“Thanks for all your good work for me, Debbie! And thank the rest of the DNC staff too!”
1. In case you missed it—and there were a lot of people trying to make sure you did—the illegal hacking organization Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 stolen e-mails from the Democratic National Committee. It is, by any estimation, a scandal, and potentially a devastating one. You can read various takes on it from Heat Street, BuzzFeed, NPR, The Daily Beast, CNN, BizPac Review, Business Insider, The New York Observer, Fox News Insider, Associated Press, The Daily Caller, Mediaite, and the Associated Press. Among other things, the e-mails show that the Democratic National Committee was actively colluding to undermine Bernie Sanders and ensure that Hillary Clinton won the race to become the Democratic nominee. That means that the Democratic Party, while holding itself out as running a fair nomination process to be determined by primaries and voters while the party played neutral referee, was in fact cheating. It was fixing the competition. It lied to Democratic voters and the nation.
I think that’s a big deal.
2. Objective observers and commentators knew this was the orientation of the DNC long before the leaks, of course. It was obvious, or should have been, that the fix was in. The party tried to make sure that no real competition for Clinton emerged to challenge her for the nomination, despite her obvious weaknesses as a candidate and her self-evident corruption. All that Hillary had to overcome were a Star Wars cantina of token opposition: Sanders, an elderly socialist crackpot; Jim Webb, a conservative, sort-of-Democrat maverick with even less charm than Hillary; Martin O’Malley, a lightweight former governor with no policy positions that varied significantly from Clinton’s, and whatever the heck ex-Republican Lincoln Chafee was supposed to be. Even against this motley crew, Hillary might well have lost in a fair contest, just as she did to an unproven, inexperienced junior Senator from Illinois in 2008. But Clintons don’t do “fair,” and the DNC was willing to serve as her accomplice. Thus the party appointed Hillary-supporting “superdelegates,” including Hillary’s husband and many former Clinton appointees and previous enablers. Thus they held as many debates as possible on weekends and opposite major sporting events, so as few undecided people as possible would be exposed to the inevitable Clinton gaffes, lies, and awkward public persona.
2. There should be little sympathy for indignant Democrats who are shocked—-shocked!—that the leaked emails show that the DNC was trying to sabotage Sanders and push Clinton over the finish line. Hillary cheats. Everyone knows that. Everyone knew that before she announced her candidacy. She was cheating all along, just like she was lying about her State Department e-mails all along, and continues to lie about her Goldman Sachs speeches. Knowing all that, with an obligation to his conveniently adopted party and his principles to try to stop a manifestly unfit woman from gaining power, Bernie Sanders still refused to attack Clinton where she is least fit to be President: her character. All the pieces were there. If the Wikileaks leaks were necessary for Sanders and his supporters to figure out that they were the marks in a rigged game, they are too gullible and pathetic to be involved in politics.
3. It is ironic, is it not? The GOP’s mistake was giving a fair chance to win the nomination to a destructive, unfit candidate whom they should have banned at the outset. The Democrats ensured that their process would not be fair and open like the Republicans fiasco, to guarantee the nomination of someone just as corrupt as Trump, and almost as unfit to hold high office.
4. The DNC plotting was revealed in the leaked e-mails as blatant and vicious. For example, DNC CEO Amy Dacey outlined a scheme to raise questions about Sanders’ religion to undermine him with Christian voters in the South. An attorney advised the committee regarding the best defense of Clinton after the Sanders campaign accused her of violating a joint fundraising agreement.The stark betrayal creates an ethics test for Sanders and his supporters. Why would he endorse Clinton, knowing this? Why should he be loyal to a party that treated him this way? Why would Sanders supporters remain loyal to the Democratic Party after learning how Sanders was treated? Why would they go to the polls to vote for Clinton, who undoubtedly coordinated it all, or at very least was aware that she was being unfairly assisted?
These citizens gave money, time and passion believing that they had a chance, and behind their backs, the party wasn’t just putting its finger on the scale, but sitting on it.
5. Democrats, those with any shred of integrity at least, now should understand my assessment years ago that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is one of those corroding cultural pathogens known as an Ethics Corrupter. She corrupts everything and everyone she comes in contact with. She corrupted the State Department, and now the e-mails show that she corrupted the Democratic Party’s management and leadership. Now what?
6. More irony: the only remaining justification Republicans have for supporting the atrocious Donald Trump is that Hillary Clinton is too corrupt to be President. The Wikileaks leaks just bolstered their argument, and also left Democrats with the sole justification for supporting Clinton the conclusion that even she is less dangerous than Donald Trump. I wonder how confident the non-corrupted among them are of that conclusion.
7. The closest comparison I can find with Hillary Clinton, ethically and historically, is Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, she has proceeded to advance in her ambitions despite there long-standing concerns about her character. Like Nixon, she fully embraces the concept that the ends justify the means, and among those justifying ends are her achieving great power. Like Nixon, she has corrupted her party, and like Nixon in 1972, she did not have sufficient confidence in her ability to win a fair competition, and so sought unethical means to undermine the process, and democracy.
More irony: Hillary’s introduction to national politics was as a Hill lawyer investigating Watergate. She appears to have learned the wrong lessons from the experience.
8. You will glean from these observations that I am convinced that Hillary Clinton knew that the DNC was working as her ally, and to the extent possible, coordinated that unethical alliance. No, the smoking gun e-mail that proves that has not surfaced (yet). Competent lawyers often make sure that everything is handled orally when they don’t want their strategies discovered by unfriendly forces. With all the contact between the party, Bill Clinton and Hillary, it is not possible that the Clinton camp wasn’t aware that the DNC was clearing its path, and highly unlikely that it wasn’t involved in the conspiracy.
9. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said his team was “disappointed” by the e-mails—you know, like Chamberlain was disappointed when Hitler invaded Poland?— and added that “Someone does have to be held accountable.” That’s rich, isn’t it? This was the epitome of a fait accompli. Accountability for anyone but Hillary Clinton is meaningless at this point, and like fair, Clintons also don’t do accountability. Maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head will roll, but so what? The damage is done, Clinton got what she wanted, and Debbie’s head is of dubious utility anyway.
This just came in since I started writing the post. Here’s your “accountability,” Jeff: Wasserman Schultz won’t get to speak at the convention.
Oooh, that will teach Hillary not to cheat…
10. More to not be surprised about: the mainstream media tried to bury this damaging scandal, using Clinton’s choosing Tim Kaine as her running mate to justify pushing it off the list of top stories. (As of an 11 PM last night, when I started writing this, Google News didn’t list the scandal as a “top story.” ) The e-mails are, to any objective citizen, a much more important story than Clinton’s VP choice; after all, she was going to have to choose someone within a week anyway. The revelation that the entity overseeing the Democratic nomination process was secretly plotting to help Clinton and sink Sanders show us an attack on democracy itself by one of the two major political parties.
Isn’t that obviously more important than another symbolic development in the false veneer of democracy being shown to Democrats and the public?
11. Twitter, meanwhile, showed its loyalties by taking the story off its “trending” list for no discernible reason. No, the DNC isn’t the only one trying to fix the game for Hillary Clinton.
12. Wikileaks is a chaotic entity seeking conflict, distrust and anarchy. All of those involved are criminals, and any benefits their crimes happen to bestow are moral luck, and do not in any way justify their methods.
13. Donald Trump spent much of his speech decrying the “fixed” system in America. Democrats and progressives said that they found his speech “scary.” They should be frightened that he was right, at least about their party.
14. This post gets the “This Will Help Elect Donald Trump” category marker, and Democrats have no one but themselves to blame. I wonder how many of these there will be?
Ethics Alarms 
Think Bernie wants a mulligan for his “the American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails” utterance?
I don’t agree with your assessment of either Sanders or Wikileaks.
But otherwise, yes, you nailed it. Bullseye.
The worst thing is how obvious it all was. The fix was in from the start. The Party Machine was determined to elect the quintessential Machine Politician. The comparison with Nixon is apt, but standards have slipped since those naive and trusting days. That isn’t an excuse – it’s not mitigating, but exacerbating.
I am curious how you can disagree with my ethics verdict on WikiLeaks—unless you think hacking is virtuous—or my general assessment of Bernie. From the “all college should be free” nonsense, to the legally ridiculous claim that he will appoint a SCOTUS Justice who will “repeal” Citizens United on “Day One,” to the irresponsible 15 dollar an hour minimum wage (which if in effect today, would have cost my son the opportunity that opened up his career), Bernie is a satire of ideology over reality. Most lawyers, economists and foreign policy experts view “crackpot” as too kind, and for a special bonus, Bernie was a Stalin admirer.
Regarding Wikileaks, funny how this group that does “illegal” things works, in the main, to keep things honest.
No scare quotes over “illegal,” and Wikileaks has almost certainly gotten American agents abroad killed. You can object to government surveillance of citizens and cheer for Wikileaks. Both are invasions of privacy and secrecy using “the ends justify the means.”
My purpose placing illegal in quotes is simply to point out that whatever is deemed “illegal” doesn’t necessarily impress me. Depends on who is making the laws.
THAT’s an interesting theory..only laws made by the “right” people count as laws.
In essence, perhaps. What if this country were to institute a law like Germany did? – The law that ‘enabled’ Hitler’s dictatorship –
Would you obey, or resist? If you resist, you are acting against the law. You are doing something “illegal.”
http://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839
That’s what “Judgement At Nuremberg” was about—one of my late lamented theater company’s best productions. It’s also the argument for lawlessness that is the equivalent of the ‘ticking bomb” torture justification. Every theoretical threat isn’t an excuse for torture, and every US law someone doesn’t like isn’t like the Nuremberg Laws.
fattymoon said, “Regarding Wikileaks, funny how this group that does “illegal” things works, in the main, to keep things honest.”, “My purpose placing illegal in quotes is simply to point out that whatever is deemed “illegal” doesn’t necessarily impress me. Depends on who is making the laws.”
It appears that you don’t actually understand the concept of right and wrong? Your parents failed you.
Zoltar, my friend, I long ago forgave them. Have you forgiven your parents? If not, what the hell are you waiting for?
Bonus – I will now add you to my zoo.
Thanks for wasting 2 minutes and 35 seconds of my day; that was short bus special of you.
You are always welcome, my friend. Here’s another, tailered just for you. (My, you ARE special!)
Re Wikileaks – from what little I know, which is not enough to give an informed and valuable opinion, dammit, Wikileaks isn’t organised. It’s groups of cells, with different objectives, mostly to do with uncovering secretive malfeasance in governments, corporations, and other entities.
Hoeever, it has been increasingly used by more nefarious entities. The Chinese haven’t gotten into it as far as I know, but the Mafya / KGB certainly have. Any intelligence organisation worth its salt will have, they’re both useful and a threat that needs watching.
zoebrain,
Wikileaks is a bunch of hackers hacking, you know the process by which someone is intentionally and illegally breaking and entering into someone else’s computer system for the purpose of stealing and wreaking havoc.
Hi Jack — I’ve just been introduced to your blogs, and I thought they were intelligent and appeared to be objective. I was going to start following/sharing your blog, but for this particular essay I read the comments, and I was really shocked by your sad, simplistic and nasty knee-jerk generalizations about Bernie Sanders and his goals. Since I don’t know your son’s story, I don’t understand your vague comments about the $15 minimum. You KNOW that people are working multiple jobs and starving, and that unless they (a) get a living wage, (b) win the lottery, or (c) follow a life of crime they have not a prayer of getting to even a marginally comfortable existence (certainly nothing like my or your privileged and white — and in your cae male — life has been). My ex-husband attended UNC for free in the 1960’s, and I just moved north from NC, having watched the NC legislature try to dismantle one of the best state university systems (starting in 2013 with eliminating — not reducing funding but ERASING — the programs that supported kids from low-income families). [Side note: In NC, our water supply was unusable 5 months a year because the state government refused to act on the upstream pollution laws requiring businesses and agriculture to stop dumping chemicals and fertilizers into the rivers. They opted instead to increase our property and income taxes to pay for a massive, multi-year cleanup rather than dealing with the source of the problem.] I think the cost of college is scandalous and with the right priorities I know it could — and should — be financed. In the last decade or so, colleges have expanded to the point of being bloated (more often than not to make their football teams competitive rather than to improve their educational quality… and they are robbing doctoral candidates with promises of nonexistent jobs). And you say that Bernie was a Stalin admirer? He definitely is _not_ a Stalin admirer; if he ever was, he has changed. I would love to know what political and ethical changes you have gone through in your life. Are you 100% proud of something you believed in 30 years ago? Should you still be punished for something you thought or felt when you were 25? Or have you stayed the same like a stone? I am sorry you can’t dream, that you are tied down to a really sad “reality.” I and many others will work hard to elect a congress with an interest in Sanders’s goals, in order to get the White House to move forward on these programs. I hope that 4 or 8 years from now you will see some of them in place — unless Trump is elected and Putin is our new leader, or Johnson or Stein win and we are just… nowhere. Happy times ahead! I would be interested in hearing back from you here or at my email address.
I don’t understand your vague comments about the $15 minimum.
I’ve written more extensively about it, like here The 15 dollar minimum is economic voodoo. It will lose jobs (like my son’s) and also destroy small business. The vast majority of economists believe it’s nuts, essentially. Just feels good.
You KNOW that people are working multiple jobs and starving, and that unless they (a) get a living wage, (b) win the lottery, or (c) follow a life of crime they have not a prayer of getting to even a marginally comfortable existence (certainly nothing like my or your privileged and white — and in your case male — life has been).
So they work two jobs, take risks, develop new skills, stop wasting money, and become productive. If they don’t appreciate liberty and free enterprise, migrate to, say Valenzuela, or some other self-crippling socialist paradise. Socialism keeps failing, and people like Bernie, and apparently you, refuse to accept reality. Yup, capitalism is a tough, challenging system that requires ambition, drive to self improvement, risk and suffering. It also, absent massive screw-ups and corruption, benefits more of society, and rewards merit, effort, talent and work. Paying everyone a living wage regardless of the value of the work they do is charity, and ultimately theft. I know—Socialists define justice, fairness, and reason differently. Can’t help that.
I think the cost of college is scandalous and with the right priorities I know it could — and should — be financed. In the last decade or so, colleges have expanded to the point of being bloated (more often than not to make their football teams competitive rather than to improve their educational quality… and they are robbing doctoral candidates with promises of nonexistent jobs).
Point? My son’s not going to college because he thinks its a waste of money, and he’s right. Recent studies show that the typical student spends less than three hours a day on learning—at those prices? College is a sham, and Bernie thinks it makes sense to add to the dangerous debt so more kids who should be learning crafts get worthless degrees that devalue the degrees of students who belong in college. It’s a typical, pandering, irresponsible and impossible give away at tax payer expense. It’s proof of why Bernie should not be taken seriously, in fact.
You say that Bernie was a Stalin admirer? He definitely is _not_ a Stalin admirer; if he ever was, he has changed.
Bernie sayed and studied at the Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim, generally conceded to be a part of the communist organizational support system, dedicated to the triumph of communism under the leadership of the Soviet Union. Bernie honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Why would someone do that?
I would love to know what political and ethical changes you have gone through in your life. Are you 100% proud of something you believed in 30 years ago? Should you still be punished for something you thought or felt when you were 25? Or have you stayed the same like a stone?
The Communist system murdered more than Hitler. It enslaved half a continent. It was anti-human rights, and anti-American values. I would never deny a citizen rights or employment on the basis of idiotic and reckless political judgment, but I sure wouldn’t him them to be a government leader, either. No one should.
I am sorry you can’t dream, that you are tied down to a really sad “reality.” I and many others will work hard to elect a congress with an interest in Sanders’s goals,
Dreams are not the way to run responsible governments. “Imagine” is not a serious government philosophy, and Bernie supporters are as unhinged as Trump supporters. The US has learned some things in 250 years, and ignoring that wisdom because of dreams about some socialist utopia is childish.
One aspect of this story I hope gets followed up on is the DNC communications with Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press” and Political Director for NBC News. I’d like to see if there is any relationship between the emails and what and how he reported after having received them. It may be a given that persons in his position are communicated to by all candidates and both parties, but these leaked emails gives us a rare opportunity to get a clearer picture of what goes on the behind the curtain.
Regarding #10 and #11, I asked much the same question this morning of Medium’s editors. https://medium.com/@FarkleUp/hard-to-understand-eb28fa18b967#.evdwbfhwg
Bernie won’t rescind his endorsement of Clinton. He knew damn well he was just providing cover for the DMV and Clinton. The only reason DWS got booted off the DC stage is that she might have gotten booed by Sanders loyalists, who won’t boo the man himself, even when he is telling them to swallow all this obvious corruption to keep a Democrat, any Democrat, on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Cheer up, Jack, a poll today said Hillary has a 76℅ chance of winning. Trump will only ever enter the White House as an invited guest. Articles are also emerging saying we may be headed toward a one-party system for the presidency. Just think, no more questions as to who will win each time out. Maybe it will even become a non-partisan election like we have in some cities in NJ.
I don’t believe that poll, and it doesn’t consider the fallout from this episode. 76%, even though the polls show Trump and Clinton in a dead heat. That Nate Silver’s number—he also said there was no way Trump would be nominated. That’s a conventional wisdom poll about an unconventional race.
Articles come out claiming that in the future babies will be made out of cheese. The two party system isn’t going anywhere, in part because both parties are behaving equally incompetently, simultaneously.
There is quite a bit of unpredicatability.
Michael Dukakis (who is much better than what we have now) looked like a sure bet in July of 1988.
He “tanked.”
“The Wikileaks leaks just bolstered their argument, and also left Democrats with the sole justification for supporting Clinton the conclusion that even she is less dangerous than Donald Trump. I wonder how confident the non-corrupted among them are of that conclusion.”
They can be fully confident that she’s less dangerous than Trump. Unless they can’t avoid being on the opposite side of anything – then she’s more dangerous.
Let’s just remind all those good Christian Democrats in Kentucky and West Virginia that this is another Christ killing Jew who doesn’t believe in God. The DNC is just so F’ed up on so many levels it just staggers me.
Another sideshow attraction in Campaign 2016, the Tawdriest Show on Earth! As a life-long student of American history, when I try to put this current freak show of a presidential campaign into some sort of big-picture perspective it is hard to avoid laying a lot of the blame at the feet of those who have steadily and persistently worked to expand the size, power and reach of the federal government throughout our history. This of course began with Hamilton and his camp, gained great ground with the Lincoln administration, and continued with the Progressives of the early twentieth century and onward through FDR and today’s big government proponents. The death of the Jeffersonian ideal of limited federal government and the creation of the bloated creature it has become have created fertile and attractive ground for corrupt individuals and organizations seeking to control (and cash in on) all this federal power. If most political power had remained with state governments, there would be much less control and benefit at the federal level to attract the corrupt and the corrupters. At least, their damage to the national government would be reduced, and they might be more attracted to plying their trade in the more populous and wealthier states rather than infecting the nation at large. I’m not saying this is an original idea, but this campaign has made it much more apparent to me. “Power corrupts,” etc., etc..
Here is an excellent video on academic intolerance and insanity at the base of the 97% consensus science community at a once prestigious American university:
The scariest part of this is that Sanders may have won a fair primary. Say what you will about the two remaining candidates. At least they are ideologically flexible. Sanders is a true believer in wicked nonsense and was by far the most dangerous person in either party running. Thanks DNC!
Not a lawyer, here, Jack, so tell me: Since the DNC is not a government entity and there is, shall we say, some evidence they colluded to commit fraud, could a RICO prosecution be mounted by someone with the balls to do so?
I doubt it. RICO is stretched as it is. The law is supposed to oppose organized crime.
Ken at popehat already answered that. https://popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/
God help us.
Well, I live in a state that will vote for Hillary even if she announces that her Secretary of Labor will be the resurrected corpse of Lavrentiy Beria. So I can feel free to vote my conscience and not worry about helping elect Trump.
Gary Johnson 2016! I disagree with him enormously about a lot of stuff, but he’s far and away better than the alternatives.
Although the basic laws of thermodynamics will eventually decide if:
1. Gravitational attraction between H-atoms causes interstellar Hydrogen to collapse into stars that fuse H-atoms to heavier elements that collapse into neutron stars that collapse into “black holes,” or
2. Neutron repulsion causes cores of stars and galaxies to emit neutrons, decay into H-atoms or fragment, filling interstellar space with Hydrogen, . . .
the London GeoEthics Conference on Global Climate Change, 8-9 Sept 2016, Pearson Lecture Room, University College London
https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/
had to be moved from UCL to the Main Hall of Conway Hall Ethical Society at Red Lion Square (Holborn) after the head of the UCL Department of Physics and Astronomy suggested moving the event to a different venue, not on the UCL premises, to avoid bringing UCL into disrepute or causing dissension in the UCL community.
The 97% consensus science community seems to fear an open public discussion of the evidence for, and against, anthropogenic global warming and Big Bang Cosmology.
An update.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-aide-claims-russians-hacked-dnc-to-help-trump/article/2597498
I saw that. Shameless. Well, you have to blame SOMEBODY…
It’s also possible it’s true. I’ve seen a lot of reputable people, like John Schindler, saying that Wikileaks, whatever they were originally, has essentially become a tool of the FSB. I’ve never looked into it to see how much evidence there is for those claims, though.
Why would any foreign government want to help Trump? It’s ridiculous.
Putin’s made several positive comments on Trump in public. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is he figures that Trump will be easier to out-maneuver than Hillary. And he’s probably right.
My cat could out-maneuver Trump.
They might also just be trying to destabilize the US in general, with Trump merely an accidental beneficiary of their efforts.
Just mischief. Our government doesn’t need foreign intervention to destabilize as we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves.
Re Putin and Trump – follow the money. Deals were made. Putin’s merely protecting an investment, Trump’s business finances depend heavily on Russian money.
Of course, who leaked the e-mails and why in no way mitigates what they show….but that’s the desperate implication of the Clinton Corrupted.
AOL/Huffington Post headline claims “DNC Chair Resigns Over Leaked E-mails”. I would like to think that she resigned because she was caught being a sold-out, corrupt, lying political hack, but the headline is probably correct.
You are absolutely right. But, separate from Hillary’s machinations, if the Russian government is attempting to manipulate the US elections, we need to think very long and hard about that, and what should be done about it.
DWS has just resigned. Not exactly an out on a limb prediction, but one suspects that should Clinton win, DWS will reap a reward for her “sitting on the scale” thus far.
And Donna Brazile is in her place? These people are hillarious.
And HRC’s campaign picked her right up, no apologies, no acknowledgement of what went on. Articles have said this is the end of the GOP, but this sounds more like the end of the Dems. Who can vote for a party this openly corrupt with a straight face?
Only a Fanatic could vote for HRC at this point. Most votes she gets will be because she’s not Trump, and the SCOTUS matters more than just one term of Presidency. They won’t be voting for her, or the corrupt machine she represents, just against an even worse corrupt machine headed by a loony conman.
Only a fanatic could vote enthusiastically for HRC, I still think she’s the lesser of two horrible candidates.
Trump: I’m going to be so bombastic, so idiotic, so obviously unfit that you couldn’t possibly field a more unpopular candidate!
DNC: Want to bet?
@Jack,
Where to begin? First, thank you for this blog! You keep me informed on issues the mainstream media neglects. I try to stay abreast of current events, but your blog is invaluable in providing an objective perspective and analysis from an ethical viewpoint.
Now, we all knew the DNC picked Hillary Clinton years before her nomination. Hillary was slated to be President in 2008, but the DNC decided that they needed to make history with Obama. Completely unqualified! Bernie Sanders refused to go after Hillary Clinton regarding the email scandal. That was a mistake. He refused to attack her character. He still supports Clinton. Consternation?!
I have to tell you, Jack. This election is akin to choosing between Dante’s Inferno and Hell! I may sit this one out. SIGH!
Always the option of a third party. I’m planning to vote for Gary Johnson, myself. I am by no means a libertarian, but in comparison, he seems like the only adult in the room.
As I’ve said here before, even if you have to write in the name of someone you know personally and admire, still get out there and vote. Don’t let people say that no one cared.
What’s vital isn’t just who’s POTUS, but who’s in Congress. So vote, please.
Slightly dismissive of the >46% Sanders supporters. Most were aware of the slant, but not the levels of cheating. We are still here! Demexit is happening every day. Many have made alternate plans, involving neither of the binary hells.
I’m still dismissive, especially since the candidate himself is willing to let this abuse of his supporters and democracy go, except for some symbolic bitching. His supporters should be a s furious with him as with Clinton. Bernie led them on, essentially. He never really tried to win; never called Clinton what she was. When he drew blood, as with the Goldman Sachs attack (has there ever been a more transparently ridiculous excuse than Clinton’s for not revealing the text of her speeches?), he let up.
Sanders was fully complicit in the sham. He allowed the DCN to make fools and usefull idiots out of his loyal supporters, and they are letting him get away with it. I will always be dismissive of patsies.
Jack Marshall said, …the candidate himself is willing to let this abuse of his supporters and democracy go, except for some symbolic bitching.”
Hasn’t Sanders essentially been symbolically bitching since he started his campaign?
Personally I think Sanders was well aware that that he was being used as a political pawn of the Democratic Party to make Clinton “appear” more moderate with the full expectation that he would fully endorse Clinton and his “followers” would fall into line at the polling stations in November to put Hillary into the White House; in my opinion Sanders was a puppet from day one of his campaign.
I honestly don’t know the answers to the following, but the answers “could be” enlightening:
1. Did Sanders every say during his campaign that Hillary Clinton would NOT be a good President, or she would be a BAD President and list the reasons why?
2. Did Sanders ever say that he would make a better President than Hillary and list the reasons why?
I demexited then, 7/12. His acolytes are smarter than you propose. If many were ever that. This binary no-way-out cattle chute has pointed the wrong truck for 40+ years. So I stepped off. I will still vote and pretend it gets counted.
I’m certain DWS will get a cabinet post. Or maybe head of The Clinton Foundation. The Clintons own the Democratic Party machinery. The Obama people (of whom there are very few are) all going to just wander off and write books and so forth and leave the apparatus for all the Clintonistas. They were just either renters or squatters, not sure which.
This won’t stop Hillary from getting in the White House, at this point, I don’t think anything will stop her.
As for Debbie Wasserman Schultz; she has always been and will always remain an intellectually dishonest political hack, another political tool of the Democratic Party; and as such, she has earned a spot somewhere in a Hillary Clinton cabinet or staff, maybe the Press Secretary.
Republican Party is done, it’s been transformed into an unethical bunch of red neck Trump’licans filling their bellies at the propaganda trough; the Democratic Party is blatantly corrupted, it’s infected top-to-bottom with confirmed liars as the arterial feeds of the system and there are wide swaths of morally bankrupt individuals masquerading as intellectuals being used as the capillary conduits feeding junk food to the cellulose and choking out the true intellectual muscle; and people have the audacity to wonder why some people think the end of the United States is near.
Again, all that’s holding it together is the debt.
LoSonnambulo said, “Again, all that’s holding it together is the debt.”
That is about as clear as mud.
What is this “it” you are say is being held together by the debt?
The country. The United States of America.
Please expand on how you think that debt is holding the United States together.
Well, I don’t think anyone wants to walk away with a specific portion of the national debt imputed to them. They’d all rather stay in a crummy restaurant with obnoxious companions than ask for the check.
Come on LoSonnambulo, all I’m getting from you is abstract propaganda bullet points, you’re going to have to do better than that!
I don’t need or want a dissertation but maybe two or three well written paragraphs to explain how you think the debt (I’m not sure I even know what you mean when you say “the debt”) is holding the USA together.
If you can’t explain it, then maybe you shouldn’t be posting it as your opinion.
The debt and it’s feeding tube of deficit spending is – a least in my narrow vision – the most significant economic issue facing the country. Then comes unfunded liabilities – national., state and local. Maybe Bernie Madoof has been the financial guru for the last 20 years for government?
And, yes, I would love to see the spin on how debt is holding this country together.
I’m curious as to whether you think there are many factors holding the country together, or whether you think the debt is not holding the country together.
LoSonnambulo said, “I’m curious as to whether you think there are many factors holding the country together, or whether you think the debt is not holding the country together.”
I intentionally asked you nicely multiple times to explain yourself and all I get back is twisted nonsense; I asked you what you meant by the debt is holding the country because I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about – in my opinion, it’s an absurd statement but hey at least I gave you the chance to make some sense of it. If you can’t explain yourself in some sort of reasonably intelligent manner, then you sound like a troll and that would require me to throw at least one lightening bolts down from the throne of Zeus; so ready or not here it comes – fuck off troll!
Not much to add, except ‘good job!’
One thing: Appreciate the harkening back to Nixon. When I heard about the Wikileaks, I immediately thought of Nixon, and the overkill inherent in his unconstitutional ‘fixing’ of the 1972 election (he wanted to be rid of Muskie, he got rid of Muskie, e.g.) All fueled by his pathological insecurity supported by the the power of the Presidency. The Clintons have that power, and they’ve used it. We should be surprised?
A recent Pew poll found that 39% of the electorate considers itself “independent.” Where are all these people? No convention for them, and no independent candidate on the horizon. But that’s the stuff of another conversation.