Why is Clinton always held to a higher standard?

[Beet]

She dropped out and endorsed Obama days after he clinched the nomination. Had she not, the fury would have been devastating. Meanwhile, Bernie gets to take his campaign to the convention, even though he lost in a landslide.

We constantly have a higher bar to jump over than the other guy.

[Crumpets]

I thought this was going to be about her vs. Trump, but I think the same case can be made for both situations. The media, and really the public writ large, don't see "fair" coverage as holding people to the same standards. They see "fair" as "if we criticize one side x amount, we must then criticize the other side the same amount, regardless of how reprehensible one side is being."

This is why in the lead up to the Vice-Presidential debate in 2008, the expectations for Biden were "Be polite, not condescending, but lay out clear policies which are in line with Obama's agenda, while not appearing to be a robot doing his bidding, and if possible, try to appeal to swing groups." While the expectations for Palin were "say at least one grammatically correct sentence that makes logical sense."

When they both met those goals, they were judged equally and the debate was seen as essentially a tie in the media. I don't think it's entirely sexism, even though that likely plays a role, but the fact that Hillary's opponents so far - Sanders to a small extent and Trump to a yuge extent - are policy illiterate (not to say anything about their individual policies, just that they do a terrible job explaining their policies with any kind of tact). This means the media has to go through some mental gymnastics to make the race look evenly matched so they can get the horserace they always want. They can still hate on both candidates as much as they want because it raises the stakes if people see Trump as a fascist or Hillary as Sepp Blatter, but they are always sure to do it to the same extent.

[Redban]

I don't know why "always" appears in the title of this thread when you can adduce only one example (i.e. her dropping out immediately against Sanders's staying until the convention).

To answer the question concerning her dropping out and Bernie's staying, you have to acknowledge the differences between Hillary and Bernie.

Bernie stays likely because, at 74 years old, he will never run again, nor will he ever have so many eyes on him ever again. Thus, he must act now if he wants to propagate his radical ideas; angering the party is secondary to that purpose.

Hillary in 2008, on the other hand, likely had 2012 or 2016 in her mind; so she dropped out quickly to maintain the favor of the party in order to run again.

Also consider that Hillary, from the beginning, apparently had a big advantage over Bernie in super-delegates, a product of her establishment ties. Therefore, many people feel that Bernie, an outsider in the Democratic party, got cheated; so he stays as long as possible to get whatever justice he can. Some people truly believe that Bernie lost solely because the system leaned towards Hillary.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't know why "always" appears in the title of this thread when you can adduce only one example (i.e. her dropping out immediately against Sanders's staying until the convention).

To answer the question concerning her dropping out and Bernie's staying, you have to acknowledge the differences between Hillary and Bernie.

Bernie stays likely because, at 74 years old, he will never run again, nor will he ever have so many eyes on him ever again. Thus, he must act now if he wants to propagate his radical ideas; angering the party is secondary to that purpose.

Hillary in 2008, on the other hand, likely had 2012 or 2016 in her mind; so she dropped out quickly to maintain the favor of the party in order to run again.

Also consider that Hillary, from the beginning, apparently had a big advantage over Bernie in super-delegates, a product of her establishment ties. Therefore, many people feel that Bernie, an outsider in the Democratic party, got cheated; so he stays as long as possible to get whatever justice he can. Some people truly believe that Bernie lost solely because the system leaned towards Hillary.

Without meaning to, you allude to another reason why "underlying sexism" is certainly part of the answer to the OP's question.

We like to bandy around the words "establishment ties" like this is some unfair built-in advantage that Hillary Clinton had. It's not.

We've yet to see a woman in American politics demonstrate the kind of "charisma" people usually look for (and find!) in male candidates, likely because these traits are really rooted in gender (Obama gives a forceful speech while Hillary yells too loudly like fingernails on a chalkboard... ). These differences find their way into the campaign. Bernie's message resonated in part because he was a passionate blunt-talker; Hillary tried that in the first round of Benghazi hearings ("what difference at this point does it make?) and got shat on. So she has always needed to campaign, at the very least, differently.

These "establishment ties" represent decades of hard work: Hard work overcoming the invisible barriers that sexism presents inside a gentlemen's club like a political party, and hard work building these connections, proving herself to potential allies, winning favour, gaining trust...

No candidate has had as much establishment support as Hillary. It sounds shady to people on the outside, but it is really a testament to how good she is. Bernie's been around for just as long, and there's no real line up of people with experience looking to back him.

So the point is, she has always had to do things a little bit differently, and a lot of the reason is gender and sexism. Bernie has the luxury of staying in because he's been catapulted into the national spotlight in part on force of personal and strength of delivery. Which means he can keep shouting for as long as he wants with little consequence. Hillary couldn't do that in 2008; her strength necessarily came, in part, from building connections, and those would have been in jeopardy if she'd stuck around as a thorn in Obama's side.

It is a double-standard to be sure, but one that seems voluntary even though it's largely by necessity.

[Beet]

I don't even want to talk about sexism because that's a distraction. Look, even if you concede that Bernie is right about everything -- the platform, the process, every single thing -- he still has either won the primary or he didn't. Since he didn't, I don't see why he can't just acknowledge that. If he still wants to be nominee, that's his right, but he should say that too. His refusal to state whether he wants to be the nominee or not, or even who he thinks the nominee should be, is absurd. And that's even before the absurd logic of wanting to get rid of superdelegates and wanting to win by superdelegates at the same time. I don't see what he loses by conceding. It shows he has a shred of integrity and allows us to discuss actual issues that he claims to want to raise, rather than who the nominee is.

The only way I can see it is the Clinton campaign is bending over backwards to give him space. Which is fine, but it's still absurd, IMO. He's been mathematically eliminated from the nomination, and Hillary has clinched. Cruz conceded well before Trump clinched, even though there were huge concerns about Trump's nomination within the GOP to a greater extent than Hillary.

[Redban]

I don't know why "always" appears in the title of this thread when you can adduce only one example (i.e. her dropping out immediately against Sanders's staying until the convention).

To answer the question concerning her dropping out and Bernie's staying, you have to acknowledge the differences between Hillary and Bernie.

Bernie stays likely because, at 74 years old, he will never run again, nor will he ever have so many eyes on him ever again. Thus, he must act now if he wants to propagate his radical ideas; angering the party is secondary to that purpose.

Hillary in 2008, on the other hand, likely had 2012 or 2016 in her mind; so she dropped out quickly to maintain the favor of the party in order to run again.

Also consider that Hillary, from the beginning, apparently had a big advantage over Bernie in super-delegates, a product of her establishment ties. Therefore, many people feel that Bernie, an outsider in the Democratic party, got cheated; so he stays as long as possible to get whatever justice he can. Some people truly believe that Bernie lost solely because the system leaned towards Hillary.

Without meaning to, you allude to another reason why "underlying sexism" is certainly part of the answer to the OP's question.

We like to bandy around the words "establishment ties" like this is some unfair built-in advantage that Hillary Clinton had. It's not.

We've yet to see a woman in American politics demonstrate the kind of "charisma" people usually look for (and find!) in male candidates, likely because these traits are really rooted in gender (Obama gives a forceful speech while Hillary yells too loudly like fingernails on a chalkboard... ). These differences find their way into the campaign. Bernie's message resonated in part because he was a passionate blunt-talker; Hillary tried that in the first round of Benghazi hearings ("what difference at this point does it make?) and got shat on. So she has always needed to campaign, at the very least, differently.

These "establishment ties" represent decades of hard work: Hard work overcoming the invisible barriers that sexism presents inside a gentlemen's club like a political party, and hard work building these connections, proving herself to potential allies, winning favour, gaining trust...

No candidate has had as much establishment support as Hillary. It sounds shady to people on the outside, but it is really a testament to how good she is. Bernie's been around for just as long, and there's no real line up of people with experience looking to back him.

So the point is, she has always had to do things a little bit differently, and a lot of the reason is gender and sexism. Bernie has the luxury of staying in because he's been catapulted into the national spotlight in part on force of personal and strength of delivery. Which means he can keep shouting for as long as he wants with little consequence. Hillary couldn't do that in 2008; her strength necessarily came, in part, from building connections, and those would have been in jeopardy if she'd stuck around as a thorn in Obama's side.

It is a double-standard to be sure, but one that seems voluntary even though it's largely by necessity.

I won't even address the allegations of sexism.

Regarding the point about her establishment ties' being the result of hard work or "a testament to how good she really is," surely you can admit that her last name gave her a significant boost over other politicians (male or female) in the form of name-recognition, prestige, experience, and reputation, etc. Most analysts say that she has poor charisma and weak speaking skills, in fact.

[This account no longer in use.]

Something something sexism media bias

[Hermit For Peace]

Without meaning to, you allude to another reason why "underlying sexism" is certainly part of the answer to the OP's question.

We like to bandy around the words "establishment ties" like this is some unfair built-in advantage that Hillary Clinton had. It's not.

We've yet to see a woman in American politics demonstrate the kind of "charisma" people usually look for (and find!) in male candidates, likely because these traits are really rooted in gender (Obama gives a forceful speech while Hillary yells too loudly like fingernails on a chalkboard... ). These differences find their way into the campaign. Bernie's message resonated in part because he was a passionate blunt-talker; Hillary tried that in the first round of Benghazi hearings ("what difference at this point does it make?) and got shat on. So she has always needed to campaign, at the very least, differently.

These "establishment ties" represent decades of hard work: Hard work overcoming the invisible barriers that sexism presents inside a gentlemen's club like a political party, and hard work building these connections, proving herself to potential allies, winning favour, gaining trust...

No candidate has had as much establishment support as Hillary. It sounds shady to people on the outside, but it is really a testament to how good she is. Bernie's been around for just as long, and there's no real line up of people with experience looking to back him.

So the point is, she has always had to do things a little bit differently, and a lot of the reason is gender and sexism. Bernie has the luxury of staying in because he's been catapulted into the national spotlight in part on force of personal and strength of delivery. Which means he can keep shouting for as long as he wants with little consequence. Hillary couldn't do that in 2008; her strength necessarily came, in part, from building connections, and those would have been in jeopardy if she'd stuck around as a thorn in Obama's side.

It is a double-standard to be sure, but one that seems voluntary even though it's largely by necessity.

I'd like to give this post the recognition that is due....it's a great post with great insight. Yes, Hillary has had to do things differently. From the moment she became First Lady of Arkansas, all the way to First Lady in the White House and beyond, she has had to change and morph to people's expectations of her. The clothes she wears, her hairdo, to the fact that she kept her last name Rodham in her title caused great discomfort to the people of AR in her role as the First Lady there so she had to change it, to the way she talks or "shouts" or "shrills"....there's just so much.

Hillary has adapted to it all. She learns and changes and grows. She makes mistakes, but she keeps on keeping on. I don't see anyone in politics anywhere who has the resiliency she has.

As for the title of this thread, I don't quite understand what the author wants. Is it all about being compared to Bernie?

Bernie is not Hillary. He's a white male which comes with inborn privileges. He may be a fighter in his own arena, but so is Hillary. She is much more well-rounded and diverse than Bernie could ever hope to be, and maybe that's why she is held to a different standard: there is much more to her personality than to Bernie's or anyone else's personality in politics for that matter.

Hillary has much more substance for us to examine and criticize, and add to that the fact that she has been around for a long time. People have come to expect more of her because she has so much more to give than the others.

That's my biased opinion. ;-)

[BlueSwan]

The biggest double standard probably surrounds gaffes or really any politically unfortunate utterings. Most politicians can get away with a gaffe here and there. Palin got away with being an utter imbecile until it got too much. Trump has gotten away with literally dozens of statements, each of them individually crazy enough to kill off almost any other campaign.

Hillary...calls her and Bill "dead broke" when they left the white house and the collective media has a heart attack for several weeks. Is it any wonder that she is very careful with her words, to the point of her seeming "un-authentic". She has had 25 years of experience with the media scrutinizing and twisting her every word and making up faux scandals at any given opportunity. Is it any wonder she wanted some e-mail privacy (which proved a very bad move).

[IceSpear]

She is a woman.

In other words, she is not a man.

[jollyschwa]

I don't know why "always" appears in the title of this thread when you can adduce only one example (i.e. her dropping out immediately against Sanders's staying until the convention).

To answer the question concerning her dropping out and Bernie's staying, you have to acknowledge the differences between Hillary and Bernie.

Bernie stays likely because, at 74 years old, he will never run again, nor will he ever have so many eyes on him ever again. Thus, he must act now if he wants to propagate his radical ideas; angering the party is secondary to that purpose.

Hillary in 2008, on the other hand, likely had 2012 or 2016 in her mind; so she dropped out quickly to maintain the favor of the party in order to run again.

Also consider that Hillary, from the beginning, apparently had a big advantage over Bernie in super-delegates, a product of her establishment ties. Therefore, many people feel that Bernie, an outsider in the Democratic party, got cheated; so he stays as long as possible to get whatever justice he can. Some people truly believe that Bernie lost solely because the system leaned towards Hillary.

Without meaning to, you allude to another reason why "underlying sexism" is certainly part of the answer to the OP's question.

We like to bandy around the words "establishment ties" like this is some unfair built-in advantage that Hillary Clinton had. It's not.

We've yet to see a woman in American politics demonstrate the kind of "charisma" people usually look for (and find!) in male candidates, likely because these traits are really rooted in gender (Obama gives a forceful speech while Hillary yells too loudly like fingernails on a chalkboard... ). These differences find their way into the campaign. Bernie's message resonated in part because he was a passionate blunt-talker; Hillary tried that in the first round of Benghazi hearings ("what difference at this point does it make?) and got shat on. So she has always needed to campaign, at the very least, differently.

These "establishment ties" represent decades of hard work: Hard work overcoming the invisible barriers that sexism presents inside a gentlemen's club like a political party, and hard work building these connections, proving herself to potential allies, winning favour, gaining trust...

No candidate has had as much establishment support as Hillary. It sounds shady to people on the outside, but it is really a testament to how good she is. Bernie's been around for just as long, and there's no real line up of people with experience looking to back him.

So the point is, she has always had to do things a little bit differently, and a lot of the reason is gender and sexism. Bernie has the luxury of staying in because he's been catapulted into the national spotlight in part on force of personal and strength of delivery. Which means he can keep shouting for as long as he wants with little consequence. Hillary couldn't do that in 2008; her strength necessarily came, in part, from building connections, and those would have been in jeopardy if she'd stuck around as a thorn in Obama's side.

It is a double-standard to be sure, but one that seems voluntary even though it's largely by necessity.

Just wanted to say this was a great post.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think part of it is that, in 2008, there was genuine fear that a long and protracted primary would damage the Democrats' chances of taking back control of the White House. This fear was driven by two main factors: Each side of the conflict held sway over a big part of the Democratic "base." Obama and Clinton each had substantial "establishment" backing and obvious, big demographic backing behind each. Secondly, we never really had a primary this close, or so embittered, prior to that point. So it was easier to err on the side of assuming it was best to end it as soon as possible.

Neither of these things are really so true this time. Though Sanders commands the hearts and minds of a certain part of the left, he never had near the big-name backing that Obama or Clinton had in their fight. Much of Sanders' support comes from Independent and protest votes combined with activist lefties who are either going to vote for Clinton or they won't. There's no real risk that suddenly Pennsylvania is out of play (like the Clintons loved teasing would be the case in 2008) or anything like that. Plus, we now know that the 2008 primary probably was beneficial more than it was detrimental. There's no real evidence it divided the party all that much in the end, or that it limited Obama's electoral strength in the general, judging by the results. It's much easier to just let Sanders ride out the rest of it, give him concessions on convention matters, and move on.

[Beet]

Why does he want to ride it out, though? What does he gain? Also, who does want to be the nominee? If it's not Hillary, what's his justification for overturning the will of the voters? He can't even answer the most basic question. His position is incoherent.

The consensus is that the '08 primary was more beneficial than detrimental, but (1) that's based on the fact that Clinton conceded and gave Obama a full-throated endorsement soon after he clinched.. The exact point is, Bernie is denying that '08 dynamic that worked so well then. (2) It's largely based on the fact that the Democrats won big in '08. But if you think about, they should have won big, given the economic meltdown and the approval ratings of Bush at the time.

'08 was a much bigger slam dunk than this year will likely be. I'm not at all convinced Trump is as weak a candidate as McCain '08. At the very least, it's not a risk worth taking. Now Hillary's going to have to spend time between now and then coddling Bernie's sensitivities, instead of focusing fully on Trump.

Also, the opinion of most political scientists is that while contested conventions are not necessarily harmful for the party out of power (like the Dems in '08), they are for the party in power.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why does he want to ride it out, though? What does he gain? Also, who does want to be the nominee? If it's not Hillary, what's his justification for overturning the will of the voters? He can't even answer the most basic question. His position is incoherent.

Bernie Sanders is a 74 year old activist candidate who wants to exert his influence where possible because this is his last big shot. In 2008, Hillary Clinton was a 60 year old establishment candidate who purely wanted to win the nomination, and she still had a potential future shot, which we now know she got, and probably planned as soon as she lost in '08. It makes sense given their age and their styles, that Hillary would drop out to save face for a future run and Bernie would hang in there to milk every last concession.

What does he want? I suppose to change the party's inner workings, if nothing else. Changes to DNC leadership, how primaries are structured, the nature of superdelegates, etc. Hillary had no desire, or reason, to change those things.

[Beet]

His list of changes are just a list of things that would have helped him in the primary. Basically he's a sore loser asking the party to admit that his loss was unjust as a condition of him admitting that he lost in the first place. It's disrespectful to not only Hillary, but the process he chose to participate in and the voters whose support he campaigned for, who did not choose him.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well that's subjective.

"The changes are just a list of things that would help him" sounds like a Republican argument against Democratic attempts at voter reform. Are you so cynical toward his opinion about primary and party reform that you refuse to accept any possibility that these are genuine positions he would have, regardless? Does that apply, in your view, to other attempts at voter reform in general from other Democrats?

[IceSpear]

Well that's subjective.

"The changes are just a list of things that would help him" sounds like a Republican argument against Democratic attempts at voter reform. Are you so cynical toward his opinion about primary and party reform that you refuse to accept any possibility that these are genuine positions he would have, regardless? Does that apply, in your view, to other attempts at voter reform in general from other Democrats?

If it was just about voter reform and making the primaries more democratic, abolishing caucuses would certainly be on the list as well.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's obviously motivated by self-interest, but all politics is to some degree. If he makes incidentally good arguments for reform I prefer to evaluate them on their merits separate from that. We should get rid of caucuses, but there's plenty of other potential reforms we would be better for, too.

Anyway, this is all veering off-topic. The question was why Hillary was treated with a different standard. They were different situations, different times, and different kinds of candidates. An ancillary question was why he's still in this. We know why. If this was just another sh**-on-Bernie thread then I guess I'm too naive.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Bernie's not saying he would have won had superdelegates not existed, or whatever. He's just making the argument that there is something wrong with someone being allowed to acquire 400+ delegates before the first vote is cast in what is supposed to be a voter driven process, and even though I support superdelegates, I think he's right on that point. Superdelegates should not be allowed to endorse in large numbers early on as it removed the public entirely from the process by forcing them to turn against their elected congressperson if they wanted to vote for Sanders in most cases.

And while I don't agree with socialism as a political idea, why not have that debate at the convention? The same goes for the primary system in general - I think the party could find real common ground in preventing closed primary registration deadlines that are in the year before the contest takes place (see NY) via delegate penalties. I think we can at least all agree that the primary system needs to be reformed. Why not have that debate at the convention? It's not as if the republicans are assured of having a "clean convention" - they may at least have a vote on unbinding the delegates, and nobody is bound on the VP nomination, so no guarantee that Trump can literally pick whoever he wants. It's not about what Hillary "deserves" or what Bernie "deserves". It's about what's best for the democratic party and the primary system. So have the debate, take some tough votes, and for once have a convention that is more than a four day long TV commercial.

[Redban]

It's obviously motivated by self-interest, but all politics is to some degree. If he makes incidentally good arguments for reform I prefer to evaluate them on their merits separate from that. We should get rid of caucuses, but there's plenty of other potential reforms we would be better for, too.

I'm not so sure. If he truly believes that his ideas (e.g. tuition free colleges, universal health care, open borders) are better for the country, then he is staying to promote those ideas and, thereby, better the country; thus, he's not acting according to self-interest.

Again, Bernie will never get another chance to push his far-left platforms ever again, so it's now or never for him.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

She dropped out and endorsed Obama days after he clinched the nomination. Had she not, the fury would have been devastating. Meanwhile, Bernie gets to take his campaign to the convention, even though he lost in a landslide.

We constantly have a higher bar to jump over than the other guy.

"We" ?

[Beet]

She dropped out and endorsed Obama days after he clinched the nomination. Had she not, the fury would have been devastating. Meanwhile, Bernie gets to take his campaign to the convention, even though he lost in a landslide.

We constantly have a higher bar to jump over than the other guy.

"We" ?

Clinton supporters.

Look, I agree with getting rid of superdelegates 100%. I agree with tuition-free colleges, universal health care, and open borders. Heck, I'll agree to open primaries, even though I'm against the merits. I'll agree to every single thing on Bernie's list. He can personally write the platform for all I care.

But the winner of the process deserves to be acknowledged as a the winner. Not just for them, but mainly for the 30 million people who participated. Otherwise, what's the point of democracy? What's the point of reforming the process if the process decides nothing, to begin with? That's like saying "We have to reform the rules of the game to make it fair*"

* The loser of the game actually wins.

[SillyAmerican]

I don't even want to talk about sexism because that's a distraction. Look, even if you concede that Bernie is right about everything -- the platform, the process, every single thing -- he still has either won the primary or he didn't. Since he didn't, I don't see why he can't just acknowledge that. If he still wants to be nominee, that's his right, but he should say that too. His refusal to state whether he wants to be the nominee or not, or even who he thinks the nominee should be, is absurd. And that's even before the absurd logic of wanting to get rid of superdelegates and wanting to win by superdelegates at the same time. I don't see what he loses by conceding. It shows he has a shred of integrity and allows us to discuss actual issues that he claims to want to raise, rather than who the nominee is.

The only way I can see it is the Clinton campaign is bending over backwards to give him space. Which is fine, but it's still absurd, IMO. He's been mathematically eliminated from the nomination, and Hillary has clinched. Cruz conceded well before Trump clinched, even though there were huge concerns about Trump's nomination within the GOP to a greater extent than Hillary.

Agreed. The nominee has been determined, so Bernie should concede and be gracious in defeat or give some indication as to why he won't do that.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

She dropped out and endorsed Obama days after he clinched the nomination. Had she not, the fury would have been devastating. Meanwhile, Bernie gets to take his campaign to the convention, even though he lost in a landslide.

We constantly have a higher bar to jump over than the other guy.

"We" ?

Clinton supporters.

Look, I agree with getting rid of superdelegates 100%. I agree with tuition-free colleges, universal health care, and open borders. Heck, I'll agree to open primaries, even though I'm against the merits. I'll agree to every single thing on Bernie's list. He can personally write the platform for all I care.

But the winner of the process deserves to be acknowledged as a the winner. Not just for them, but mainly for the 30 million people who participated. Otherwise, what's the point of democracy? What's the point of reforming the process if the process decides nothing, to begin with? That's like saying "We have to reform the rules of the game to make it fair*"

* The loser of the game actually wins.

And I fail to see why having a fair debate at the convention about the future of the party and the primary system somehow fails to acknowledge the winner. No one is saying change the rules for this year. No one except Berniebros is saying refuse to nominate Hillary. No one except Berniebros is saying that Bernie shouldn't get behind Hillary, and odds are he will, even if only halfheartedly. All that is being said is let's talk things over and reach some fair compromises for 2024.

[RaphaelDLG]

In the last few decades, the Democrat in general has always been held to a higher standard by the "liberal" press, because they are way too chicken to criticize the Republican lest they be criticized.

Clinton was held to a higher standard in 08 because Obama was the cool young black guy (not a logical or fair reason) and her last name was Clinton.  Particularly in the debates I remember Hillary getting ambushed and Obama getting away with murder.

I think Sanders is getting even worse treatment from the press - his coverage has either been scathing, dismissive, or non-existent.  The press doesn't understand that a politician would actually want to use leverage to advance an ideological vision.  I guess in their defense, that rarely happens in the dem primary - in 08, there was no meaningful ideological difference between the Clinton camp and the Obama camp.

Clinton won fair and square, and her camp is bigger, so she deserves to make most of the decisions within the Democratic party, and obviously to be the nominee. However, sanders' ideological camp is substantial, and Clinton has a responsibility to incorporate them into the alliance.  It is in the sanders' camp's best interest to cooperate with Clinton at the same time.