Bernie to a list of the far-right’s favorite bogeymen: Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Noam Chomsky and George Soros. Add Saul Alinsky and you’ve got the whole set. Far beyond dog whistling, this is a klaxon to Jew-haters on the Right, no code needed. “They were (or are) all radicals, were born to Jewish parents, had (or have) no Jewish identity, and do harm to both Jews and non-Jews.” Internationalist, rootless: “non-Jewish Jews are far more likely to work to weaken Christianity in American than Jewish Jews…” The only thing Prager leaves out is the part about using their blood for matza.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.725102

I'm sorry to say that this reminds me of too many posts right here at DU.

Following the 2016 US presidential elections, the next administration must adopt a new and realistically balanced policy toward Israel and the Palestinians to bring an end to their conflict in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace that’s based on the Arab Peace Initiative. Throughout the primary campaign, only Senator Bernie Sanders had a position on this conflict that was fresh, balanced, and welcome — especially given the increased intractability of the conflict and its dangerous implications not only for Israel and the Palestinians, but also for the US’ strategic interests in the Middle East.

The continuation of the conflict also has direct consequences on the security of the EU, precisely because it feeds into the region’s extremism from which the EU suffers greatly. In this regard, France’s initiative to resume Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is timely and should be pursued despite the initial lack of consensus at a recent meeting in Paris between the European, American, and Arab foreign ministers on convening an international conference at the end of the year to address the conflict in earnest.

Throughout the primary campaign, Sanders articulated his position concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stating that: “I read Secretary Clinton’s speech before AIPAC, I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people… Of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long term there will never be peace in that region, unless the United States plays… an even-handed role in trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people … There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

What is admirable about his stand is not that it is new, but that it is articulated by a significant presidential candidate. Although he has failed to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party, he has become a major political force — and the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, must seriously take into account his position on this critical issue.

<snip>

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/06/14/bernie-sanders-has-it-right-on-israel/#

New York Times editor Andrew Rosenthal denounced Donald Trump‘s proposed policies Wednesday, arguing in an op-ed that Trump’s rhetoric and positions towards Mexicans and Muslims could precipitate a genocide.

“Trump never bothers to talk about what he would do about the millions of Muslims already living in the United States. Would he round them up and deport them, as he is proposing to do with the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country?” he aksed.

“Let’s be absolutely clear. This is not just about bigotry,” argued Rosenthal. “The mass arrest and forced movement of large populations has been an instrument of genocide throughout history.”

“That is how the Turks committed genocide against Armenians in the early 20th century, how the United States government decimated some Native American tribes and how Stalin killed millions of his own citizens,” he noted.

read:http://www.mediaite.com/print/ny-times-op-ed-warns-trump-presidency-could-lead-to-genocide/



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/opinion/campaign-stops/decoding-donald-trump.html?_r=0

“What Bernie Sanders started, we need to finish,” Dunne begins the ad. “This campaign is about making Bernie’s vision a reality right here in Vermont.”

In October, Dunne became the first of the gubernatorial candidates to endorse Sanders’ presidential campaign. In a blog post announcing his endorsement, Dunne praised “Bernie’s blunt honesty, ability to engage young people, and his clear understanding of the needs of our state.”

The Dunne ad focuses primarily on his rejection of corporate campaign donations. In March, after taking in more than $16,000 in corporate money, Dunne returned it all and vowed to reject the money in the future.

In the ad, Dunne repeats the progressive refrain that “Corporations are not people” before promising to ban corporate money as his first act as governor.

Dunne’s campaign made a six-figure ad buy to broadcast this spot and others statewide in the runup to the Aug. 9 primary.

<snip>

https://vtdigger.org/2016/06/14/dunne-invokes-sanders-in-first-tv-ad-of-democratic-race-for-top-spot/

The Washington Post is not the first. Donald Trump has been denying press credentials to news outlets for nearly a year.

It's become known in media circles as "the blacklist" -- a running catalog of newsrooms deemed by Trump to be unfair and banned from his campaign events accordingly.

The list includes an assortment of digital outlets, the largest Spanish-language broadcaster in the country, a premiere local newspaper and -- now, with The Post -- one of the most prestigious news organizations in the world.

In some cases, reporters from the offending outlets can still attend Trump campaign rallies as members of the general public, but without the access and privileges that press credentials provide. In other situations, like press conferences, the reporters cannot attend at all.

<snip>

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/

He had no obligation to let the Hillary/Bernie wars rage on here. It was clear in March that Hillary would be the nominee. He could have shut it down weeks ago.

He didn't, and I think he deserves a great deal of credit for that.

Skinner, fond as I am of you, I still think Discussionist is... aw, never mind. This is a post to praise not criticize.

David Zuckerman is a State Senator, a hybrid D/VPP (Vermont Progressive Party). He's an organic farmer and he's been is state government for over 20 years, championing progressive issues.

He's running for Lt. Guv against the Speaker of the Vermont House Shap Smith. Shap is a good guy, responsible for marshalling votes to overturn then Governor Douglas's veto of Marriage equality.

I support David.

magazine- with a message.

?no-auto


Prince William has been photographed for the cover of Britain’s bestselling gay magazine, Attitude, making him the first member of the royal family to pose for an LGBT title. It is due to be published on Thursday, just four days after the murder of 49 people in an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The Duke of Cambridge, whose late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, was famously supportive of LGBT people and an early champion of people living with HIV/AIDS, has continued her legacy with both a cover shoot and an extensive feature in the July issue of the magazine.

The article focuses on the devastating impact of homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying – and the consequent impact on the mental health of LGBT people. William, who is second in line to the throne, met with nine LGBTQ people who have all been the victims of abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

<snip>

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/prince-william-has-posed-for-the-cover-of-a-gay-magazine?utm_term=.jvlGQVJKl#.xwzp5R9dP

Jaysus.


<snip>

They have no journalistic integrity and write falsely about Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest. The fact is, The Washington Post is being used by the owners of Amazon as their political lobbyist so that they don't have to pay taxes and don't get sued for monopolistic tendencies that have led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry.
There are all sorts of issues with that statement, beyond the simple fact that there appears to be basically zero evidence to support it. Yes, Jeff Bezos runs Amazon and also owns the Washington Post. But I've seen basically no evidence that the Washington Post has done any stories that are somehow lobbying for Amazon's interests (for what it's worth, Amazon tends to stay far, far away from all sorts of policy fights). Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall any WaPo editorials advocating for letting Amazon avoid taxes.

But it's really the end of that last paragraph that's the most concerning. Claiming that Amazon has "monopolistic tendencies" and the ridiculous claim that it's "led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry," is somewhat concerning. This is not the first time Trump has attacked Bezos. In fact, his original infamous statements about how he was going to "open up libel laws" were actually directed at Bezos. He first went on a tirade about Bezos owning the Washington Post, followed by:
If I become President, oh, are they going to have problems. They're going to have such problems.

Lots of people pointed out that Trump perhaps couldn't do too much to libel laws (the Supreme Court and the First Amendment has that covered), but he absolutely could have the DOJ or even the FTC go after Amazon for claimed anti-trust or anti-consumer behavior. And it seems pretty clear that he would gleefully do so. And not because of any actual evidence of problems, but because he doesn't like the coverage in the Washington Post which just happens to be owned by Bezos. Settling personal scores with the press by attacking a service that many in the public find extremely useful and convenient doesn't seem particularly presidential, does it?

read:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160614/00345834699/trump-implicitly-suggests-that-his-doj-would-take-down-amazon-antitrust-says-destroyed-retail.shtml