He directly says they are going to use the time between the end of the primaries and the convention to try and persuade super-delegates to flip and give the election to Sanders on the argument that Sanders is the superior candidate. This, after a lot of grumbling about it, finally produces a fair amount of backlash. The very next interview finally adds the qualifier, "If we're, uh, down a handful of votes." I'd call that walking it back.
That's because you haven't really been paying much attention to all of what's actually been said. It seems like you just catch the part that makes for a juicy story about political hypocrisy and then run with it. For example, when I asked for a reference to your original claim that it was Sanders himself who "explicitly" said "he's trying to use the superdelegates to win the election even if Clinton wins the majority of the pledged delegates and popular vote," it was Res Ipsa who eventually provided a reference and it was from the LA Times. The article offers no transcript of an interview or any citations of Sanders saying anything of the sort, let alone "explicitly." Instead, we get a synopsis of what was said by his advisors:
Sanders advisors argue that if they can come close to catching Clinton in votes by the time the time the primaries conclude in June -- even if they fail to overtake her -- they will be able to persuade these lawmakers and other Democratic dignitaries to reconsider their loyalties to Clinton.
So his advisers initially said they would try to persuade super delegates only "if they can come close to catching Clinton in votes" which is perfectly consistent with what his senior adviser said to Maddow just the other night about coming up 4-5 votes shy. So no, I don't see any "walking back" of anything; I see a simple repeat of an original point that some folks glossed over.
Also, in the last reference Res Ipsa provided from the Washington Post, Devine said, “I think we have to see where we are” when the time comes. Of course, this hasn't stopped certain media folks from spinning this into an absolute set in stone strategy at all costs, and I'm sure this has nothing to do with trying to help their preferred candidate by implying Sanders is a hypocrite.
Remember, your original claims from a month ago were:
"Sanders has explicitly said he's trying to use the superdelegates to win the election even if Clinton wins the majority of the pledged delegates and popular vote"
It is worth pointing out that you have been unable to produce any examples of him "explicitly saying" this, yet you keep going on and on as if we're supposed to just take it for granted anyway. Res Ipsa's first reference doesn't establish your point and his second reference shows Sanders referring super delegates only in State's he's won. Again, what is so "slimy" about trying to flip supers in states you've won by large margins? No one has answered this for me.
The last reference from the Washington Post was based on a CNN interview with Sanders and the transcript, shows him to be perfectly consistent when this issue is raised. Again, he only refers to persuading 1) super delegates who voted long before the primaries began, and 2) those who voted overwhelmingly against the voters in states he has won.
If he was walking that back on Maddow yesterday, ok. That's even more Clintonian of him.
WTF, "if"? So you admit you're speaking in ignorance. OK, well don't let that stop you from making assumptions and passing judgment. Obviously your mind is already made up that the benefit of the doubt will never apply to Sanders. Same with Obama it seems. When they do something you would normally like, it must be because they're calculating politicians who are just looking to gain in some way.
The idea that Sanders is "the people's choice" and thus deserves the victory despite getting more or less crushed in the actual elections is dangerous. All hail the glorious socialist leader. He's knows what's best for you.
Right. Because being the "people's choice" is just unheard of in political campaigns. That is, until we get a Democratic Socialist running for office. Then it suddenly becomes a harbinger for horrible things to come. You're starting to sound ridiculous, EA. This is one of those times I've talked about in the past where you simply refuse to admit being wrong. It isn't a matter of you just believing you're right and therefore no need to admit it; it is a matter of you making an empirical claim and repeatedly failing to support it. Your rhetoric against Sanders the "evil socialist" or whatever, has been based on something he never said with a dose of media spin. As far as him being the people's choice, I was saying that they probably believe this is true for reasons already mentioned. Just look at any polling graph and it becomes painfully obvious who has had the momentum throughout the process and who doesn't. And even among Democrat voters her nine point lead has been cut down to just two points in less than a month:
This suggests that it would only be a matter of time before Sanders overtakes her among registered Democrats. The problem is that most people have already voted, and millions have been unable to vote because they're not registered democrats. If the primaries were to be done all over again and everyone were allowed to actually vote, I have no doubt Sanders would be winning.