This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
Network newscasts don't mention Brazile Clinton-DNC revelations
By Joe Concha - 11/03/17
The broadcast evening newscasts on three major networks on Thursday didn't mention bombshell revelations by former Democratic National Committee interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile.
Brazile has written in a new book that she discovered evidence that she said showed Hillary Clinton’s campaign "rigged" the Democratic presidential primary.
"ABC's World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News" and "CBS Evening News" all didn't report the allegations by Brazile on Thursday evening despite it receiving considerable coverage on cable news and in print and online media. Brazile was also trending as one of Twitter's top topics on Thursday.
In excerpts released to Politico Thursday, Brazile writes in her new book, "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House," that it “broke her heart” upon discovering evidence that she said showed the Clinton campaign "rigged" the Democratic nomination system.
“By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” Brazile wrote about a Sept. 7, 2016, call to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who gave Clinton a far more serious challenge for the nomination than many had expected.
Brazile also shares an arrangement between the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Clinton’s joint fundraising committee that indicated the campaign would “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.”
She wrote the arrangement was concocted in an effort to address the mounting debt of the party in the aftermath of President Obama's successful 2012 reelection campaign.
“The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house,” Brazile wrote.
“If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity," Brazile added.
By Joe Concha - 11/03/17
The broadcast evening newscasts on three major networks on Thursday didn't mention bombshell revelations by former Democratic National Committee interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile.
Brazile has written in a new book that she discovered evidence that she said showed Hillary Clinton’s campaign "rigged" the Democratic presidential primary.
"ABC's World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News" and "CBS Evening News" all didn't report the allegations by Brazile on Thursday evening despite it receiving considerable coverage on cable news and in print and online media. Brazile was also trending as one of Twitter's top topics on Thursday.
In excerpts released to Politico Thursday, Brazile writes in her new book, "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House," that it “broke her heart” upon discovering evidence that she said showed the Clinton campaign "rigged" the Democratic nomination system.
“By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” Brazile wrote about a Sept. 7, 2016, call to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who gave Clinton a far more serious challenge for the nomination than many had expected.
Brazile also shares an arrangement between the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Clinton’s joint fundraising committee that indicated the campaign would “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.”
She wrote the arrangement was concocted in an effort to address the mounting debt of the party in the aftermath of President Obama's successful 2012 reelection campaign.
“The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house,” Brazile wrote.
“If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity," Brazile added.
2barney67
Donna Brazile: Hillary controlled the Democratic Party
Donna Brazile describes how Hillary Clinton’s campaign took control of the DNC as far back as August 2015
Matthew Rozsa11.02.2017•10:22 AM
Donna Brazile, the former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman, is explosively outlining how the Hillary Clinton campaign seized control of the Democratic Party as far back as August 2015.
Brazile said that DNC CEO Amy Dacey signed an agreement with Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook in August 2015 known as the Joint Fundraising Agreement, according to Brazile's new editorial in Politico. The agreement, which occurred between the DNC, Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America, stipulated that the Clinton campaign would raise money for and invest in the DNC in return for Clinton controlling the party's finances, strategy and money raised. It also required the DNC to consult with the campaign about "staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings," according to Brazile, and gave the campaign final decision-making power on staffing matters.
The agreement, which Brazile described as "not illegal, but it sure looked unethical," was in part necessitated by the fact that President Barack Obama had left the party in a dire fiscal mess.
"Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly," Brazile wrote. "Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance."
The Clinton campaign also redirected donations from the Hillary Victory Fund, Brazile claimed. The individual limit to the fund was maxed out at $353,400 (based on the fact that there were 32 participating states), and Brazile said the funds were then directed toward the DNC, which then sent the money to the Clinton campaign in Brooklyn. This was possible because individuals can contribute more money to state parties and national committees than presidential campaigns.
The agreement alleged by Brazile would explain a great deal about why the Democratic Party primaries seemed at times to have been rigged in favor of Clinton. This included the debates being scheduled in ways that seemed to advantage her or how, even after Sanders won a series of major primary victories, he still seemed to fall farther behind Clinton in the delegate count.
Donna Brazile describes how Hillary Clinton’s campaign took control of the DNC as far back as August 2015
Matthew Rozsa11.02.2017•10:22 AM
Donna Brazile, the former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman, is explosively outlining how the Hillary Clinton campaign seized control of the Democratic Party as far back as August 2015.
Brazile said that DNC CEO Amy Dacey signed an agreement with Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook in August 2015 known as the Joint Fundraising Agreement, according to Brazile's new editorial in Politico. The agreement, which occurred between the DNC, Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America, stipulated that the Clinton campaign would raise money for and invest in the DNC in return for Clinton controlling the party's finances, strategy and money raised. It also required the DNC to consult with the campaign about "staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings," according to Brazile, and gave the campaign final decision-making power on staffing matters.
The agreement, which Brazile described as "not illegal, but it sure looked unethical," was in part necessitated by the fact that President Barack Obama had left the party in a dire fiscal mess.
"Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly," Brazile wrote. "Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance."
The Clinton campaign also redirected donations from the Hillary Victory Fund, Brazile claimed. The individual limit to the fund was maxed out at $353,400 (based on the fact that there were 32 participating states), and Brazile said the funds were then directed toward the DNC, which then sent the money to the Clinton campaign in Brooklyn. This was possible because individuals can contribute more money to state parties and national committees than presidential campaigns.
The agreement alleged by Brazile would explain a great deal about why the Democratic Party primaries seemed at times to have been rigged in favor of Clinton. This included the debates being scheduled in ways that seemed to advantage her or how, even after Sanders won a series of major primary victories, he still seemed to fall farther behind Clinton in the delegate count.
3barney67
Did Hillary’s rigging at the DNC push Biden out of the race?
by John Podhoretz
The stunning revelation by longtime operative Donna Brazile that the Hillary Clinton campaign secretly took control — literal control — of the Democratic National Committee a year before Hillary became the party’s nominee is the talk of American politics.
As it should be.
Brazile’s piece in Politico describes her shock at the discovery of formal legal paperwork between the two entities when she took the reins at the DNC in August 2016. Brazile had been tapped for the job when DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. Leaked emails had shown how Schultz had been putting her finger on the scale to help Clinton while the insurgent Bernie Sanders campaign was making a serious bid to seize the party nomination away from New York’s favorite carpetbagger.
Her account features ridiculous and unbelievable melodramatics — she says she “gasped” when she found out the truth and that she “lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music” to calm her before she called Sanders to deliver the awful news.
But silly though Brazile’s prose is, her account is vitally important not only for all those who want to understand how American politics works but also for the future of Brazile’s beloved party.
First, it raises key questions about what was happening as Clinton faced a time of trial in the middle of 2015. Her reputation was taking hits as her evasions and denials and untruths about what had happened to the private email server she had set up illegitimately in 2009 seemed to mushroom on a daily basis.
As this was happening, she found herself with only two semi-serious challengers for the nomination — Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
There was another person out there — then-Vice President Joe Biden. Though grieving over the tragic loss of his son Beau, Biden was still seriously considering a late entry into the race. Indeed, it would not be until October that Biden would declare himself out of contention.
Consider, then, that a formal agreement signed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign was executed in August 2015, two months before Biden made his decision.
The agreement, according to Brazile, “specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics and mailings.”
Forget for a moment the unfairness to Sanders that would characterize the next year as he surged against Clinton. What role might this agreement have played in Biden’s decision-making? Did he know? Did Hillary tell him? Did President Barack Obama tell him? Did Biden realize he would be fighting not only Clinton but the entire apparatus of his own party and decide to bag it?
Brazile has done her party a service because this honest account of the maneuverings of the Clinton campaign is a necessary step for Democrats in determining how to gauge their own organizational and ideological health.
This is long overdue. Rather than try to figure out how they contributed themselves to their calamitous 2016 fate, they have spent a year indulging the fantasy that they really won the election and had it stolen from them.
Stolen by Russian ads on Facebook. Stolen by “collusion,” whatever that might be. Stolen by racism. In other words, they were robbed and the only thing that matters now is catching and jailing the robber.
Sorry, fellas. The 2016 election was the culmination, not the beginning, of a Democratic implosion.
Over the previous six years, Democrats had lost 60-plus House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state and local offices. Russians didn’t do that. Democrats did — with the help of a surging Republican Party that found itself after election night in its strongest electoral position across the country since 1928.
Democrats need to understand their own role in their own rotting position — including how they sold themselves to the Clintons for a mess of pottage they never even got to eat — if they are to have any hope of reversing the Republican tide.
Even if their fantasies were made flesh today and Donald Trump were somehow banished from Washington, the Democratic Party would be in no stronger institutional shape than it was yesterday.
Donna Brazile has given her unwilling fellow party members a good, long, unwelcome look in the mirror. Let’s see what they do with it.
by John Podhoretz
The stunning revelation by longtime operative Donna Brazile that the Hillary Clinton campaign secretly took control — literal control — of the Democratic National Committee a year before Hillary became the party’s nominee is the talk of American politics.
As it should be.
Brazile’s piece in Politico describes her shock at the discovery of formal legal paperwork between the two entities when she took the reins at the DNC in August 2016. Brazile had been tapped for the job when DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. Leaked emails had shown how Schultz had been putting her finger on the scale to help Clinton while the insurgent Bernie Sanders campaign was making a serious bid to seize the party nomination away from New York’s favorite carpetbagger.
Her account features ridiculous and unbelievable melodramatics — she says she “gasped” when she found out the truth and that she “lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music” to calm her before she called Sanders to deliver the awful news.
But silly though Brazile’s prose is, her account is vitally important not only for all those who want to understand how American politics works but also for the future of Brazile’s beloved party.
First, it raises key questions about what was happening as Clinton faced a time of trial in the middle of 2015. Her reputation was taking hits as her evasions and denials and untruths about what had happened to the private email server she had set up illegitimately in 2009 seemed to mushroom on a daily basis.
As this was happening, she found herself with only two semi-serious challengers for the nomination — Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
There was another person out there — then-Vice President Joe Biden. Though grieving over the tragic loss of his son Beau, Biden was still seriously considering a late entry into the race. Indeed, it would not be until October that Biden would declare himself out of contention.
Consider, then, that a formal agreement signed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign was executed in August 2015, two months before Biden made his decision.
The agreement, according to Brazile, “specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics and mailings.”
Forget for a moment the unfairness to Sanders that would characterize the next year as he surged against Clinton. What role might this agreement have played in Biden’s decision-making? Did he know? Did Hillary tell him? Did President Barack Obama tell him? Did Biden realize he would be fighting not only Clinton but the entire apparatus of his own party and decide to bag it?
Brazile has done her party a service because this honest account of the maneuverings of the Clinton campaign is a necessary step for Democrats in determining how to gauge their own organizational and ideological health.
This is long overdue. Rather than try to figure out how they contributed themselves to their calamitous 2016 fate, they have spent a year indulging the fantasy that they really won the election and had it stolen from them.
Stolen by Russian ads on Facebook. Stolen by “collusion,” whatever that might be. Stolen by racism. In other words, they were robbed and the only thing that matters now is catching and jailing the robber.
Sorry, fellas. The 2016 election was the culmination, not the beginning, of a Democratic implosion.
Over the previous six years, Democrats had lost 60-plus House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state and local offices. Russians didn’t do that. Democrats did — with the help of a surging Republican Party that found itself after election night in its strongest electoral position across the country since 1928.
Democrats need to understand their own role in their own rotting position — including how they sold themselves to the Clintons for a mess of pottage they never even got to eat — if they are to have any hope of reversing the Republican tide.
Even if their fantasies were made flesh today and Donald Trump were somehow banished from Washington, the Democratic Party would be in no stronger institutional shape than it was yesterday.
Donna Brazile has given her unwilling fellow party members a good, long, unwelcome look in the mirror. Let’s see what they do with it.
4barney67
Sen. Warren: "Yes," The Democratic Presidential Primary Was Rigged For Hillary Clinton
By Ian Schwartz
November 2, 2017
On Thursday's broadcast of The Lead, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told CNN host Jake Tapper she believes that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary was rigged in favor of the party's eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.
TAPPER: Senator, do you believe with the notion that it was rigged?
WARREN: Yes.
By Ian Schwartz
November 2, 2017
On Thursday's broadcast of The Lead, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told CNN host Jake Tapper she believes that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary was rigged in favor of the party's eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.
TAPPER: Senator, do you believe with the notion that it was rigged?
WARREN: Yes.
5barney67
Hillary Clinton on 'Daily Show': Trump Points Fingers After Tragedies, He Has "No Empathy"
By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 2, 2017
On Wednesday's edition of The Daily Show on comedy central, Hillary Clinton chastised President Trump for politicizing tragedies such as the New York City terror attack. Clinton also said Trump has no ability for empathy. She said Trump is always in search of a scapegoat after a tragedy.
By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 2, 2017
On Wednesday's edition of The Daily Show on comedy central, Hillary Clinton chastised President Trump for politicizing tragedies such as the New York City terror attack. Clinton also said Trump has no ability for empathy. She said Trump is always in search of a scapegoat after a tragedy.
6barney67
Donna Brazile Comes Clean After Doing Bernie Sanders Dirty
Daniel J. Flynn
In the 1990 comedy Quick Change, the robbers escape from the bank by blending in with the released hostages. Donna Brazile employs a similar getaway strategy with her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-Ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.
No mea culpa memoir, Hacks refers to those other scoundrels, not Brazile mind you, who tipped the scales in the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating process against Senator Bernie Sanders and those darn Russians who mucked up the beautiful Clinton coronation masterfully orchestrated by Brazile and so many others who sold out their party’s primary voters.
When last we saw Ms. Brazile, she attempted to spin her way out of a scandal by likening a left-wing reporter asking her a pointed question to misogyny. “Sir, if you want to badger me like Donald Trump badgers women you’re welcome to,” Brazile scolded Jordan Chariton.
The perpetrator repeatedly portrayed herself as the “victim of a cybercrime” and, in October of 2016, defensively told Fox News “I will not sit here and be persecuted” in response to questions about sharing the questions for the debate. Maybe if Fox News had the decency to share its queries with Brazile before the interrogation, she might have responded more calmly.
The Young Turks reporter dared ask Brazile whether she owed Bernie Sanders an apology for, in her role as a CNN contributor, sharing debate questions with the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of televised events. She cheated, and then — shocker! — she lied about cheating.
This strategy of deflection failed. In March, Brazile, contrary to her earlier assertions, admitted in Time that “sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”
She now spins herself as the Vermont senator’s paladin battling the corrupt forces in the Democratic Party who rigged the process against him.
“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested,” Brazile writes, published as an excerpt of her book, at Politico. “I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.”
I have my suspicions about Brazile’s suspicions. Given Brazile’s starring role in those leaked emails, one surmises her hunches started long before the release of those emails. Getting to the bottom of this whodunnit, the former Democratic National Committee chair might now want to help O.J. in his quest to find the real killers or exonerate that kid with crumbs on his face with his hand in the cookie jar.
“The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile admits in her new memoir. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
She learned about this over a year ago. But only now, when she stands to make a buck through a book, does Brazile tell us. Give her this: she’s more forthcoming than Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“The funding arrangement with Hillary for America and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” says the author whose behavior was not illegal but sure looked unethical. “If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”
Before she told all in her tell-all, Brazile claims she told all to the main victim, outside of the electorate, of the skullduggery. “When I hung up the call to Bernie,” she confesses, “I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger.”
We know “not out of guilt” because we know Donna Brazile. One normally admits guilt, unambiguously or tacitly, before one feels guilt. People in the wrong just gotta be right. Brazile’s initial response to her personal scandal involved portraying herself as a persecuted victim.
She’s not that. Those requiring instruction into what Brazile really is need only look at the big blue letters on the cover of her book.
Daniel J. Flynn
In the 1990 comedy Quick Change, the robbers escape from the bank by blending in with the released hostages. Donna Brazile employs a similar getaway strategy with her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-Ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.
No mea culpa memoir, Hacks refers to those other scoundrels, not Brazile mind you, who tipped the scales in the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating process against Senator Bernie Sanders and those darn Russians who mucked up the beautiful Clinton coronation masterfully orchestrated by Brazile and so many others who sold out their party’s primary voters.
When last we saw Ms. Brazile, she attempted to spin her way out of a scandal by likening a left-wing reporter asking her a pointed question to misogyny. “Sir, if you want to badger me like Donald Trump badgers women you’re welcome to,” Brazile scolded Jordan Chariton.
The perpetrator repeatedly portrayed herself as the “victim of a cybercrime” and, in October of 2016, defensively told Fox News “I will not sit here and be persecuted” in response to questions about sharing the questions for the debate. Maybe if Fox News had the decency to share its queries with Brazile before the interrogation, she might have responded more calmly.
The Young Turks reporter dared ask Brazile whether she owed Bernie Sanders an apology for, in her role as a CNN contributor, sharing debate questions with the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of televised events. She cheated, and then — shocker! — she lied about cheating.
This strategy of deflection failed. In March, Brazile, contrary to her earlier assertions, admitted in Time that “sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”
She now spins herself as the Vermont senator’s paladin battling the corrupt forces in the Democratic Party who rigged the process against him.
“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested,” Brazile writes, published as an excerpt of her book, at Politico. “I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.”
I have my suspicions about Brazile’s suspicions. Given Brazile’s starring role in those leaked emails, one surmises her hunches started long before the release of those emails. Getting to the bottom of this whodunnit, the former Democratic National Committee chair might now want to help O.J. in his quest to find the real killers or exonerate that kid with crumbs on his face with his hand in the cookie jar.
“The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile admits in her new memoir. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
She learned about this over a year ago. But only now, when she stands to make a buck through a book, does Brazile tell us. Give her this: she’s more forthcoming than Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“The funding arrangement with Hillary for America and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” says the author whose behavior was not illegal but sure looked unethical. “If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”
Before she told all in her tell-all, Brazile claims she told all to the main victim, outside of the electorate, of the skullduggery. “When I hung up the call to Bernie,” she confesses, “I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger.”
We know “not out of guilt” because we know Donna Brazile. One normally admits guilt, unambiguously or tacitly, before one feels guilt. People in the wrong just gotta be right. Brazile’s initial response to her personal scandal involved portraying herself as a persecuted victim.
She’s not that. Those requiring instruction into what Brazile really is need only look at the big blue letters on the cover of her book.
7RickHarsch
She probably has empathy and Trump is clearly crippled in that area.
Having empathy has no necessary connection to election rigging.
Having empathy has no necessary connection to election rigging.
8Carnophile
I've read Brazile's piece - it's not long - and the most pleasing thing about it is the subtext:
"We're sick of you, Hillary, we're not afraid of messing with you any more, Hillary, and you simply don't have enough support, and too much opposition, in the upper echelons of the party to even think about running again."
She had no chance at getting the nomination in 2020 anyway, but this is a satisfying confirmation of it. As someone said, the Clintons were only powerful as long as they were powerful. That is, people didn't want to mess with them (especially in the Dem party) because they had a large, wealthy, and powerful support network, and because they were perceived to have a chance of regaining the White House.
The more Dems smack her around, the more other Dems will smack her around, etc.
(Possibly related: Some people have wondered why the Harvey Weinstein allegations came out when they did, as opposed to, say, decades ago. Same for the Kevin Spacey one. One possibility is that leftists in the media had been covering it up to avoid raising an issue that would hurt Bill and Hill. Now that they’re yesterday’s news, no one cares about that any more.)
"We're sick of you, Hillary, we're not afraid of messing with you any more, Hillary, and you simply don't have enough support, and too much opposition, in the upper echelons of the party to even think about running again."
She had no chance at getting the nomination in 2020 anyway, but this is a satisfying confirmation of it. As someone said, the Clintons were only powerful as long as they were powerful. That is, people didn't want to mess with them (especially in the Dem party) because they had a large, wealthy, and powerful support network, and because they were perceived to have a chance of regaining the White House.
The more Dems smack her around, the more other Dems will smack her around, etc.
(Possibly related: Some people have wondered why the Harvey Weinstein allegations came out when they did, as opposed to, say, decades ago. Same for the Kevin Spacey one. One possibility is that leftists in the media had been covering it up to avoid raising an issue that would hurt Bill and Hill. Now that they’re yesterday’s news, no one cares about that any more.)
9Carnophile
>5 barney67: Hillary Clinton chastised President Trump for politicizing tragedies such as the New York City terror attack. Clinton also said Trump has no ability for empathy. She said Trump is always in search of a scapegoat after a tragedy.
2015: Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255723-obama-mass-shootings-sho...
2017: Chuck Schumer on post-New York calling out of Islamic terrorism: “I guess it’s not too soon to politicize a tragedy”:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/its-not-politicization-when-...
2015: Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255723-obama-mass-shootings-sho...
2017: Chuck Schumer on post-New York calling out of Islamic terrorism: “I guess it’s not too soon to politicize a tragedy”:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/its-not-politicization-when-...
Schumer seemed prepared to capitalize on finding himself in Trump’s sights. “I guess it’s not too soon to politicize a tragedy,” he remarked scornfully. Schumer was joined by prominent Democrats like Representative Adam Schiff and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo... The hypocrisy here is staggering.
10davidgn
For once: thank you, Carnophile, for starting the thread. I was going to have to do it otherwise.
I've read Brazile's piece as well, and it's unbearably artificial. A craven attempt to save her own skin. (Which further implies that less-visible wheels of some sort are turning somewhere, no doubt to the consternation of the Clinton machine).
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-21...
Meanwhile, Sen. Warren hardly comes off better. Some might recall a time when it looked for all the world like she was angling for the bottom half of the Clinton ticket...
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358514-warren-says-she-agrees-that-2016-dem...
I've read Brazile's piece as well, and it's unbearably artificial. A craven attempt to save her own skin. (Which further implies that less-visible wheels of some sort are turning somewhere, no doubt to the consternation of the Clinton machine).
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-21...
Meanwhile, Sen. Warren hardly comes off better. Some might recall a time when it looked for all the world like she was angling for the bottom half of the Clinton ticket...
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358514-warren-says-she-agrees-that-2016-dem...
12lriley
#10--FWIW those excerpts got her book a lot of attention and will help it sell. The truth is Brazile was damaged by her own actions in the 2016 election cycle. She is certainly not a person that's trusted by the left--at least not anymore. What she's said in those excerpts is something I think a whole lot of people (and probably most of those who supported the Sanders candidacy) already suspected as well and for them it's some sort of sad vindication of the corruption they feel they're up against. All in all though it's better that you expose corruption than not.
14davidgn
A decent update/round-up: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-clinton-warren-b...
15barney67
Flashback: Clinton Said Not Accepting Election Results Was ‘Horrifying’
Kerry Picket
11/26/2016
Hillary Clinton, now a private citizen after conceding the election to Donald Trump, wants in on the recount effort Green Party nominee Jill Stein launched Friday, even though she previously called such a notion “horrifying.”
During the final debate between Clinton and Donald Trump last month in Las Vegas, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would honor the results of the election even if he lost.
“I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at it now. What I’ve seen is so bad,” Trump responded.
Wallace pressed the question further, and Trump replied, “What I’m saying is I will tell you at the time.”
“I’ll keep you in suspense,” Trump said.
Clinton, apparently taken aback by Trump’s response to the matter, hit back “That’s horrifying.”
She went on to say, “That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.
We’ve had free and fair elections
We’ve had free and fair elections
We’ve had free and fair elections
Kerry Picket
11/26/2016
Hillary Clinton, now a private citizen after conceding the election to Donald Trump, wants in on the recount effort Green Party nominee Jill Stein launched Friday, even though she previously called such a notion “horrifying.”
During the final debate between Clinton and Donald Trump last month in Las Vegas, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would honor the results of the election even if he lost.
“I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at it now. What I’ve seen is so bad,” Trump responded.
Wallace pressed the question further, and Trump replied, “What I’m saying is I will tell you at the time.”
“I’ll keep you in suspense,” Trump said.
Clinton, apparently taken aback by Trump’s response to the matter, hit back “That’s horrifying.”
She went on to say, “That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.
We’ve had free and fair elections
We’ve had free and fair elections
We’ve had free and fair elections
16barney67
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html
Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
JULY 22, 2016
Top officials at the Democratic National Committee criticized and mocked Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the primary campaign, even though the organization publicly insisted that it was neutral in the race, according to committee emails made public on Friday by WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks posted almost 20,000 emails sent or received by a handful of top committee officials and provided an online tool to search through them. While WikiLeaks did not reveal the source of the leak, the committee said last month that Russian hackers had penetrated its computer system.
Among the emails released on Friday were several embarrassing messages that suggest the committee’s chairwoman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, and other officials favored Hillary Clinton over Mr. Sanders — a claim the senator made repeatedly during the primaries.
Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
JULY 22, 2016
Top officials at the Democratic National Committee criticized and mocked Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the primary campaign, even though the organization publicly insisted that it was neutral in the race, according to committee emails made public on Friday by WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks posted almost 20,000 emails sent or received by a handful of top committee officials and provided an online tool to search through them. While WikiLeaks did not reveal the source of the leak, the committee said last month that Russian hackers had penetrated its computer system.
Among the emails released on Friday were several embarrassing messages that suggest the committee’s chairwoman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, and other officials favored Hillary Clinton over Mr. Sanders — a claim the senator made repeatedly during the primaries.
17barney67
Every DNC Chair Candidate Claims Primaries Weren’t Rigged
Candidates pander to the establishment while worsening divide with disenfranchised progressives
By Michael Sainato • 01/23/17
“We, as your supporters/volunteers/donors and advocates for the People’s movement are deeply concerned about what appears to be systemic election rigging within the Democratic primary and the failure of the Sanders’ campaign to address problems as they have revealed themselves,” wrote Sane Progressive Debbie Lusignan in an open letter to Sen. Bernie Sanders.
During the primaries, voter suppression and fraud were rampant.
In New York, 126,000 voters were purged from voter rolls. In Arizona, long lines in the state’s most populous county prevented thousands from voting.
Bill Clinton effectively shut down a major polling site in Massachusetts by entering it while votes were being cast, and Clinton partisans deemed his electioneering “legal.”
In Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid called in favors to casinos to load Las Vegas caucuses with Clinton supporters, and video evidence reveals many of them were not registered to vote. At the Nevada Democratic Party State Convention, when many of Clinton’s delegates failed to show up, the Party Chair broke rules to tilt the number of delegates back in Clinton’s favor. When Sanders supporters protested, the Nevada Democratic Party and DNC spun their protests to attack Bernie Sanders.
California had a laundry list of problems even after The Associated Press undemocratically called the primaries for Hillary Clinton the day before the state voted.
President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden also intervened on behalf of Hillary Clinton by making unprecedented endorsements of two Democratic Primary Candidates in Florida: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Florida Senate Candidate Patrick Murphy. Their primary opponents, Tim Canova and former Congressman Alan Grayson, had endorsed Bernie Sanders.
After Wikileaks released DNC emails that confirmed that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her staff were working on behalf of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party suppressed dissent from Sanders supporters at the Democratic National Convention and banned popular Sanders surrogate Nina Turner from introducing Sanders.
Additionally, when Wikileaks released Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails, the Democratic Party lied and used fear mongering to prevent the content from being discussed, despite the fact that the emails suggested that several mainstream media journalists were actively colluding with the Clinton campaign.
Candidates pander to the establishment while worsening divide with disenfranchised progressives
By Michael Sainato • 01/23/17
“We, as your supporters/volunteers/donors and advocates for the People’s movement are deeply concerned about what appears to be systemic election rigging within the Democratic primary and the failure of the Sanders’ campaign to address problems as they have revealed themselves,” wrote Sane Progressive Debbie Lusignan in an open letter to Sen. Bernie Sanders.
During the primaries, voter suppression and fraud were rampant.
In New York, 126,000 voters were purged from voter rolls. In Arizona, long lines in the state’s most populous county prevented thousands from voting.
Bill Clinton effectively shut down a major polling site in Massachusetts by entering it while votes were being cast, and Clinton partisans deemed his electioneering “legal.”
In Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid called in favors to casinos to load Las Vegas caucuses with Clinton supporters, and video evidence reveals many of them were not registered to vote. At the Nevada Democratic Party State Convention, when many of Clinton’s delegates failed to show up, the Party Chair broke rules to tilt the number of delegates back in Clinton’s favor. When Sanders supporters protested, the Nevada Democratic Party and DNC spun their protests to attack Bernie Sanders.
California had a laundry list of problems even after The Associated Press undemocratically called the primaries for Hillary Clinton the day before the state voted.
President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden also intervened on behalf of Hillary Clinton by making unprecedented endorsements of two Democratic Primary Candidates in Florida: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Florida Senate Candidate Patrick Murphy. Their primary opponents, Tim Canova and former Congressman Alan Grayson, had endorsed Bernie Sanders.
After Wikileaks released DNC emails that confirmed that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her staff were working on behalf of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party suppressed dissent from Sanders supporters at the Democratic National Convention and banned popular Sanders surrogate Nina Turner from introducing Sanders.
Additionally, when Wikileaks released Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails, the Democratic Party lied and used fear mongering to prevent the content from being discussed, despite the fact that the emails suggested that several mainstream media journalists were actively colluding with the Clinton campaign.
18barney67
Clinton’s Greatest Hits
A compendium of the top false and misleading claims by the Democratic presidential candidate.
By D'Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely
The New York Times on March 2, 2015, reported that Clinton “exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state.” The emails were stored on a private server at her New York home. At the State Department’s request, Clinton turned over 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages, and deleted 31,830 emails she deemed personal. Clinton’s defense of her unusual email arrangements resulted in numerous false and misleading claims.
At a campaign rally in Kentucky, Clinton said that she “read” that Trump “said he wants to … abolish the VA.”
In a speech criticizing Trump, Clinton again twisted the Republican nominee’s words when she claimed that he said “women will start making equal pay as soon as we do as good a job as men.” Trump doesn’t support equal pay legislation, but he has said that he believes in paying people based on performance rather than gender.
Clinton, at a Democratic debate, claimed that private insurance premiums have “gone up so much” in some states that didn’t expand Medicaid because hospitals shifted their costs for providing emergency care for the uninsured. In doing so, she was singling out Republican-controlled states. But we found no evidence to support that claim, and experts disagree on whether such cost shifting occurs.
Arguing that she has been tough on Wall Street, Clinton falsely stated that she is “the only candidate” in the presidential campaign “on either side” who has been attacked in advertising funded by “Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers.” Actually, several candidates have been the target of ads funded in part by those in the financial industry, and Trump appeared at that time to be the top target.
Clinton claimed that all government investigations into the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi concluded that “nobody did anything wrong” at the State Department. But an independent board found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels.”
A compendium of the top false and misleading claims by the Democratic presidential candidate.
By D'Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely
The New York Times on March 2, 2015, reported that Clinton “exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state.” The emails were stored on a private server at her New York home. At the State Department’s request, Clinton turned over 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages, and deleted 31,830 emails she deemed personal. Clinton’s defense of her unusual email arrangements resulted in numerous false and misleading claims.
At a campaign rally in Kentucky, Clinton said that she “read” that Trump “said he wants to … abolish the VA.”
In a speech criticizing Trump, Clinton again twisted the Republican nominee’s words when she claimed that he said “women will start making equal pay as soon as we do as good a job as men.” Trump doesn’t support equal pay legislation, but he has said that he believes in paying people based on performance rather than gender.
Clinton, at a Democratic debate, claimed that private insurance premiums have “gone up so much” in some states that didn’t expand Medicaid because hospitals shifted their costs for providing emergency care for the uninsured. In doing so, she was singling out Republican-controlled states. But we found no evidence to support that claim, and experts disagree on whether such cost shifting occurs.
Arguing that she has been tough on Wall Street, Clinton falsely stated that she is “the only candidate” in the presidential campaign “on either side” who has been attacked in advertising funded by “Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers.” Actually, several candidates have been the target of ads funded in part by those in the financial industry, and Trump appeared at that time to be the top target.
Clinton claimed that all government investigations into the terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi concluded that “nobody did anything wrong” at the State Department. But an independent board found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels.”
19John5918
>18 barney67:
Barney, do you have an opinion on any of this, or are you merely demonstrating your prowess at copying and pasting? Let me be the first to say you're very good at it.
Barney, do you have an opinion on any of this, or are you merely demonstrating your prowess at copying and pasting? Let me be the first to say you're very good at it.
20oregonobsessionz
>19 John5918:
It is sometimes hard to remember that Pro and Con was once a place where you could discuss issues with people who disagree, without descending into the flame wars prevalent elsewhere online. Now it seems that a typical thread consists of lengthy cut and paste posts by a single user.
It is sometimes hard to remember that Pro and Con was once a place where you could discuss issues with people who disagree, without descending into the flame wars prevalent elsewhere online. Now it seems that a typical thread consists of lengthy cut and paste posts by a single user.
21RickHarsch
>I will try to elevate the discussion by suggesting to our right wing folk that their vision of 'the left' is monolithic and meaningless. I am definitely left, and probably left of anyone here besides iriley. Here is a good example via a review of The Monkey Wrench Gang. If you read to the end, you get the full picture: https://www.librarything.com/work/1754838/reviews/147776180
23lriley
I don't know if there's such a thing as the most left. At least I don't think of it as a competition.
I think it's logical to want good things that are possible even when your political representatives say they're not. For instance when they say a single payer system is impossible and yet it's possible in places all over the world. It's logical as well for us to look at all the weather events and conclude that the things we do are making these events not only worse but more frequent. It's also possible for us to figure out ways to share the wealth more equitably throughout our society. To not hate people just because of their religion, race, sex or sexual orientation or that they weren't born within our borders. If you think about things this way these days (at least in the U.S.) you are automatically going to be a person on the left.
I think it's logical to want good things that are possible even when your political representatives say they're not. For instance when they say a single payer system is impossible and yet it's possible in places all over the world. It's logical as well for us to look at all the weather events and conclude that the things we do are making these events not only worse but more frequent. It's also possible for us to figure out ways to share the wealth more equitably throughout our society. To not hate people just because of their religion, race, sex or sexual orientation or that they weren't born within our borders. If you think about things this way these days (at least in the U.S.) you are automatically going to be a person on the left.
24RickHarsch
>22 John5918: Yes, you are definitely on the left as it was meant by, say, sociologists a mere 20 to 30 years ago.
>23 lriley: Iriley, I merely mean by degree or however you measure. I need to express that there is a continuum because idiots, the general congregation of whom are right of Obama, say, tend to have forgotten that left is left of liberal. That leftists did not support Dukakis, for example.
Your example pretty much leads to this truism: in general, people who think inequitable economic systems are fine no matter the consequence on humans and their environment are liberal and right of liberal. But your last sentence I think is only true if you add that you are going to be on the left according to idiots, who cannot think the political spectrum through any longer.
>23 lriley: Iriley, I merely mean by degree or however you measure. I need to express that there is a continuum because idiots, the general congregation of whom are right of Obama, say, tend to have forgotten that left is left of liberal. That leftists did not support Dukakis, for example.
Your example pretty much leads to this truism: in general, people who think inequitable economic systems are fine no matter the consequence on humans and their environment are liberal and right of liberal. But your last sentence I think is only true if you add that you are going to be on the left according to idiots, who cannot think the political spectrum through any longer.
25barney67
>19 John5918: I thought this forum was for copying and pasting. Isn't it?
26proximity1
People who claim they are leftists but who supported--virtually or actively--the campaigns of the Clintons, the Obamas, the Rahm Emanuels, the Schumers, the Pelosis, the Feinsteins, etc.--crack my shit up.
People who claim to defend civil liberties but then are prepared to shit-can an entire electoral outcome simply because they regard it as abhorent to their peculiar political tastes--which are both figuratively and literally, "elitist"--crack my shit up.
Many of the "leftists" at LT are ideologically, from a political point of view, merely differing from Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz or Steve Bannon in the details of their doctrinaire views; it amounts to a disagreement about how the table silverware ought to be properly set out. For intolerance, for close-mindedness, for authoritarian impulses, there is not that much which separates one from the other.
Lefists with firmly closed minds are no better than Right-wing reactionary ideologues with similarly firmly-closed minds. In the name of "feminism", for example, _many_ so-called "liberals" here are adamant in their support of astonishingly sexist claims, arguments and opinions. It's stunning and, typically, these people are completely oblivious to their blatant sexist views.
Between the two major-party candidates, it was Trump's which presented the clearly fairer, more open, straight-forward challenge. Trump (in the primaries) actually faced, debated--after his own peculiar fashion--and beat his opponents at their own game and he used the same tools and procedures and rules available to many or most or all of them.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, by contrast, was, even before its formal launch, a carefully-planned and executed fraud upon democratic open-government, a fraud upon fair or principled electoral campaigning. She was not just a liar but a flagrant cheat and she depended on the use of deceit and cheating to side-line her challenger, Bernie Sanders. This had two very important consequences for the country and for Clinton and her campaign. First, it deeply disgusted and alienated millions of potential voters--regardless of their political affiliations. And, second, it helped ensure Clinton's assuming herself to enjoy a comfortable margin on which to operate and, therefore, to act in her own remarkably stupid and arrogant ways. She did the most amazing job of defeating herself through her own blind stupidity; there are few such examples in the history of U.S. presidential electoral politics.
Much of the country has no idea and cannot conceive of how fortunate it is that Clinton was in the end not elected president.
People who claim to defend civil liberties but then are prepared to shit-can an entire electoral outcome simply because they regard it as abhorent to their peculiar political tastes--which are both figuratively and literally, "elitist"--crack my shit up.
Many of the "leftists" at LT are ideologically, from a political point of view, merely differing from Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz or Steve Bannon in the details of their doctrinaire views; it amounts to a disagreement about how the table silverware ought to be properly set out. For intolerance, for close-mindedness, for authoritarian impulses, there is not that much which separates one from the other.
Lefists with firmly closed minds are no better than Right-wing reactionary ideologues with similarly firmly-closed minds. In the name of "feminism", for example, _many_ so-called "liberals" here are adamant in their support of astonishingly sexist claims, arguments and opinions. It's stunning and, typically, these people are completely oblivious to their blatant sexist views.
Between the two major-party candidates, it was Trump's which presented the clearly fairer, more open, straight-forward challenge. Trump (in the primaries) actually faced, debated--after his own peculiar fashion--and beat his opponents at their own game and he used the same tools and procedures and rules available to many or most or all of them.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, by contrast, was, even before its formal launch, a carefully-planned and executed fraud upon democratic open-government, a fraud upon fair or principled electoral campaigning. She was not just a liar but a flagrant cheat and she depended on the use of deceit and cheating to side-line her challenger, Bernie Sanders. This had two very important consequences for the country and for Clinton and her campaign. First, it deeply disgusted and alienated millions of potential voters--regardless of their political affiliations. And, second, it helped ensure Clinton's assuming herself to enjoy a comfortable margin on which to operate and, therefore, to act in her own remarkably stupid and arrogant ways. She did the most amazing job of defeating herself through her own blind stupidity; there are few such examples in the history of U.S. presidential electoral politics.
Much of the country has no idea and cannot conceive of how fortunate it is that Clinton was in the end not elected president.
