Hillary has apologized for her statements; I don't know if her apologies are sincere, but she's on the record and seems like she's trying to amend her past mistakes.

We never know what's in their hearts, do we?  It seems to me that she got caught up in the rhetoric of the time, which was still very much driven by the language of anti-crime spree politics. There are so many things we would not say or do now.  For example, I remember the term "wilding" being used to describe participants in NYC's Puerto Rico Day Parade.  Total anachronism now. Or the whole Sistah Souljah moment -- only a very foolish politician would lecture a rapper like that in the modern age where priorities have changed and the target wrapper would have a social media platform to use as a bludgeon against her critic.

I'll say this for her -- I think she knows how to change with the times.  She keeps up very well. She knows what was said then would not be acceptable now and she adapts.  That's a good thing.

Thanks for this Danny. The Sanders campaign and many of their supporters treat the lack of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders in the black community as an intellectual defect. The sad truth is that off times there has been no great outreach by white Progressives to the black community. When the votes for Gay Rights in California occurred there was no outreach to the black community trying to garner black votes. In fact, many black homosexuals felt left out of the LGBT movement. When the LGT community asked for votes in DC, they got them. In a similar fashion, the environmental movement did not reach out to the black community. It took Van Jones and others to bring attention to the particular circumstances in the black community.

Sanders was just as uncomfortable as Hillary when confronted by Black Lives Matter. Hillary worked on repairing her relationship with the black community after the 2008 Primary. Sanders never bothered to make contact.The message from his campaign is that black voters don't "know" Bernie and what he stands for. This means that Sanders views black voters as dolts who don't keep up with politics. It removes any blame for the lack of enthusiasm from Sanders himself. Sanders had very little contact with the Congressional Black Caucus. He asked for support after Hillary had already made inroads. When the CBC PAC supported Hillary, the Sanders response was that the Clintons bought off the CBC, a slander. Sanders did everything in his power to alienate black voters.

If Obama supporters threw chairs at a state convention, they would have been called thugs. If Obama was losing and there was a threat of disruption of the Democratic National Convention by Obama supporters, he would have been called a militant. Sanders gets a pass. 

Truth be told, what a lot of black voters see in both the Sanders and Trump campaign is white male privilege. If Obama, or any black candidate, did what Sanders is doing they would face massive and continuous media pushback. If Hillary, or any female candidate, were as dumb as Donald Trump, they would be dismissed (See Sarah Palin).

Thanks, Danny. Very well said. Let's stop the internal analysis and focus on the new Mr. Republican.

I agree with Danny's general point that the time to criticize Hillary Clinton is largely past and defeating Trump in the general election should be the focus of Americans of good will.  But doing so requires clear-eyed honesty about both the Democratic candidate and her nearly-vanquished opponent.  Blustery unfounded slams at Sanders for 1) allegedly being disliked by other Senators or 2) being unwilling to compromise and 3) dishonest attacks on his supporters claiming falsely that they are closet Republicans will boomerang badly against Clinton.

Likewise, allies must be very careful when they make boilerplate assertions such as "she knows how to change with the times."  Such contentions ignore the reality that she remains as hawkish as she ever was and her campaign used racially divisive language against Bernie Sanders in this election cycle just as it did against Barack Obama in 2008.  To maximize the chances that she wins in November, she and her supporters need to acknowledge forthrightly her decisions and rhetoric have understandably alienated many progressives.  She must also argue clearly, strongly, and persuasively that, if elected, her policies will create millions of good middle-class jobs in America.

This is welcome.  I've spent the past several months defending Clinton.  I'm getting tired.  

And yet, here I go again, defending her.  You write that "Hillary said young black males should be, 'brought to heel.'  The intention may not have been an attack, but still must point out that this statement is absolutely false.  The term "superpredator" was coined by John DiIulio, a Princeton political science professor, in an article published in November 1995 in the Weekly Standard on what was thought to be a new phenomenon of remorseless child criminals.  The article did not distinguish on the basis of race and actually said the phenomenon is not confined to inner cities.  Clinton used the term one time in a speech in January 1996, referring to street gangs connected to drug cartels.  The term "superpredator" would eventually take on a much more racially coded meaning and DiIulio's theory later debunked, but at the time Clinton used it, "superpredator" did not carry the baggage it does today.  Want proof?  Look at this article from February 1996 by Alex Kotlowitz - look him up, he's no racist.  http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/08/opinion/it-takes-a-village-to-destroy-a-child.html    

In response to Maiello's, "he really got shellacked."  She currently has 54% of the pledged delegates, he has 46%.  I'd call that a solid win, not a shellacking.  You of course are free to see it however you like.  Yes she won the Democratic primaries.  But she has a very high unfavorability rating - as high as Trump's - and much higher than Bernie does.  Americans like Bernie better.