Thursday, November 02, 2017

Donna Brazile: Hillary Campaign Ran the DNC

Donna Brazile has written a Politico article claiming that the Democratic National Committee was in such deep debt in 2015 that Hillary Clinton's campaign bailed it out -- in exchange for control of the DNC a year before she became the nominee. Brazile writes, "'Wait,' I said. 'That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?' Gary [Gensler] said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse. 'That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie [Wasserman Schultz],' he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. 'It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.'"

More

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. 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. ...

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. ...

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it 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.

Comments

What a liar she is. controlled the DNC funds in a money-laundering scheme while strangling down-ballet dems.

Add Karma to the 'What Happened' book tour.

Boy, oh, boy...we dodged a bullet.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 11:04 AM

Calling this "money laundering" is hyperbole. There was no crooked money coming in that was being cleaned. Money launding is a crime. Brazile writes that this was not illegal.

But if her claim is true, this is the first credible evidence that the party wasn't a genuinely open primary in 2016. Bernie had a fair shake in the open process -- the primaries, caucuses and eventual debate schedule -- but that doesn't make it acceptable for Hillary's people to take over the party's funding pre-nomination.

So dumb. Obama should have put more effort into keeping the DNC solvent through 2015. Hillary should have played fair with the DNC instead of putting a thumb on the scale. Both of them should have supported someone far more competent than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC chair.

Sigh.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 11:18 AM

Boy, oh, boy...we dodged a bullet.

Saying this when Trump is president is hilarious.

If you dodge one bullet and another bullet hits you, you haven't dodged a bullet.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 11:22 AM

She "found the cancer, but wasn't going to kill the patient" So there's corruption but the answer is for Bernie to throw his support behind Clinton because of the Trump. Bernie must be one very patient human being.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-11-02 11:22 AM

Brazile didn't find out until well after the Democratic National Convention (when she became interim chair). What do you think she could have done at that point? That's probably why Bernie was allegedly stoic. He knew no corrective solution was possible.

#5 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 11:30 AM

If you dodge one bullet and another bullet hits you, you haven't dodged a bullet.

#3 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-02 11:22 AM | REPLY

That's wrong. You definitely dodged a bullet. You just didn't dodge bullets, plural.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 11:39 AM

You're being excessively pedantic.

A person runs from a lifetime NRA member with a gun. Five bullets are fired. Four miss and one hits.

Does the person say, "Boy, oh, boy ... we dodged a bullet"?

No. The person says, "Ow!"

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 11:56 AM

"It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support."

"Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary's campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as "essentially ... money laundering" for the Clinton campaign, Hillary's people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie's people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

"I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way."

She lied to Bernie,the newspapers, downstream democrats, voters, and the American people.

On top of that, her tentacles are all over this Russian collusion BS.

Lesser evil, indeed.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 12:06 PM

#7 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-02 11:56 AM | FLAG:

I'm being appropriately pedantic. You are being excessively hyperbolic.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 12:11 PM

#8 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2017-11-02 12:06 PM | FLAG:

It's not money laundering if it's legal. It's not even really laundering, they're not obfuscating the source it's all well documented. Bernie could have been part of this and used his leverage to reform the DNC to prevent single person financial takeovers, but he was too busy being independent. That's not a bad thing, but only a fool things a political party is fair to outsiders.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 12:16 PM

Politico called it "essentially money laundering' not because it's a criminal offense, but because from an ethical standpoint, it's money-laundering.

She created a funnel of money to herself, while dropping crumbs downstream - which is her economic policy for america.

Also the model of her 'charitable foundation'.

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 12:22 PM

"Also the model of her 'charitable foundation'."

Nonsense.

The CF, like other charities, must have transparent spending. Feel free to show us where money is funneled to HRC:
www.clintonfoundation.org

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-02 12:25 PM

On top of that, her tentacles are all over this Russian collusion BS.

A Trump campaign official pleaded guilty and you're still calling the Russian collusion investigation "BS."

When you do that, you sound like a paid Russian troll. I think I'm going to start banning users who can't be honest that the Russia investigation is (a) credible and (b) has found evidence of collusion. This isn't Twitter. I don't want to provide a forum for constant willful dishonesty. It's just a waste of everyone's time for people to lie like Trump.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 12:27 PM

"I told Bernie I had found Hillary's Joint Fundraising Agreement."

I don't know if this makes a difference or not, but Bernie also signed a Joint Fundraising Agreement with the DNC two month's after Hillary did:

Sanders campaign inks joint fundraising pact with DNC 11/05/2015T

www.politico.com

Are these two agreements somehow different? Someone needs to ask Donna Brazile/DNC about this.

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 12:28 PM

Politico called it "essentially money laundering' not because it's a criminal offense, but because from an ethical standpoint, it's money-laundering.

That's a huge stretch. It wasn't a crime, so calling it money laundering is just axe-grinding hyperbole.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 12:29 PM

I'm being appropriately pedantic. You are being excessively hyperbolic.

We didn't dodge a bullet in 2016. We got the worst president in U.S. history.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 12:31 PM

(GWB was a worse president. GWB is a war criminal and belongs in a prison. Trump is a lying conman buffoon.)

#17 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-02 12:36 PM

Again, excessively hyperbolic. He'll end up in the bottom third, but it's hard to top Pierce, Harding, and quite a few others.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 12:36 PM

Again, excessively hyperbolic. He'll end up in the bottom third, but it's hard to top Pierce, Harding, and quite a few others.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 12:36 PM

But if her claim is true, this is the first credible evidence that the party wasn't a genuinely open primary in 2016. Bernie had a fair shake in the open process -- the primaries, caucuses and eventual debate schedule -- but that doesn't make it acceptable for Hillary's people to take over the party's funding pre-nomination.

So dumb. Obama should have put more effort into keeping the DNC solvent through 2015. Hillary should have played fair with the DNC instead of putting a thumb on the scale. Both of them should have supported someone far more competent than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC chair.

Sigh.

#2 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-02 11:18 AM

Congrats Rogers, you just won (for the first time, I believe) the Coveted Moment of Clarity Award (tm) for today!!!

Keep up the good work, and thanks for hosting all of us idiots!!!

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 12:37 PM

But if her claim is true, this is the first credible evidence that the party wasn't a genuinely open primary in 2016. Bernie had a fair shake in the open process -- the primaries, caucuses and eventual debate schedule -- but that doesn't make it acceptable for Hillary's people to take over the party's funding pre-nomination.

Ahem, this isn't the first credible evidence. This corroborates primary source emails which were the first credible evidence, as outlined in the excerpt from the book.

At this point, no reasonable person could make the argument that Bernie had a fair shake with the DNC while the Clinton campaign was secretly financing the DNC.

#21 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2017-11-02 12:37 PM

On a personal note, can't we just move on already? (And by "we" I mean us liberals and Democrats.) It's done. Past. 2016 is gone forever. Bernie's stoicism is the correct response to what has already transpired. Let's now focus on trying to put procedures in place so it doesn't happen again. Let's NOT spend our energy blaming each other or defending what happened. Forget HRC. Forget Bernie. Keep our eyes on the target. 2018.

#22 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-02 12:39 PM

Funny that Corky hasn't appeared to put this fire out...maybe the link to his favorite Atlantic article has been severed.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 12:41 PM

That's a huge stretch. It wasn't a crime, so calling it money laundering is just axe-grinding hyperbole.
#15 | POSTED BY RCADE

Would you describe this activity as Honest and Transparent Fundraising and Disbursement as Promised?

#24 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 12:42 PM

So dumb. Obama should have put more effort into keeping the DNC solvent through 2015. Hillary should have played fair with the DNC instead of putting a thumb on the scale. Both of them should have supported someone far more competent than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC chair.

Sigh.

#2 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-02 11:18 AM
Congrats Rogers, you just won (for the first time, I believe) the Coveted Moment of Clarity Award (tm) for today!!!
Keep up the good work, and thanks for hosting all of us idiots!!!

#20 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I too will commend that response. It's a start.

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 12:44 PM

It sounds to me like Bernie had the same deal as Clinton but didn't utilize it (?):

DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach pointed out that the national party committee "offered to engage in the same joint fundraising efforts with all the major presidential candidates early in the cycle, and we welcome the efforts of the candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties now to ensure we can build out the infrastructure to win in November."

Sanders' campaign late last year signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but the committee has been largely inactive. Instead, after Sanders was chided by Clinton allies for not helping down-ballot Democrats, he sent out appeals to his vaunted email list that helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trio of progressive House candidates, who got to keep all the cash.

The Hillary Victory Fund, by contrast, allows the Clinton campaign to maintain tight control over the cash it raises and spends. The fund represents by far the most ambitious use to date of a joint fundraising committee -- and arguably one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics.

www.politico.com

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 12:45 PM

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nobody listens to me however.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-02 12:46 PM

Because you're hysterical, ma'am.

;)

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 12:47 PM

Having read the article, it strikes me as curious that Brazile is writing this massive CYA and publishing it mere days before the one year anniversary of the election. The timing of this is suspicious, why now? Usually when someone in politics writes a piece like this they time its release for a reason, I wonder what else is going on behind the scenes at the DNC that caused this to come out?

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 12:49 PM

DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach pointed out that the national party committee "offered to engage in the same joint fundraising efforts with all the major presidential candidates early in the cycle, and we welcome the efforts of the candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties now to ensure we can build out the infrastructure to win in November."

#26 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

This is kind of what makes it a non-story. This is literally how it works every presidential election year. People think its unethical or wrong because they are surprised that it works this way every election cycle. But the party has trouble raising money outside its political candidate. It's how it is.

Don't you remember the articles about the RNC having huge money issues because Trump wasn't doing his fundraising or coordinating?

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 12:50 PM

The Hillary Victory Fund, by contrast...

#26 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Was touted day and night here, as the reason Hillary had DNC favoritism; because she was stumping for and raising cash for down-ballot candidates while Bernie did nothing for the DNC. As it turns out, she was lying and keeping the cash for her own campaign while dropping crumbs to the little people.

Which is the basis of her economic policies for the middle class and poor - crumbs for the masses.

Clinton camp smashes fundraising record: $143 million in August - www.cnn.com

And yet the DNC is broke. LoL.

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 12:51 PM

#26 This seems to be the catch that has folks crying foul play:

According to the agreements signed by the participating committees, which were obtained by POLITICO, the money is required to be distributed, at least initially, based on a formula set forth in joint fundraising agreements signed by the participants. The first $2,700 goes to the Clinton campaign, the next $33,400 goes to the DNC, and any remaining funds are to be distributed among the state parties.

But what happens to the cash after that initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign. Its chief operating officer, Beth Jones, is the treasurer of the victory fund. And FEC filings show that within a day of most transfers from the victory fund to the state parties, identical sums were transferred from the state party accounts to the DNC, which Sanders' supporters have accused of functioning as an adjunct of the Clinton campaign.

www.politico.com

If Bernie had raised money through his "largely inactive" account, would he have gotten to say where that money went? That said, I agree Clinton shouldn't have kept so much for herself and should have passed more money down to the states.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 12:53 PM

Funny that RoC can't get me offa his mind. It's a bit creepy, actually.

As Gal's post points out, and as Bernie has said, the Primary was not rigged against him. He had every opportunity to participate fully... and he had the advantage of the undemocratic Caucuses.

Rcade is correct that Obama should have been paying more attention to the DNC's finances so that they wouldn't need to be bailed out. That said, Clinton was the landslide choice of Dem voters and had the same kind of control of the DNC as she would have had had she not bailed them out.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 12:54 PM

"Don't you remember the articles about the RNC having huge money issues because Trump wasn't doing his fundraising or coordinating?"

He knew he didn't have to worry about it, Putin was taking care of his advertising for him and paying for it with Rubles.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-02 01:00 PM

"This is kind of what makes it a non-story."

It's right there in the article that Bernie "ignored" the agreement:

"Hello, senator. I've completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer," I said. "But I will not kill the patient discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it.

They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary's campaign had taken it another step.

I told Bernie I had found Hillary's Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

I agree that Clinton should have given more money to the states (hello!?!), but is the complaint that some of the money she raised should have gone to Bernie? I don't understand at this point. Definitely above my paygrade.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 01:00 PM

Ahem, this isn't the first credible evidence. This corroborates primary source emails ...

Stolen emails and documents are not credible until they are confirmed to be accurate. Anyone who believes something just because a criminal hacker produced it is out of their minds.

A "primary source" is something with some factual basis, like Donna Brazile's first-hand account. It isn't everything included in a huge document dump sent to an accused rapist who is dodging extradition.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 01:04 PM

Last year during the primaries, it was being claimed by yourself, Corky, Danni, and Twin that "Hillary is raising MILLIONS upon MILLIONS for downstream candidates" as to the reason that the DNC swore fealty to her, while "Bernie aint doing sqwat" for the them.

Turns out they got crumbs. Because you were lied to, believed it, and then defended her lies with bogus information.

Hillary is the The Queen of financial hocus-pocus.

#37 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 01:08 PM

#37 was retort to Gal's #35

#38 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 01:09 PM

"This is kind of what makes it a non-story."

I just talked to a couple of my former partners who are in the State and Government department of my old firm and the FEC lawyer said that this may be highly illegal:

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?"

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

The rumors that they heard is that the FEC may be on the verge of filing charges against unknown DNC officials and Brazile wanted to get out in front of those charges by proclaiming that she knew nothing about it.

Medusa must be crapping her panties right about now.

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:11 PM

Good. lock them all up.

#40 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 01:12 PM

Stolen emails and documents are not credible until they are confirmed to be accurate.

Sorry to have to point this out, but to be fair RCade, that rule only applies here on the DR to emails written by Democrats.

#41 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:13 PM

"Not illegal but unethical" is the Clinton sweet spot.

I wonder if this would be coming out if she hadn't written that ridiculous book.

#42 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-02 01:18 PM

- is the Clinton sweet spot.

Lol. So true.

#43 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 01:20 PM

"Stolen emails and documents are not credible until they are confirmed to be accurate. Anyone who believes something just because a criminal hacker produced it is out of their minds."

Gmail MD5 hashing proves they are accurate.

#44 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2017-11-02 01:20 PM

This isn't gonna stop, is it? All of you are gonna keep picking this scab until it once again gets bloody and infected. I'm almost expecting some of you to start quoting Trump and calling HRC by the name "Crooked Hillary". While others of you cover your ears, jump up and down and go "blah blah blah she did nothing wrong blah blah blah she did nothing wrong". Donna Brazille is a self serving political pig. Let's move on already.

#45 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-02 01:21 PM

#45

I completely agree, but unfortunately this will just add fuel to the ongoing Democratic Civil War and you know that the Trumpers are going to make this into literally a Federal Case to get the focus away from their obvious collusion with the Kremlin.

It's things like this that make the DNC no better than the RNC, just a different color of the same excrement. To quote RCade...

Sigh.

#46 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-02 01:27 PM

"the FEC lawyer said that this may be highly illegal:"

Maybe, opinions vary:

Expert: Clinton joint fundraising effort falls into 'gray area'

www.politico.com

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 01:28 PM

"Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC."

I don't know anything about Election Finance law, but it seems to me that if money is being donated to State's Parties after an individual had maxed out on direct contributions yet the DNC funneled that money back to a candidate, that would be against the law.

#48 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-02 01:30 PM

This isn't gonna stop, is it? All of you are gonna keep picking this scab until it once again gets bloody and infected. I'm almost expecting some of you to start quoting Trump and calling HRC by the name "Crooked Hillary". While others of you cover your ears, jump up and down and go "blah blah blah she did nothing wrong blah blah blah she did nothing wrong". Donna Brazille is a self serving political pig. Let's move on already.

Tom Perez is the chair, and Kamala Harris and Corey Booker are getting pushed to the front of the party. Looks like nobody is ready to move on, especially the DNC.

#49 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2017-11-02 01:31 PM

From Gal Tuesdays article from May 2016:

"The arrangement has sparked concerns among campaign finance watchdogs and allies of Clinton's Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party's primary, and then win the White House."

Sounds like their concerns were very well founded.

#50 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-02 01:43 PM

Donna Brazille is a self serving political pig.

Sorry Sully, I already gave out the Moment of Clarity Award today to RCade, this would have gotten it otherwise.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:45 PM

Donna Brazille is a self serving political pig.
-----
Sorry Sully, I already gave out the Moment of Clarity Award today to RCade, this would have gotten it otherwise.

#51 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

FYI - Sully didn't make that remark. It was Moder8.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 01:47 PM

Gal, I would like to point out that when that article in #47 was posted pretty much everyone was convinced that Hillary was going to win, so the "grey area" wouldn't matter since she would control the appointees to the DOJ and the FEC.

Best laid plans and all that.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:47 PM

Oops, sorry Moder8. my apologies.

It just sounded like a Sully remark.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:48 PM

"They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.

"It's a one-sided benefit," said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign."

The bold section was one of the clubs I was bludgeoned with here last year.

#55 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 01:50 PM

Jeff Weaver brought this up during the campaign:

While the use of joint fundraising agreements has existed for some time -- it is unprecedented for the DNC to allow a joint committee to be exploited to the benefit of one candidate in the midst of a contested nominating contest," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager.

berniesanders.com

I can't tell if there is a there there or if this was just part of the campaign battle between the two candidates. Time will tell.

"Donna Brazille is a self serving political pig. Let's move on already."

It sounds to me like Brazile is reaching out to Bernie and his voters, which tells you, if people didn't know already, the Clintons are history. Is Brazile deliberately setting the them (and the DNC) up for something she knows is illegal, rather than just unethical as she says in her article? Wow, that would really be something.

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 01:51 PM

#56 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

She's definitely getting ahead of a yet to be published story.

I predict a denial from Clinton at almost any minute.

#57 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 01:55 PM

What happened to the money Bernie raised through the agreement, if there was any? Was it treated differently than the money Hillary raised? If it was, that would be proof positive of unfair treatment.

#58 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 01:55 PM

Is Brazile deliberately setting the them (and the DNC) up for something she knows is illegal, rather than just unethical as she says in her article? Wow, that would really be something.

The next couple of days will be telling. One thing to keep in mind, the RNC probably does the same thing, so they may stay silent on this issue.

This may also be a "confessional" to keep charges at bay, yet another time honored DC tradition.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:57 PM

"Gal, I would like to point out that when that article in #47 was posted pretty much everyone was convinced that Hillary was going to win, so the "grey area" wouldn't matter since she would control the appointees to the DOJ and the FEC."

Maybe, or maybe it's like tax loopholes that some people take advantage of and others don't. Like I said, time will tell.

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 01:58 PM

I predict a denial from Clinton at almost any minute.

That would probably be a detailed explanation interwoven with a series of deflections, which the Clintons are masters at.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 01:59 PM

I think it'd be more accurate to say they were supposed to run the DNC, but instead they crashed and burned it.

#62 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 02:06 PM

"Donna Brazille is a self serving political pig. Let's move on already."

I've always like Brazille, but I will say this: there is something fishy about her claims that she "found" Hillary's agreement in Sept. right before the election and just in time to ask Bernie to go out and support Clinton when the issue had been in the news since April. Yeah, I know she wasn't head of the DNC then, but she is politically savvy. And what's with putting out this article now as opposed to, say, 6 months ago? Things that make me say, hmmmm.

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 02:26 PM

Yeah, I know she wasn't head of the DNC then, but she is politically savvy.

People conveniently forget that she was Vice-Chair of the DNC from 2011 until she replaced Medusa (from Wikipedia, quickest source I could find):

2012 presidential election[edit]
For several weeks in the spring of 2011, she served as interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. As vice-chair of the DNC, she led the organization during the transition between outgoing chair Tim Kaine, who resigned to run for the U.S. Senate, and his successor, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was not permitted to ascend to the post until at least fifteen days after being nominated on April 5, 2011.[18] Following Wasserman Schultz's installation as DNC chair, Brazile returned to her post as vice-chair.

2016 presidential election[edit]

Brazile campaigns for Hillary Clinton at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire, October 7, 2016.
After Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned her position as chairperson of the Democratic National Committee on July 24, 2016, at the start of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Brazile became interim chairperson of the DNC.[19][73][20]

She knew full well what was going on and is now running for the hills.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 02:39 PM

"Anyone who believes something just because a criminal hacker produced it is out of their minds"
~Rcade

A simple denial would put a lot of it to rest, but not denying it makes it all the more suspicious.

#65 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-11-02 02:40 PM

#65

Therein lies the quandary, it's potentially dangerous to deny something that ultimately can be proven true.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 02:50 PM

"She knew full well what was going on and is now running for the hills."

I don't know if she knew full well. It doesn't see like she's a fan of DWS, so I doubt they were in close communication. And one of the articles I linked to talked about changes to the law in 2014 that wouldn't have been in play when she ran the DNC. That said, she makes it sound like she had to search to find the info she discovered, and that she makes her the hero of this story.

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 02:55 PM

That said, Clinton was the landslide choice of Dem voters and had the same kind of control of the DNC as she would have had had she not bailed them out.
#33 | POSTED BY CORKY

She was the landslide choice of registered democrats, not democratic voters. Will you ever understand that just because the DNC did nothing illegal does not make what they did okay? Why call your party "democratic" and then fight so hard to go against democracy?

#68 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 03:08 PM

- Why call your party "democratic" and then fight so hard to go against democracy?

That's how they proudly shine and display their less evil badge-of-honor.

#69 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 03:22 PM

#68

Great post Indy, well said.

#70 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 03:23 PM

I guess we can safely assume that HRC has officially confiscated all of Donna's pantsuits at this point.

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 03:24 PM

Also dis-invited from The Hampton's Soiree.

#72 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 03:26 PM

Can someone explain to me why Bernie ignored the agreement? Can you further explain why his complaints (assuming that what the DNC did is not illegal) isn't sour grapes at his not using the system as well as Clinton did? Was he really treated unfairly under the terms of this agreement, or did he allow himself to be treated unfairly because he chose not to participate?

The real problem is that the DNC tried to use Bernie and Bernie tried to use the DNC, and it wasn't exactly a marriage made in heaven. There was mistrust on both sides from the start. These agreements demonstrate that as did that whole incident with a Bernie tech guy being accused of looking at Hillary's voter info on the DNC website.

#73 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 03:27 PM

Will you ever understand that just because the DNC did nothing illegal does not make what they did okay? Why call your party "democratic" and then fight so hard to go against democracy?

Why call yourself a Democrat when you aren't really one? Like I said, the DNC tried to use Bernie, and Bernie tried to use the DNC. It's a bad way to start, let alone conduct, a relationship.

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 03:30 PM

Why call yourself a Democrat when you aren't really one?

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 03:30 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Trust me, I don't call myself one anymore.

#75 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-11-02 03:37 PM

Trump and the GOP basically came to the same arrangement as Bernie and the DNC. In the end, both parities are likely to be destroyed from the inside out. Good news for Putin, Trump, Sanders and voters like Sheeple. Good news for the rest of us? I'm hoping, yes, that we can make something of the political mess we are in today. We'll see.

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 03:40 PM

we can make something = we can make something good, better

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 03:45 PM

#68

Hates democracy, loves undemocratic caucuses.

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 04:22 PM

#78 | POSTED BY CORKY

What is an undemocratic caucus?

#79 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 04:33 PM

#78 | POSTED BY CORKY

What is an undemocratic caucus?

#80 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 04:33 PM

#80

That's pretty funny.

www.dailykos.com

www.vox.com

www.msnbc.com

www.theatlantic.com

#81 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 04:43 PM

What is an undemocratic caucus?
#80 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Any primary voting activity that his candidate can't manipulate.

#82 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 04:46 PM

#82 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Strange, she even won some of them in a one of 60 billion odds coin flip result.

#81 | POSTED BY CORKY

All of those prove that caucuses are about as democratic as it gets. Not DNC "democratic" but actual democracy democratic; you know -- allowing people a voice. They're only undemocratic when left to a coin flip.

#83 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 04:56 PM

All of those prove that caucuses are about as democratic as it gets. Not DNC "democratic" but actual democracy democratic; you know -- allowing people a voice. They're only undemocratic when left to a coin flip.

No, caucuses hurt the elderly, the disabled, working parents, anyone who doesn't have several hours to devote to participating in one. Primaries are the fairest way to go. One person/one vote. I say this as an Obama voter in a primary state, knowing that he benefited from caucuses more than Clinton did in 2008.

#84 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 05:08 PM

Donna Brazile: Hillary Campaign Ran the DNC

WHoa who knew Donna Brazile was such a MISOGYNIST? Right Corky?

#85 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 05:20 PM

Coin-Toss Fact-Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton

www.npr.org

Some people, and most sheep, are almost humorously myth-informed.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 05:20 PM

Boy, oh, boy...we dodged a bullet.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Yeah we dodged a bullet and got hit with a cannonball. Congrats I guess.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 05:21 PM

I predict a denial from Clinton at almost any minute.

That would probably be a detailed explanation interwoven with a series of deflections, which the Clintons are masters at.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter

Unlike a trump denial, which is just a pile of LIES interwoven with a series of deflections, usually in no intelligible order because his brain is mush.

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 05:25 PM

#85

The only one who said that was... you.

#89 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 05:26 PM

The only one who said that was... you.
#89 | POSTED BY CORKY

"Just because some DNC volunteer sent an email saying they preferred a particular candidate, and Berniebro's cry 'rigged'." - Corky, July 2016

#90 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 05:32 PM

- Unlike a trump denial

"I didn't eat the cake." Trump, with cake smeared on face.

#91 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 05:34 PM

"And what's with putting out this article now as opposed to, say, 6 months ago?"

She has a book coming out. Mystery solved. Also explains why she tries to make herself into the hero of the story. I think most of us want to do that if we wrote a book.

#92 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 05:37 PM

There are two kinds of "Deal With the Devil" stories.

The one kind is where the devil makes good on his promise but then the protagonist learns that selling his soul wasn't worth worldly success.

The other kind is where not only does the protagonist lose his soul, but the devil only follows the letter of the deal and does something else to spoil the protagonist's wish.
And the moral of those stories is simply "don't be stupid enough to deal with the devil".

Based on this story Hillary is the latter type of devil.

#93 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-02 05:49 PM

#93 There's also the ------- n Beer kind.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 05:54 PM

I think that's the kind Trump (and "third party") voters were hoping for.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 05:55 PM

Elizabeth Warren: The Democratic Nomination Process Was Rigged

During an interview today on CNN's The Lead, one of the leading progressive lions of the Democratic Party, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), was asked point blank if she believed that Brazile's charge was true -- that the nomination process was rigged during the 2016 Democratic primary. She answered succinctly and conclusively.

"Yes," she said.

www.mediaite.com

#96 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-02 05:55 PM

#84 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Open primaries; otherwise primaries laugh in the face of true democracy.

#97 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 06:00 PM

#96 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

It doesn't matter that she said it, it doesn't matter that the DNC admitted it in court, and it doesn't matter that two chairpersons resigned as a result of it -- Corky, et al will never except it until Clinton writes it in her own book.

#98 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 06:03 PM

The only one who said that was... you.

#89 | Posted by Corky

You're called me a misogynist many times and you know it.

Why aren't you calling Donna Brazile one now too?

#99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 06:08 PM

Yep the fix was in your democrat primary was just for show. Fear not it will be the same way next time the party bosses will pick who is allowed to run. Some democracy hu. nO its communism. And the DNC has already announced white men need not apply for jobs in the DNC.

#100 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-11-02 06:29 PM

And the DNC has already announced white men need not apply for jobs in the DNC.

#100 | Posted by tmaster

The DNC didn't announce that, minority voters did.

After obama, they're not going back to voting for white men, even if the white man has fought for the working class and social justice his entire career, and the alternative is a corrupt wall street puppet.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 06:36 PM

The rumors that they heard is that the FEC may be on the verge of filing charges against unknown DNC officials and Brazile wanted to get out in front of those charges by proclaiming that she knew nothing about it.

This link is an excerpt from her book. Someone doesn't come out with a book chapter in a rush to get ahead of charges. This chapter was written some time ago and released as part of a long-planned publicity effort to sell the book.

Brazile isn't stupid. If she thought a crime had occurred she would only be speaking through lawyers. She isn't Trump, who is so dumb he talks himself into increased legal jeopardy.

She said this wasn't illegal because that's what she believes and has been told by lawyers.

#102 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 07:30 PM

No, caucuses hurt the elderly, the disabled, working parents, anyone who doesn't have several hours to devote to participating in one. Primaries are the fairest way to go.

This is true, and Bernie voters who deny otherwise are propping up a voting system they would call "rigged" if he wasn't so good at winning them.

#103 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 07:32 PM

#103 | POSTED BY RCADE

clinton knew the rules before the caucuses.

#104 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 07:38 PM

She said this wasn't illegal because that's what she believes and has been told by lawyers.

#102 | POSTED BY RCADE

Again, this is not a legal issue. It is a moral issue. Claiming you are the "democratic" party why eschewing a democratic election process is bordering fraud.

#105 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 07:40 PM

LOL, no it's not. No more than the GOP isn't actually "Grand."

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 07:42 PM

#106 Just admit you like the warts and all. and the evil, albeit less so.

#107 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 07:48 PM

"Open primaries; otherwise primaries laugh in the face of true democracy."

I thought the nature of primaries is determined by the state, not by the parties? There can be problems in open primaries too. Folks from one party can try to sabotage the other party by going into their primary voting for who they believe is the least electable candidate.

#108 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 07:51 PM

She answered succinctly and conclusively.
"Yes," she said.

I wish Warren would explain how and why.

#111 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 07:58 PM

clinton knew the rules before the caucuses.

We all did, but that doesn't mean caucuses are fair or truly democratic to the voters.

#112 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 07:59 PM

clinton knew the rules before the caucuses.

She beat Bernie, remember?

#113 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-02 08:01 PM

Again, this is not a legal issue. It is a moral issue.

It sure as hell is a legal issue when we're talking about crimes, which is what we're doing when money laundering is the subject. That is a crime and whether or not a law was broken is highly relevant.

If you want to make the overall issue a moral one, fine, but don't pretend that legality isn't an important consideration.

#114 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 08:02 PM

The sad thing is, even after Brazile and Liz Warren said the DNC and Hillary were corrupt together, there are still many people on this very site who would support clinton again for 2020.

#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 09:04 PM

The sad thing is, even after Brazile and Liz Warren said the DNC and Hillary were corrupt together, there are still many people on this very site who would support clinton again for 2020.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 09:04 PM | Reply

That's a tragedy really.

#116 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-02 09:10 PM

Murray Biden and Saunders must be so proud of the honest treatment they got from the dnc.

The responses here are beyond comical. Your guy Bernie Saunders was steamrolled by the dnc. You you all pretend it didn't happen!!!

#117 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2017-11-02 09:55 PM

Bernie Saunders?

#118 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 10:10 PM

If I'm a liberal hating rightwinger, I'm laughing my ass off reading this thread. Let's see how deep the intra-Party animus runs among Dems. Let's see what kind of long term damage they can inflict on each other.

#119 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-02 10:32 PM

blah blah.. hillary saved the bankrupt dnc on the condition her people run things... helped down ticket dems... gave bernie money who used it for himself and renegged on his own agreements.

blah blah.. Trump colluded with Russia.

#120 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-02 10:34 PM

The Dems need and want Bernie and his supporters. Clinton will not run again, so technically there are no more Hillary supporters. Bernie and his supporters may hate Hillary supporters now, but they will stop hating us, at least to our faces, in 2020 when they want us to vote for Bernie or whoever Bernie anoints. If the Democratic party survives. Like the GOP, it may not.

#121 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 10:40 PM

"Bernie and his supporters may hate Hillary supporters now"

That's... a two-way street.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 10:43 PM

#122 Do you think most Hillary voters are going to tear apart the Democratic party in protest over Bernie being the leading voice in the party, if he choses to do so? I don't.

#123 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 10:52 PM

Most?
No, just the loudest and most influential and self-righteous ones.
Ones who feel that since they're latinx or gay or whatever, they can't possibly be "Ordinary Americans" in Bernie's eyes.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 10:54 PM

#123 And I'm pretty sure most Bernie supporters don't think that either. When Speaks tallies up why Bernie would have won, he always says all most all of Hillary voters would have voted for Bernie. Sure, some of them may not have voted, but I doubt many of them would have voted for Trump or 3rd party, and especially not if Hillary had come out in support of Bernie the way she did for Obama.

#125 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 10:56 PM

"Ones who feel that since they're latinx or gay or whatever, they can't possibly be "Ordinary Americans" in Bernie's eyes."

I thought a number of those people didn't like Hillary? Didn't they vote for her in less numbers than they voted for Obama?

#126 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 11:02 PM

That's not the point.
They think Bernie insulted them.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 11:04 PM

#127 Bernie's a smart guy and a compassionate one. He can fix that if he wants to. Also, while those folks may be the loudest and most self-righteous, I don't think they are the most influential.

#128 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 11:12 PM

There are many, many people who can't comprehend how "ordinary people" voted Republican after all that went down.

Until they can figure that out, they'll just hate Bernie for not catering to their narrow, special needs.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 11:17 PM

#129 Well, some of those people aren't going to be happy with anyone.

#130 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-02 11:38 PM

I must admit I'm impressed with many of you guys responses regarding this thread. So much wonkiness!

#131 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-11-03 12:12 AM

BTW Ivanka in Japan is going to get her own personal Gogo Yubari and an all female cast of the Crazy 88s!
Much better entrance into "The House of Blue Leaves" with "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" blaring in the background than Chelsea could of pulled off, don't you think? We dodged a bullet!

#132 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-11-03 12:21 AM

DNC fires its top fundraiser

"We are grateful for Emily Mellencamp Smith's work to help build a fundraising team that will raise the funds to win in 2017, 2018 and beyond. (So grateful that to show their gratitude they canned her.) Emily is going back to consulting and helping elect Democrats in upcoming races, including staying on in a consulting role for the DNC at this time," said DNC press secretary Michael Tyler.

Mellencamp Smith did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

www.politico.com

#133 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-11-03 12:30 AM

I would not be surprised to find out that this is all due to the Russians trying to interfere in our elections.

#134 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-03 12:34 AM

It all comes down to the donors buying what they want, and the crew willing to do their bidding.

#135 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-03 01:14 AM

We're a year past the 2016 election. There is a Hail Mary shot in 2018 to win some elections, and maybe take over Congress. We lost 2016 because of the BS on this thread. We will probably lose 2018 because of the BS on this thread.

Get over yourselves.

Hillary is done. She is on to writing books and speaking. She is not president, she is now a private citizen. She is not in elected office, or an appointed one. As for Bernie, well, wasn't he supposed to be leading some revolution or something? How's that going? I'm interested in hearing how well organized and cutthroat the revolutionaries are, now that we are being governed by fascist theocrats. Where is the funding to take on the GOP? Who are the front runners for the Revolution Party in 2020? Inquiring minds want to know.

Is Susan Sarandon running?

#136 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-03 03:04 AM

" As for Bernie, well, wasn't he supposed to be leading some revolution or something? How's that going?"

Uhhhhh....
What?

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 03:06 AM

Is Susan Sarandon running?
#136 | POSTED BY CHUFFY Seniority: 5

Best heed his warning. His an elder of Ye Olde Retort.

#138 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-03 03:47 AM

Wow.
And Obama allowed this situation to develope and play out ?
I hated Corbyn at first (in contrast to Bernie's moderateness by comparison) but recant my hostility towards him. Bernie is craven and the DNC venal apparatchiks. His supporters have more guts than he does. Where's the democrat Corbyn ?

#139 | Posted by tunde at 2017-11-03 03:55 AM

Uhhhhh....
What?

#137 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#140 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-03 05:11 AM

Uhhhhh....
What?

#137 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

We were told there would be a revolution...

To be fair, I did find this.

Or am I mistaken? Is the Hillary Haters Club backing off of the whole revolution talk now?

#141 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-03 05:13 AM

$2 million is 2% of a billion dollar campaign. But the timing is crucial. What happened to all the money Obama and Holder were extorting from Corporate America for alleged legal violations?

Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations," Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said. "It's a shakedown. It's corrupt, pure and simple."

"Congress allotted $47 million for the HUD Housing Counseling, but the Citi and Bank of America settlements shipped in an additional $30 million in funding," in the FY16 Enacted Congressional Appropriation, outlines Fox as an example. "The Legal Services Corporation was allocated $385 million from Congress but is getting an additional $412 million in taxpayer dollars from the third-party settlement practice."

Moreover, in a recent Volkswagen settlement, a $1.2 billion investment into zero emission technology requirement "was not only twice denied by Congress but is now expected to receive four times the amount originally requested by the Obama administration."

#142 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-03 08:53 AM

$20, not $2

#143 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-03 08:54 AM

That 'snip, snip, snip' sound you hear is Democrats cutting ties with Hillary Clinton.

#144 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-03 09:40 AM

Do you think most Hillary voters are going to tear apart the Democratic party in protest over Bernie being the leading voice in the party, if he choses to do so? I don't.

I don't think so. It will be a vote on Trump, unless he's been removed from office by then.

But I wish the Bernie folks would realize that they are in charge now, so their attacks on the current DNC are an attack on themselves.

If I had known Hillary made a secret deal to run the DNC in 2015, I would have voted for Bernie. I was already close to making that choice -- I sat in the polling booth 10 minutes making up my mind -- and this would have put me over to his side.

I think a lot of Hillary voters were also Bernie supporters and the intra-party bitterness over the loss obscures that.

#146 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-03 09:54 AM

"That 'snip, snip, snip' sound you hear is Democrats cutting ties with Hillary Clinton"

she will now never obtain any political or professional success beyond being
Juris Doctor
First Female Chair of Legal Corporation
First Female partner at Rose Law
First Lady, Arkansas
First Lady, United States
2 term Senator
Secretary of State

She is so ruined!

You dweebs sure got her where you want her. It's a regular Waterloo
Mark My Words
You Just Wait

#147 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-03 10:01 AM

Bernie can still win! I'm giving my entire paycheck to him today! Match me!

#148 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 10:20 AM

Drumpf will be impeached.
Pence will be impeached.
Ryan will become POTUS.
Ryan will select Bernie for his VP.
Ryan will do the right thing and resign.
Bernie will become President.
Give all you can now! And he'll help down ballot Dems at the state level.
Match me!

#149 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 10:25 AM

That's not the point.
They think Bernie insulted them.

I spent some time this morning reading anti-Bernie posts here and there. The anger runs deeper for some people than I realized. I assumed most people were like me, my Democratic friends in RL and folks on here like RCade and Corky. All of us would have voted for Bernie, if I'm not mistaken, had he been the nominee, but there are Dems out there who are anti-Bernie. They say things like they don't like Bernie and they don't trust him. While I've said I didn't like his overpromising on issues and I didn't trust his numbers, if you ask me "Does Sanders care about people like you?" I would say, yes. There is no question about that in my mind. I think the anti-Bernie people I was reading when asked that question would say, no. I'm guessing it's not so much as they think he has insulted them as it is they think he doesn't understand them, which is fixable. Reach out to them, listen to them and talk to them. Show him that he understands and cares and wants to help them too. It's the same thing folks said Hillary should have done with working class whites in the Rust Belt.

#150 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 10:36 AM

If the Dems want to win, they should support Biden. There is no surer way to consolidate loss than to support leftist candidates...something that inevitably requires abandoning all those who aren't left.

#151 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-03 10:45 AM

Bernie is a Socialist. The Dems let a Socialist run in their primaries, knowing he couldn't win because they were pulling big time Socialist moves to rig the primary process against him.

Think we'll learn what specific 'leverage' Hillary and Mook were using to get Bernie to stop talking about her corruption during the so-called campaign?

#152 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 10:51 AM

It is funny to me that people twist Bernie's words to say "see he insulted this marginalized group" when he didn't. Then they say "well these people think he insulted them...,"

To the extent that is true it is because they believed your divisive horsecrap.

#153 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-03 11:00 AM

... because they were pulling big time Socialist moves ...

LOL. You use the word "socialist" like it was "boogeyman." There's nothing socialist about back-room deals.

#154 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-03 11:05 AM

#147 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses

I'm not talking about HER future, you imbecile. I'm talking about people who were riding her political coattails and are now going to be backpedaling and cutting ties: McAuliffe, Wasserman-Shultz, et al

#155 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-03 11:14 AM

But I wish the Bernie folks would realize that they are in charge now, so their attacks on the current DNC are an attack on themselves.

Yep, note the language used in this piece by The Atlantic:

For defeated politicians, the period after an election is for score-settling. For defeated political operatives, it's about positioning for the next race. And if a juicy excerpt from Donna Brazile's new book Hacks is an indication, the longtime Democratic operative and former interim chair of the Democratic National Party seems to think the future is Bernie Sanders.

Brazile's piece, in Politico Magazine, is a fascinating document, though maybe not always for the reasons intended. It answers some questions about the 2016 race, including why Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't move to depose DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sooner, but also raises other questions about the management of the DNC, including Brazile's own moves. And it shows Brazile tossing soil on the Clinton era's coffin.

www.theatlantic.com

#156 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 11:29 AM

There are many, many people who can't comprehend how "ordinary people" voted Republican after all that went down.
Until they can figure that out, they'll just hate Bernie for not catering to their narrow, special needs.

But that's what politicians do and constituencies want. Think of Trump catering to the coal miners and steel workers, for example, by promising to keep/bring back their jobs.

#157 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 11:41 AM

"We were told there would be a revolution..."

Bernie sold his campaign as a "political revolution." Revolution short of getting Bernie into the White House was never part of the plan.

Apparently you watched a different campaign than me. Maye you watched the one with fake Russian Facebook accounts explaining Bernie to you?

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 12:28 PM

#154 There is plenty 'socialist' about rigged primaries.

#159 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 12:28 PM

"To the extent that is true it is because they believed your divisive horsecrap."

Really, people aren't even responsible for their own beliefs any more?
Do we get to apply this standard to people exposed to Russian propaganda too?

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 12:29 PM

Have you been exposed, Snoofy? Here in California we don't have to tell that to folks any more. Thanks, Jerry Brown!

#162 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 12:32 PM

I suppose not accepting the primary results is a disgrace to our democracy?

#163 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 12:36 PM

Robby Mook struck a deal with Debbie Wasserman Schulz to secretly take over DNC finances, and look who's OK with that.

#164 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 12:39 PM

The anger runs deeper for some people than I realized. I assumed most people were like me, my Democratic friends in RL and folks on here like RCade and Corky.

Sorry Gal, if you are just realizing that now then you haven't really been paying attention.

More popcorn, anyone?

#165 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-03 12:46 PM

Don't get carried away, Rightocenter. Every losing party after a presidential election forms a circular firing squad. This is mostly normal.

#166 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-03 12:49 PM

RoC's party elected Trump. Him crowing about any problems on the other side is pretty funny.

#167 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-03 12:50 PM

Re 160 - you are mostly falsely attributing people beliefs that they haven't articulated themselves. But a few suckers might hear a liar like you and believe you without looking into what he actually said and in what context. Being one of the most fundamentally dishonest posters here, surely you understand that deceit sometimes works. Although I have yet to see you fool anyone here.

#169 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-03 01:14 PM

"Re 160 - you are mostly falsely attributing people beliefs that they haven't articulated themselves."

Come on. There's a whole thread dedicated to why minorities, lesbians, etc. can't trust Bernie; because he told they they're not "Ordinary Americans."

#171 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 01:28 PM

Re #171- you're referring to an intellectually dishonest opinion piece. It is deceitful of you to pretend that it represents anything more than the ramblings of the author.

#172 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-03 01:39 PM

Bernie is a Socialist.

We need Socialism now!

#173 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-03 01:55 PM

A spineless Socialist.

Take him, Red. Take him now.

#175 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:04 PM

I know I said I was out, but Virgil Flowers is in the house!

#176 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:05 PM

Or should I say, Sherlock Holmes?

Either way, when The Gentleman of the Retort posts, I listen.

#177 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:07 PM

Does your g-g-g-g-g-g-pappy know you want to feed at the Socialist trough, Red?

Well, NBD. Alexander Hamilton is probably already rolling in his grave nonstop at this point.

#178 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:10 PM

You've never been the most luminous of people, Watson, but as a conductor of light, you are unbeatable. Some people who aren't geniuses have an amazing ability to stimulate it in others.

--Sherlock Holmes

#179 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-03 02:12 PM

Might as well get it over with and remove the greedy capitalist middleman from the equation in key industries. It's not like service has improved over the years because of private ownership of the energy and transportation sektors.

#180 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-03 02:14 PM

#179

Proud to know you, Holmes, pinko or not.

*sniffs*

#181 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:37 PM

You did just call me "a conductor of light," right?

#182 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:38 PM

... remove the greedy capitalist middleman from the equation in key industries. It's not like service has improved over the years because of private ownership of the energy and transportation sektors.

#180 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST

Please conduct the light emitted as I *roll my eyes*.

#183 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:44 PM

"You've never been the most luminous of people ..."

Never? As in, not ever?

#184 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:45 PM

MadScientist, I don't like your tone.

O, fiddledeedee.

#185 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-03 02:49 PM

Don't get carried away, Rightocenter. Every losing party after a presidential election forms a circular firing squad. This is mostly normal.

#166 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-03 12:49 PM

I know that as well as anyone. But the last time the GOP had comparable and long lasting angst was when GHWB lost and Perot siphoned off enough votes for Bubba to win.

True, the GOP, IMO, made a grave mistake by nominating Trump and getting him elected POTUS, only hard core partisans on the right wouldn't admit that.

However, I am not so sure, given the constant stream of revelations about the Clintons that keep coming, that Madame President wouldn't have been much better, for obviously different reasons.

#186 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-03 03:52 PM

Brazile nuts.

#187 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-03 04:01 PM

helped down ticket dems...
#120 | POSTED BY KLIFFERD

These are known as SuperDelegates, and how did they vote in the primaries?

Hmmmmmmm..... Clinton controls the purse strings of the DNC, and just about everyone of them voted for Clinton ... coincidence?
en.wikipedia.org

Another thought Obama didn't fix the DNC's debt issue ..... any ideas why? He just forgot about his party?

Its not illegal, but certainly a sweet spot as mentioned above ...

The DNC should just fold its "big" tent,it is a party of ill repute.

#188 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-03 04:18 PM

"These are known as SuperDelegates, and how did they vote in the primaries?"

They didn't (from your link):

This list tracks the support for given candidates among the 716 unpledged delegates (commonly known as superdelegates) who were eligible to cast a vote at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, held July 25–28, 2016 in Philadelphia.

#189 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-03 04:25 PM

Their votes were tallied during the primaries as pledged delegates, making her appear to be crushing Bernie ... you can play the literal game all you want if it makes you feel better.

Hillary bought those Super Delegates .... end of story

#190 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-03 08:11 PM

Here you go ...
panampost.com

#191 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-03 08:14 PM

The DNC should just fold its "big" tent,it is a party of ill repute.

#188 | Posted by AndreaMackris

That party of ill repute still fights harder for working and poor people than any republican in office. What's that say about them?

#192 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 08:23 PM

Of course it was rigged, only the shills pretended otherwise.

#193 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-11-03 09:08 PM

I think the anti-Bernie people I was reading when asked that question would say, no. I'm guessing it's not so much as they think he has insulted them as it is they think he doesn't understand them, which is fixable. Reach out to them, listen to them and talk to them. Show him that he understands and cares and wants to help them too. It's the same thing folks said Hillary should have done with working class whites in the Rust Belt.

#150 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2017-11-03 10:36 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

The Bernie-bros will guarantee that will never happen. There is simply no discussion to be had. This was happening during the primaries too.

Brazile can try to stir up controversy to sell her book, but I saw the voters listening directly to Bernie and listening to the press or Trump or Bernie Bros on Clinton.

In the end, the votes were cast by informed, passionate people. So I respect the outcome.

Since the loss of Clinton, Bernie has been handed the reigns. He chose to walk away from it all.

Another thing with this "takeover" story. It clearly says Bernie had the same agreement but chose not to pursue it. Did I misunderstand that part???

#194 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-03 10:01 PM

"Hillary bought those Super Delegates .... end of story"

Got a receipt?

It's hilarious to me how nobody minded super delegates when their numbers were expanded to make sure Jesse Jackson's supporters didn't get too much control over the party.

But when they're used against a white guy... it's the freaking crime of the century.

Everyone who is complaining about this now, but didn't thirty years ago, is racist. I suppose you could be so young as to be ignorant, but that doesn't apply to any of the haters here.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 10:02 PM

It's hilarious to me how nobody minded super delegates when their numbers were expanded to make sure Jesse Jackson's supporters didn't get too much control over the party.

Funny that you point this out, every time I have brought this up to show how the DNC has been as racist as the RNC is accused of I get shouted down by the Usual Suspects.

Thanks for spotlighting this often ignored fact of the DNC's past.

Well done.

#196 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 12:33 AM

It's hilarious to me how nobody minded super delegates when their numbers were expanded to make sure Jesse Jackson's supporters didn't get too much control over the party. - Snoofy
------
Funny that you point this out, every time I have brought this up to show how the DNC has been as racist as the RNC is accused of I get shouted down by the Usual Suspects.
Thanks for spotlighting this often ignored fact of the DNC's past.
Well done.

#196 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Classic.

Snoofy is SO pinning for an edit feature right now.

#197 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 12:38 AM

#197

I have always said that Snoofy is a useful...

#198 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 12:45 AM

I've made that point before.
Several times actually.

Perhaps you recall, a key difference between us is I'm the one who thinks that institutional racism exists.

#199 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 01:00 AM

- who thinks that institutional racism exists.

Don't be silly. When Trump voters say they are oppressed victims of cultural anxiety... they are talking about aliens, not race.

Apparently that's what some people buh-lieve.

But hey, it's tough to be an rwinger with traitors to democracy and to this country like Nixon and Reagan and now Trump being your leaders. That's a tough record to defend.

#200 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:04 AM

Perhaps you recall, a key difference between us is I'm the one who thinks that institutional racism exists.

#199 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Is it monopolized by the Right and/or GOP?

#201 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:10 AM

#200 - Corky

I can't find an argument buried in all of that straw...

#202 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:11 AM

#202

If you can find your beer can and your kielbasa, you ought to be able to find the argument... of course, I'm assuming about the beer and sausage.

Institutional racism exists, and is a factor in every election.

And defending known, proven traitors like Nixon and Reagan must be hard werk. It'll be even harder with Trump. We'll prolly have recordings and video of him grabbing Putin's -----.


#203 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:23 AM

"Is it monopolized by the Right and/or GOP?"

More and more, especially since the Civil Rights Era.

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 01:28 AM

@204

"more and more"

So, the answer to my question is, "no".

#205 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:30 AM

"I can't find an argument buried in all of that straw...
#202 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

If I might,
He was saying the complaint that American culture is under attack is a white complaint about the country getting browner.

#206 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 01:31 AM

#203 - Cork - Defending a straw man argument by erecting another straw man argument isn't particularly persuasive.

#207 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:31 AM

He was saying the complaint that American culture is under attack is a white complaint about the country getting browner. - Snoofy

That only reinforces an insipid straw man.

#208 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:33 AM

- erecting another straw man argument

Not a strawman. Trump voters say they are oppressed victims of cultural anxiety... and they aren't talking about space critters.

And Nixon and Reagan are known, proven traitors.

#209 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:37 AM

"another straw man"

You keep using that phrase; I do not think it means what you think it means.

#210 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:40 AM

#210

jajajaja!

#211 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 01:43 AM

Danforth,

You are a poor man's Indigo Montoya.

#212 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:45 AM

Fortunately for you - you didn't kill my father.

#213 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:46 AM

...And I don't have six fingers on my right hand....

#214 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:46 AM

"You are a poor man's Indigo Montoya."

No doubt.

Meanwhile, feel free to explain what you believe a "strawman" is. I always believed it was putting something in someone else's mouth, and then attacking them for things they never said or suggested.

How were you applying that definition to the above?

#215 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:48 AM

Meanwhile, feel free to explain what you believe a "strawman" is. I always believed it was putting something in someone else's mouth, and then attacking them for things they never said or suggested.
How were you applying that definition to the above?

#215 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

OK. This is what you reproduced from Corky that was addressed to me:

And defending known, proven traitors like Nixon and Reagan must be hard werk.

If you can't find a post of mine where I defended Nixon or Reagan, or, for Christ's sake, even mentioned either of them, then you are looking at a straw man.

#216 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:54 AM

Damn it all, Mad, as much as it would be my pleasure to serve under you, I simply can't right now with you in this Socialist tizzy.

youtu.be

#217 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-11-04 01:55 AM

"And defending known, proven traitors like Nixon and Reagan must be hard werk."

I took that as aimed at generic Rs, not necessarily you.

#218 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:57 AM

#218

So did I, and I said it. It was originally aimed at RoC upthread, though, lol.

Don't be a snowflake, Jeffy.

#219 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 02:02 AM

#219 | POSTED BY CORKY

I didn't construe it that way, El Corko.

But I take you at your word with your clarification.

No harm/no foul.

Bygones.

#220 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 02:05 AM

"That only reinforces an insipid straw man."

I don't think you know what a straw man is

Insipid is a good way to describe racism though. Always twisting and turning and finding a new mask.

Let's talk about the famous Lee Atwater quote. Speaking of insipid racism.

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 02:15 AM

#221

Perhaps we shouldn't introduce something that is unrelated to the thread....

#222 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 02:18 AM

---- off then, -----------.

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 02:31 AM

You know your party is in trouble when it's most popular figure (Bernie) isn't even a member of the party (he's still an independent). Hitlery scorched the party for her own aims, lost, and may have decimated the brand. I'm an independent and have had an arseful of a two party system. We need a rise in third parties and I can see a far left swell siphoning off 40% of Dem voters for the next two election cycles at the least. Dems are not going to make gains; they're going to take their rightful place of irrelevance next to the Whigs.

#224 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2017-11-04 07:13 AM

It took Donna for Rcade to finally see the light. Thank you Donna.

#225 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-04 08:11 AM

Brazile's belated acknowledgement that the DNC was, in fact, under the direct control of the Clinton campaign, rather than a neutral arbiter of the race, has enflamed a long-burning fight between Clinton's backers and those of 2016 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, lending official credence to the argument that the DNC was tilted in Clinton's favor. All that is fodder for sinking the DNC further.

Obama diverted substantial funds to his pet causes while cavorting with Richard Branson. Nobody inside the DNC wanted to out the fact that Obama had let it get so bad.

#226 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-04 09:24 AM

The Rude Pundit says it better than I can. This whole thread is exactly what will lose us 2018 and probably 2020.

#227 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-04 05:56 PM

It was originally aimed at RoC upthread, though, lol.

Same challenge, Cork 'n Paste...show me where I have ever defended either Nixon or Reagan, otherwise try to hide the butthurt better.

#228 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 06:32 PM

I don't think you know what a straw man is

Project much? It's pretty much every other post of yours when you assign people positions.

Let's talk about the famous Lee Atwater quote. Speaking of insipid racism.

Deflect much?

#229 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 06:33 PM

- the DNC has been as racist as the RNC

Is the asininity we were all laughing at.

- hide the butthurt better.

You are doing a poor job of it.

#230 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 06:38 PM

Is the asininity we were all laughing at.

Didn't see anyone laughing, just building strawmen.

Why don't you take a stab at actually addressing Snoofy's point about superdelegates instead of skirting the issue, if you can.

#231 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 07:26 PM

Lee Atwater.

#232 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 08:05 PM

"Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. " www.thenation.com

#233 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 08:15 PM

George Wallace
Bill Fullbright
Robert Byrd
The Southern Manifesto

#234 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:22 PM

You want to bring up a 1981 interview, Snoof?

I can bring dozens of quotes from the gentlemen (and 99 Dem Senators who signed the Southern Manifesto) I mentioned in #234 if you want to go there.

#235 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:24 PM

Let's start with this one:

"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County ... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."

-- Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-2010, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-2010

#236 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:27 PM

Or this:

"Mr. President, the crime of lynching ... is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."

-- Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, spoken during a six-hour speech against the anti-lynching bill

#237 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:28 PM

Here's something special:

"President Truman's civil rights program is a farce and a sham -- an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."

-- Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948, U.S. Senator, 1949-61, Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61, President, 1963-69

#238 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:29 PM

How about this:

"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

-- Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993, Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

#239 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:29 PM

Even the Kennedys:

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."

-- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961.

#240 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:30 PM

Here's a doozy:

"Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom- loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny ... and I say ... segregation today ... segregation tomorrow ... segregation forever."

George C. Wallace (D. Ala) 1963, Inaugural speech, alabama Governor 1963–1967, 1971–1979 and 1983–1987, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination 1964, 1968, 1972

#241 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:35 PM

@ Right-O-Center

Robert Byrd renounced the KKK numerous times ... Byrd's repentance also extended to policy -- to where the NAACP issued a statement praising Byrd at the time of his death.

www.washingtonpost.com

Byrd apologizing for once being in the Klan has been posted on the DR a multitude of times throughout the years -- so why are you now trolling?

#242 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 08:44 PM

Lee Atwater. on his deathbed, apologized as well, why is Snoofy trolling? (as if I need to ask)

How about George Wallace, did he ever apologize?

#243 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 08:47 PM

Even the Kennedys:

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."

-- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961.

#240 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Context is everything ... you're lilly white, so maybe you should listen more to what black folks have to say -- especially when it comes to their votes.

#244 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 08:50 PM

Lee Atwater. on his deathbed, apologized as well, why is Snoofy trolling? (as if I need to ask)

How about George Wallace, did he ever apologize?

Policy matters, and African-Americans have historically got the short end of the stick -- that's why after emancipation blacks voted Republican but stopped after Nixon's Southern Strategy became the GOP standard, and then started voting for Democrats.

#243 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I know you know this stuff -- so why troll?

#245 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 08:59 PM

It's hilarious to me how nobody minded super delegates when their numbers were expanded to make sure Jesse Jackson's supporters didn't get too much control over the party.

But when they're used against a white guy... it's the freaking crime of the century.

Everyone who is complaining about this now, but didn't thirty years ago, is racist. I suppose you could be so young as to be ignorant, but that doesn't apply to any of the haters here.

#195 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

There's allot of truth to what Snoofy is saying here.

#246 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 09:08 PM

We need Socialism now!

#173 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST

A spineless Socialist.

Take him, Red. Take him now.

#175 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH

Being a Bernie supporter, I'm not much of a socialist ... above everything Bernie represents fighting for fairness for working and middle-class Americans which is why I supported him.

You two knuckleheads show just how dim-witted Americans can be by voting against their own interests -- two giant Bush Tax Cuts and now the proposed Trump Tax Cuts is socialism for rich people who don't need the free money, yet working-class and middle-class Americans get uncompromising hardcore capitalism.

You dummies should have learned this by now.

#247 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 09:24 PM

Wow. RoC got a massive talking points dump.

#248 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-04 09:25 PM

#247 Pinch, we were being facetious, as anyone with two sober brain cells and who has run across the stupid antagonistic back-and-forths Dix and I have been doing for 6 years.

Whose the knucklehead and dummy now? Huh? HUH?!?

---------------------

You need to understand who is on you're side, and who isn't on your side.
POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2017-10-21 06:30 PM |

#249 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-04 09:43 PM

Whose s/b who's.

#250 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-04 09:48 PM

#247 Pinch, we were being facetious, as anyone with two sober brain cells and who has run across the stupid antagonistic back-and-forths Dix and I have been doing for 6 years.

I got you mixed up with madbomber who's not friendly to economic fairness ... oopsie and sorry -- see, easy peasy.

As for Dix, funny dude, funnier politics ~

#251 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 09:53 PM

No problem, it happens all the time, even though MadB and I are pretty-much polar opposites politically.

I've thought about changing my handle to ----------- for some time now. If we could use more than 14 ASCII characters, I'd use: No_I'm_Not_Madbomber_Mad_as_Hell_Mad_World_or_Mad_S_and_Yes_I'm_a_Liberal. ☺

#252 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-04 10:03 PM

As for Dix, funny dude, funnier politics ~

'Notch is a Conservative living smack-dab in the middle of Commieville, CA and I'm a Liberal reared smack-dab in the middle of buckle of the Southern Baptist Bible Belt 10 miles from George Bush's ranch. Needless to say we've both learned to keep our political opinions to ourselves out of sheer survival instinct.

#253 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-04 10:10 PM

I've thought about changing my handle to ----------- for some time now.

#252 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST

If you change it to Thomas Dolby, I swear I'll never get you mixed up with Madbomber ever again -- plus, I'll always remember that you're also a scientist ...

🔭 ⚛ ☢ ❇ 🍺

#254 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-04 10:13 PM

"You want to bring up a 1981 interview, Snoof?"

Has the fact that cutting taxes hurts blacks more than whites changed since then?

#255 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 10:37 PM

"and 99 Dem Senators who signed the Southern Manifesto"

The further back in time you go, the more racist Democrats get.
What happens when you go forward in time?

#256 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 10:40 PM

Brazile alleges that Clinton's top aides routinely disrespected her and put the DNC on a "starvation diet," depriving it of funding for voter turnout operations.

As one of her party's most prominent black strategists, Brazile also recounts fiery disagreements with Clinton's staffers -- including a conference call in which she told three senior campaign officials, Charlie Baker, Marlon

Marshall and Dennis Cheng, that she was being treated like a slave.

"I'm not Patsey the slave," Brazile recalls telling them, a reference to the character played by Lupita Nyong'o in the film, "12 Years a Slave." "Y'all keep whipping me and whipping me and you never give me any money or any way to do my damn job. I am not going to be your whipping girl!"

#257 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2017-11-05 08:04 AM

"How about George Wallace, did he ever apologize?"

Actually, yes. Much to his credit.

#258 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-05 08:19 AM

"I spent some time this morning reading anti-Bernie posts here and there. The anger runs deeper for some people than I realized. I assumed most people were like me, my Democratic friends in RL and folks on here like RCade and Corky. All of us would have voted for Bernie, if I'm not mistaken, had he been the nominee, but there are Dems out there who are anti-Bernie."

Some folks are very confused Gal, we all know that. But, to me, the real problem is the BernieBros who refused to vote for Hillary and now still defend their decision with Trump as President. We need for the electorate to grow the hell up and realize that one or the other nominees of the two major parties is going to be President and who will weild immense power. When we get to the general election it is no time to voice your opposition towards the nominee of your party, you had plenty of opportunity to do that before the nomination, it is then time to choose the candidate who is best suited to run your God Danmned country and put country before ego. That is a real problem in the Democratic Party, we have too many egos and not enough patriots.

#259 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-05 08:29 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

White House Budget Director: Shutdown 'Kind of Cool' (68 comments)

Senate Votes to End Shut Down (66 comments)

Oxfam: World's Richest 1% Hoard 82% of the Wealth (52 comments)

When Trump's Foreign Policy Luck Runs Out (20 comments)

Opinion: Fix NFL PR Nightmare? Put a Woman in Charge (18 comments)

Patriots vs. Eagles (17 comments)

Honoring 44 of America's Best Teachers (15 comments)

White House Answering Machine Message Lays Blame (15 comments)

Voters Disapprove of Trump, Doubt His Mental Stability (14 comments)