My morning paper reprinted an NYT editorial which observed that Hillary would need to "win over" Bernie supporters at convention time.
Sure, that sticks in my craw.
Bill Clinton's blue dress antics diminished any moral thrust the 2000 Gore campaign possessed. Gore was forced to distance himself from an economically successful presidency. Moreover, Hillary needed to distance herself as well. You recall this past January Bill's rapid appearance and equally rapid disappearance from her campaign. I attribute that to her campaign recognizing Bill as moral liability.
Even as the NYT backed Hillary in January, they mentioned her "flawed husband." And it's not as though Bill got snagged one time. Snagged several times, but openly caught this one time. In the White House. Cheating, or weaseling (what the definition of "is" is--really!) or whatever you may call it, IS his character flaw. Cheaters remain cheaters, breaking rules which impede their desires, in all things beyond the merely sexual, because those rules only apply to--as Leona Helmsley might have said-- to "little people."
And this is the guy who becomes the DAILY presidential advisor. The Times notes that Hillary will need to "tack" left to win Bernie supporters. Substitute "weasel" for "tack" and you've got the game. And the tenor of the next Clinton presidency.
So, if it's Clinton's name on the November ballot, I hold my nose and vote for her. Only because I live in a swing district within a swing state. Otherwise, I would happily write-in Bernie's name.
And if she holds office come January, I plan to hold her feet to the fire. On everything.
If she games voters by tacking towards Bernie, we will hold her feet to the bern.