Well, she got me!
The utter dishonesty of the Hillary Clinton-dominated Democratic National Committee finally made my head explode, earning the Ethics Alarms KABOOM designation, and also gratitude from the makers of Scott Paper Towels.
I posted on the deceitful DNC non-apology apology reported last night as the party’s response to the Wikileaks revelation that the Debbie Wasserman Schultz-led, Hillary Clinton-supporting staff of the Democratic National Committee was actively assisting Clinton’s campaign and colluding to undermine that of her sole challenger for the nomination, Bernie Sanders. My conclusion was that by apologizing for “the e-mails” and “remarks” instead of acknowledging and apologizing for what those e-mails and remarks signified, the DNC was cynically pretending to be sorry while actually deflecting attention away from its real betrayal.
It was worse than that.
When I wrote this, I was not aware of the recent discovery of anti-gay and homophobic comments in the DNC e-mails, though the DNC surely was. For example, there were exchanges like this (from The Daily Caller):
“Are we back to the point I can say I love you? Because I’d like to. No more cash bar at the wedding!” DNC Finance Chair Zachary Allen wrote to National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan in a May 20 email.
Kaplan then responded, “I love you too. No homo. Phew.
In another email sent by Kaplan, this time with DNC finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer, he speculated on political operative Doug Hathaway’s sexual orientation.
“Doug Hathaway is definitely gay. He swims for the gay and lesbian team in DC,” he wrote to Allen.
“Totes. He gives me daddy vibes.” Comer wrote back.
This context puts the apology in a completely different light. Read it again:
You see? Even though the news media was told that this was an official apology to the betrayed and cheated Sanders campaign, supporters and voters, as well as any Democrats who still have sufficient consciences left to be outraged at their anti-democratic, increasingly totalitarian party, and even though it was misleadingly directed to these aggrieved, the DNC was really apologizing for the anti-gay comments, and only the anti-gay comments, but doing so in a misleading manner that they felt Bernie and his gullible masses would accept as an apology for rigging the nomination practice.
This is diabolical apology practice on a new scale. It also shows what the Hillary Clinton-corrupted Democratic Party and the progressive movement that she has perverted and will warp further really cares about.
Cheating in elections? Rigging democratic processes? Meh. All acceptable in pursuit of the greater good.
Denigrating LGBT individuals in private conversations? Outrageous. Inexcusable. Disgusting. And that’s what the party’s “appropriate action” will be aimed at. Maybe they’ll set up re-education camps or something.
The DNC apology is—now pay close attention–a genuine , heart-felt Level 1 apology for the anti-gay e-mails, intentionally presented as if it was an apology for the DNC’s manipulation of the nomination process, thus making it an epic, unethical Level 1o apology!
It is sincere apology used to deceive, because the DNC couldn’t bring itself to apologize for what it isn’t ashamed of and doesn’t regret in any way.
Bill had to be involved in this.
A sincere apology used to deceive!
37 thoughts on “UPDATE: The DNC “Apology” Is Even Worse Than I Thought! NOW You Get The Kaboom. KABOOM!”
Holy Cow. Where are Stephen Cohen and his undegrad wife Katrina Vanden Heuvel on this? A Russian proto-Czar is in favor of a Republican presidential candidate? What? Wouldn’t it be more likely Putin would be in favor of Bernie Sanders? Maybe that’s who he’s trying to help. A fellow Stalinist.
And. So the Russians hacked into the DNC server but not HRC’s bathroom server? Plus, I thought Julian Assange was a hero? And the guy who’s been living in Moscow, the twenty something dweeb CIA contractor. I thought these were all lefty icons.
Desperate grasping… A partisan Democrat who’s best effort includes: “Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories.”
This…. spinning…. because that’s absolutely what it is, reminds me of the “heavily edited” slurs against the Center for Medical Progress’ Planned Parenthood videos. Were the videos edited? Absolutely… Did they deceive? Not so much… Everything that was presented was said. Were these Emails edited? Probably not. Was the content accurate? I’d bet.
And you know why I think that? Because it would be SO easy for the DNC to find one that had been edited and release the original, thereby casting doubt onto the rest. That didn’t happen. What did happen? They apologised. They barely ever do that when they actually do things wrong, you think they’d apologise for an easily debunked Russian hit piece?
Speaking of Russians on line, here’s a creepy thought: Russia didn’t need to hack into HRC email because they had her password- http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/
I guess it depends on what your meaning of “hack” is.
Here’s something I don’t get — most of us learned pretty early on (as in a LONG time ago) regarding email that you never put anything in email that you wouldn’t want everybody to read. So, not only is this cheating, homophobic, immature, and all kinds of other bad things, it also demonstrates just how incompetent they are. NOTHING IS PRIVATE, PEOPLE!
The entire issue is meaningless garbage and will have zero impact and I see it with my spouse – The Lovely Cynthia – who spent a good portion of her evening watching this dreary lack of morality play. The bottom line is Ms. Lovely despises Trump. She will give her excuse riddled support to the latest member of the Borgia family or crime family.
What is appalling is the dismissal of the actions of the DNC with what is now becoming the talking points and the way it is being spun. This kerfuffle is just an organized plot by Trump and Russia to dismiss Lucrezia from owning up to any level of responsibility. Damn right-wingers!
What I find disturbing about the domestic dispute in our household is the sheer hatred of Trump will blind one to any degree of actually seeing the Clinton crime family for what it is. A year ago my bunkmate would never have considered Hillary a viable candidate for the usual list of every growing reasons to avoid this political Ebola. Now? It can all be sanitized.
Jack, I miss the point of this post. The “apology” clearly dwells only on the snarkiness in the emails and not the massive effort to coronate HRC evidenced by the emails. But I don’t find the apology as some sort of LGBT dog whistle. I just don’t see it in the text.
They felt they needed to apologise to the LGB people, but not for the convention-fixing. Is that because they think LGB people are thin skinned, fickle and require pandering, or is that because they think that convention-fixing wasn’t a big deal?
Hint: The answer is yes.
There was no “disrespectful language” about Bernie in the emails. Suggesting that he’s an atheist isn’t disrespectful in a party that often explicitly attacks religion….and besides, he his an atheist, in all likelihood. “These comments do not reflect our values.” “Values” in Dem-speak is always about diversity, social justice…not screwing political enemies. Surely we’ve learned that.
Since I pointed out that the original apology was for something irrelevant to the scandal, but we now know that the anti-gay language created another scandal at the same time, which of the scandals does the apology more accurately refer to?
Jack I must respectfully disagree. Several of the samples I read were not only disrespectful of the Sanders campaign but also showed direct contempt for him, personally.
When I wrote this, I hadn’t discovered all the e-mails, and I agree with you. But the disrespectful language is still nothing compared to the conduct behind it. Language wasn’t the issue: conspiring to help Hillary was, and the party still hasn’t apologized for THAT. Today they dumped three top DNC officials, and didn’t mention the Bernie betrayal or allude to it.
But as to the specific point: the apology did cover actual disrespectful remarks to Bernie and Bernie babies, and not just gays. You’re right. I missed it.
I think there’s some subtle nationalism going on here. If the RNC had used “Saudis” the way the DNC is using “Russians” I’m sure an “Islamophobia” bomb or three would have been lobbed by now.
Jack: I’m not understanding your analysis. Are you saying that the words, “…or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not – and will not – tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates.” should just be lifted out as meaningless in the context of the full statement?
One reason this is interesting is that if the DNC had issued a statement yesterday that said solely, “The DNC does not – and will not – tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates.” it would have been seen as an unmistakable threat toward Sanders supporters.
You can choose to misunderstand if it makes you feel better. Yes, that phrase assisted the lie. Since there was no “disrespectful language” about Bernie in the emails, just discussions about how to sink him, this was part of the deceit.
This just adds to the piles and piles of reasons why I can’t vote for either Clinton or Trump.
I agree. It’s actually how depressing all this is, we have two candidates who are equally despicable. Yes, there will be some extra, third party candidates on the ballot, but they aren’t any real choice. What I’d actually like to see is a place on every states ballots that says NONE OF THE ABOVE. At least we could feel like we’re accomplishing something with our vote………..a protest, if nothing else. I’d like to see both parties have to go back to find someone more acceptable, but, I’m aware that’s just dreaming.
And Bernie the wimp goes along with this and urges his delegates to vote for Hillary. Meanwhile, many of his delegates boo him, and chant “Lock her up!”. It’s going to be a fun few days watching the DNC.
Of course Bernie kowtows to the power. He’s an old Stalinist. He knows which side of the bread the butter’s on.
Seriously?! What exactly did you expect him to do that wouldn’t have resulted in your comment? There is NO DOUBT and NO QUESTION: If you don’t want a Trumpdom, get the prevailing opposing candidate elected, then hold her feet to the fire. He had no other choice at this point. I can’t imagine what you could possibly say he should have done otherwise.
Sure he did. He could have taken Cruz’s approach, and say, in effect, I will not be complicit in furthering exactly the kind of cynical corruption I ran my campaign to oppose. He’s a fool, but at least I could respect him for that..
But he’s trying to preserve his input into the platform, which to him has always been more important than who is POTUS.
Then he’s an idiot, Patrice. Who reads the platform? When have you heard either platform seriously debated during a campaign? Quick: what was the platform of either party in 2012? Why doesn’t he just scrawl graffiti on a wall? Do you think that’s what his passionate supporters wanted? A meaningless plank in a platform that nobody reads, follows or cares about?
I don’t mean the damned written document. I guess I used the wrong word. I guess I mean the concepts for which his supporters supported him. He wants to stay on the team because he wants to keep that agenda from being forgotten or ignored. If he becomes persona non grata, he’ll have absolutely no input.
“Hillary Clinton on Monday dismissed the notion that she needs to adopt some of Bernie Sanders’ positions to unite the party if she becomes the Democratic nominee, arguing during an MSNBC town hall that she has millions more votes and more specific proposals than her rival.”
But he won’t be persona non grata, right?
This is likely another example of how Hilary won the title of “Ethics Corrupter”. Bernie has been corrupted with the bribe of having “input”.
Wait … “I love you too. No homo. Phew.” is homophobic? There’s a whole song about it. The phrase is a joke largely made by securely heterosexual men to make fun of INsecure heterosexual men. As in, “You look good in that suit. No homo.” It’s akin to that (Doritos?) Superbowl commercial some years back — which, now that I think about it, was ALSO labeled homophobic.
“Daddy vibes”? I live in a predominantly gay area of Houston and hear worse than that FROM GAYS on a daily basis.
I’m not excusing the DNC in any way and, especially in the context of everything else, it looks bad. But, this is far from a smoking gun that the DNC is engaged in active bigotry.
I didn’t say the e-mails proved bigotry. But the LGBT community has used worse to get people fired and force performers and other public figures to grovel. It’s politically incorrect, and to the Political Incorrectness Party, that’s sin enough.
Also “homo,” like “queer” and “fag,’ is a denigrating term. Did you miss that?
But I guess if you’re a Dem you can use “homo” just as if you’re black you can use “nigger.”
Thanks. I can see your analysis now. I’d love to see the LGBT industrial complex’s response to the DNC and the Clinton campaign that preceded and resulted in the apology. I wonder if anyone has hacked into that little trove of email goodness.
I never said YOU said anything of the sort, I was just musing in general.
To your point, though: “homo” is only pejorative in certain contexts. As I mentioned, I hear gay men use it with regularity. What’s more, it’s usage need not be limited to those who identify that way, in the same way “nigger” is to blacks. Hell, I’ve used it with several of my gay friends on numerous occasions.
“No homo” only uses the “negative” term to make fun of those who would use such terms in a negative fashion. I guess social warriors can’t appreciate irony.
What is ironic is that “politically correct” terms are generational and millenials and after don’t care. For example, almost no one in my age bracket uses the term “African American” unless speaking in an HR or professional setting (and even then, only because some of the old fogeys still cling to it). Likewise with queer. In fact, a number of respected social science departments have a specialization in “Queer Studies.” — depending on who you talk to, the recently-added “Q” to “LGBTQI” stands for “queer” or “questioning.”
The times they are a-changin’ …
I declare victory!
I rarely watched managed news but tonight ABC was in the bag. The emails? Nothing and I do mean nothing on the content it was all the Russians and Putin and – of course – their attempts to aid Trump.
The unwillingness of partisans and the newsmedia to call what is so evident the corruption it is could be the most dismaying aspect of the whole mess.
I was just going to say the same thing. Not a freaking word about the contents of the emails, spent the entire segment trying connect Trump to Russia and thus the hacking.
Trump might win, and I am mildly sick over it. Madeline Albright gave a speech where the bravest thing Mrs. Clinton ever did was stand up at a conference 20 years ago as First Lady (in Beijing, so not nothing) and say that women should have their rights respected. That was the only specific example she could give. This was followed by a 10 minute video of all the good things Mr. Bill Clinton did, followed by Bill croaking out inspiring things, as is his wont.
I am also gravely concerned about Donald Trump losing. Trump is stupid. Senator Ryan is priming the House to prevent Trump from doing anything unconservative. I am positive the only reason he endorsed Mr. Trump is to stay politically viable in the unpleasant chance that Trump should win. That this unethical endorsement was a utilitarian ethics chess game.
Ryan is shrewd; so early in his career, he is objectively unqualified to be president, and was not willing to play least-most-unqualified in the American psyche’s three-way pseudo primary between he, twiddle dee, and twiddle dumb. He kept himself away from any chance of flaming out like Rubio.
Ryan, seems willing and able to restrain a President Trump. If Trump wins, enough Red Necks will have come out to keep the House in Republican hands. If Ryan can control the House, and keep his fellow Republican President at bay, we might be “OK”. Not great, but “OK”.
If the Democrats get the Presidency, I fear the Clinton machine is too good. They will twist and twirl whatever is most politically expedient. We have already seen the ends to which Party insiders bend over backwards to accommodate her. I can think of no prominent Democrat to denounce her.
Trump, meanwhile, has half his party against him, angry at the party’s leadership for allowing this to happen. Trump will get little slack from either Party as president. No living Republican President has endorsed him. The unequivocal gentleman, Mr. George W. Bush, utterly denounced him in a gentle speech, without once mentioning Mr. Trump’s name, referencing his unstable and uncongenial traits. Powerful, respected Republicans have rejected Mr. Trump.
Powerful, respect Democrats, have recognized this, and have purposefully diluted it. The media consistently cites Mr. Trumps disgusting attacks against Jeb Bush as the reason, making this lack of endorsement a petty grudge. George W. Bush stared down Saddam Freaking Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and assorted anti-American autocrats. He has tough skin. Nothing Trump could say about his brother would hurt him personally. Neither He, nor his father would endorse Mr. Trump, even if he spoke flatteringly about Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush, unlike Chris Christe, would refuse a Trump-Vice Presidency.
The Democratic Party has proven itself to be autocratic during the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. It manipulates facts at every level, including the integrity of Republican internal opposition, including claims of campaign neutrality, including claims of competence. The Republican Party shows some bare strings of respect for the Constitution. Ryan might even be willing to pull the Trump card on one of his own if needed, Impeachment. No one can derail impeaching an obviously unfit, old white guy as rascist/sexist/etc-ist. Et tu, Ryan?
Nothing will change the fact that Donald J. Trump is the least qualified or fit to purport to run for the Presidency of the United States of America. His simply has fewer proven autocratic capabilities (though
Trump is number-one in bluster.) The Democrats have proven capability, held in check only by crippling incompetence across the board elsewhere.
Trump might win. At least the Democrats will have to tear everything down and start from scratch. Perhaps the first movement towards by partisanship will be impeaching Mr. Trump.
Hello, President Kaine?
Rich in CT
His *Party simply has
Here is how it is done in Massachusetts. (Please have a sickness bag when reading).