Home / General / Were the Democratic Primaries Rigged?

Were the Democratic Primaries Rigged?

Comments
/
/
/
893 Views

hrzgal.dnc

No:

I bring these examples up in light of the new WikiLeaks revelations about staffers of the Democratic National Committee and their attitudes toward this year’s Democratic nomination race. The disclosed e-mails have been depicted as showing a rigged system that systematically undermined Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

But even if you believe the worst interpretations of these e-mails, the evidence is pretty mild. What we see is DNC staffers trying to spin the media in favor of Hillary Clinton and to complain to each other about Sanders. One certainly does not get the impression that the DNC staff was impartial between Clinton and Sanders — they appear biased and unprofessional — but there’s hardly evidence they materially manipulated the contest.

And also no:

Wikileaks’s tweets conjured dark and menacing conspiracies, but these are not borne out by the emails themselves. Take the group’s claim that the “DNC knew of Hillary paid troll factory attacking Sanders online.” The highlighted email isn’t some secret communication laying out nefarious plots. It’s a summary of a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday.

But forget the emails for a second. The main problem with the notion that the DNC rigged the results for Clinton is that it requires one to assume the improbable. The DNC had no role or authority in primary contests, which are run by state governments. Clinton dominated the primaries. The DNC, through state parties, had a bit more influence over caucuses … where Sanders dominated Clinton.

None of the thousands of leaked emails and documents show the DNC significantly influencing the results of the nomination. Furthermore, if it is true that last fall Clinton campaign chair John Podesta tried but failed to have DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sacked, the underlying premise of the entire WikiLeaks dump—that Wasserman Schultz machinated to deliver Clinton the nomination—is hard to believe.

The main direct consequences of the WikiLeaks dump have been the resignation of Wasserman Schultz—which will probably relieve the Clinton team as much as satisfy Sanders supporters—and tut-tutting from the press, which sees something nefarious in the DNC strategizing how to get favorable press or grousing about a campaign accusing it of corruption.

When the best evidence you have of a conspiracy is a not notably influential staffer making a dumb and offensive suggestion that was not acted on because it was dumb and offensive…there’s no conspiracy.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Heron

    Exactly. See also Taibbi’s Attempt to make something nefarious out of money raised by a joint DNC/Clinton pac for down-ticket races in November being used during the primary for general funding.

    • upstate_cyclist

      Damn it all. I realize kicking bankers in the shins with steal toed boots can get tiring after a while but it’s gotta be more enjoyable than this BS. Forever tilting at windmills when the horde is at the gate.

    • mikenmar

      Ah yes, that is an interesting piece. Here’s let me fix the link, which you seem to have fucked up:

      LINK TO TAIBBI’S PIECE

    • ael

      Sorry, the emails demonstrate that the DNC had a consistent bias towards Clinton and against Sanders.

      Showing a consistent bias is pretty much the definition of rigged.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        *acting* on that bias would be more the definition of ‘rigging’ something

        • so-in-so

          As Democrats, we get our own special definition of “rigged”. It means not agreeing with everything the other side says.

          • ael

            Ah yes, I understand. Clinton and the DNC were on one side and Sanders was on the other side. Seems pretty much the standard definition of ‘rigged’ to me.

            • so-in-so

              Oh noes! The people who worked for yeas in the didn’t fall all over themselves for the guy who joined right before running?

              I guess you missed all the bits throughout the thread about nobody actually DOING anything to harm Sander’s campaign?

              Not to mention ignoring all the own-goals his campaign had?

              • postmodulator

                Oh noes! The people who worked for yeas in the didn’t fall all over themselves for the guy who joined right before running?

                This gets thrown at Sanders a lot, but doesn’t he get some credit for being a more reliable Dem vote than Lieberman ever managed to be?

                • so-in-so

                  Well Lieberman was actually primaried out (and came back to win as an independent, to Connecticut’s ever-lasting shame), so I think Sander’s has a much higher regard among Democrats at this point. That doesn’t mean long-time party members should have no opinion, or prefer him over another, much longer term Democratic politician; does it?

                • postmodulator

                  A preference is understandable, but I think it’s unfair to characterize Sanders as “using” the Dem party the same way that, say, Buchanan used the Reform Party in 2000 or that Johnson is using the Libertarian party now. (With the Libertarians’ mostly cheerful assent.)

            • Ahuitzotl

              well, congratulations, you’ve put your literacy in serious doubt.

      • And…they didn’t, by and large, show it. These were intended to be private.

        • ael

          Yes, and weighted die are designed to look just like normal ones. That makes the craps game “fair”.

          • CD

            analogy fail

            “riggED” requires some prior “riggING” which nobody has yet shown

          • Rob in CT

            What, exactly, did the DNC do that materially harmed the Sanders campaign?

            The email that had everyone fired up was something that was never acted upon. Sanders supposed atheism was never an issue that was raised.

            That leaves us with what? The debate schedule, I guess? That looks to me like a hamfisted attempt at helping HRC that was, in the end, ineffectual and unnecessary (turns out she’s a solid debater, though Bernie did well too). Beyond that… what?

            • postmodulator

              The debate schedule is not nothing. It’s a mild example of unfairness, at most, especially since, as you said, it was inconsequential in the end. But there isn’t supposed to be any unfairness at all. That’s in the DNC’s bylaws.

              • Rob in CT

                Hey, I’ve got no problem with DWS’s resignation and the DNC admitting some fault. They aren’t supposed to have their thumb on the scale, even a little.

                I just don’t think it mattered. So take the scalp and move on.

                • so-in-so

                  Right, how often does the top person in any organization take the fall for underlings these days? See the Trumpist’s plagiarized speech situation for a more standard example.

                • Ahuitzotl

                  They aren’t supposed to have their thumb on the scale, even a little.

                  why not?

                • Pseudonym

                  why not?

                  DNC bylaws, IIRC.

          • This is silly.

            There are two ways some aspect of partiality can enter into a situation like this:

            1) Materially. That is, there is a material effect on the race as a result of someone’s illegitimate actions. I.e., they changed the race toward the outcome they personally prefer.

            This can be substantive, i.e., it had a reasonable chance (at least) of affecting the outcome, i.e., overturning a result. Or it can be ineffectual, i.e., it had no real chance of changing the outcome.

            2) Appearance. That is, there is no action that is intended or could likely change the outcome, but there is the perception that the people in the key positions either did, would, wanted to, or tried to distort the outcome.

            Merely *having* preferences wrt an outcome or even *expressing* those preferences (if done in the right way, e.g., privately) do not fall under either of these headings.

            Only 1 counts as rigging (or attempting to rig). Private emails that didn’t lead to action are neither. Private emails that have been exposed support 2. This is why you shouldn’t write such stuff down even if you are meticulously neutral in your behaviour.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        Showing a consistent bias is pretty much the definition of rigged.

        Snark? Because that is so obviously not the “definition of rigged” that I can’t think of any other reading.

        The definition of “rigged” is, you know, rigged. Ballot box stuffing, etc.

        • Quaino

          Rigged was long ago redefined as ‘any Democrat anywhere showing a preference towards anyone at all.’

      • cleek

        Showing a consistent bias is pretty much the definition of rigged.

        making up definitions that suit your argument is pretty good sign that you’ve already lost the argument.

  • LeoFromChicago

    This was so overblown — played up by the media.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Was it rigged? Of course it was rigged. It was just ineptly done.

      This is what Terry McAuliffe thought, hardly a Johnny Come Lately:

      Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a former DNC chair, said he was outraged. “If I had been chair, they would have been fired within five minutes,” McAuliffe said, although he expressed sympathy for Wasserman Schultz, noting that he had a drink with her Sunday night.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-day-of-humiliation-for-party-chair-underscores-democratic-divide/2016/07/25/aaa9b512-5277-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html

      Robert Reich and Raul Grijalva felt similarly.

      So you can’t blame this on the media. The one you should blame is DWS.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        (yawns)

      • Phil Perspective

        DWS should have been fired two years ago.

        • Regulust

          Yes, when she sided with the predatory payday lenders against CFPB regulations, that should have been the catalyst for her resignation.

          Better late than never.

      • Was it rigged? Of course it was rigged.

        Nope.

        McAuliffe didn’t say it was rigged. He implies that the staffers were unprofessional. Which they were. That’s still on DWS. Indeed, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns saw DWS as a PITA rather that someone super useful.

        • N__B

          I suspect most candidates see the DNC chair as a pain in the ass, but DWS was outstanding in that field.

        • DrDick

          Exactly right. Even as a strong Sanders supporter, this claim is very silly. Clearly the DNC was biased and unprofessional, and likely made things a bit harder for the Sanders campaign, but they did not, and really did not have the ability to “rig” the primary.

          • likely made things a bit harder for the Sanders campaign,

            And definitely ended up making things harder for the Clinton campaign!

            The conclusion I’ve drawn from all this is that DWS is one of Obama’s rare, but significant, fuck ups. And that he just wasn’t interesting in building up party structures. This probably hurt us some (on the margins) during the midterms. The proximate problem was DWS, but DWS is Obama’s fault.

            I’m hoping that Clinton + Sanders think of ways to make the DNC vital and helpful. I really want someone to try to tackle the midterm turn out problem.

            • DrDick

              This probably hurt us some (on the margins) during the midterms. The proximate problem was DWS, but DWS is Obama’s fault.

              Agreed completely. I think a big part of fixing this is to return to the 50-state organizing model, instead of just concentrating on a few swing states, which DWS did.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Robert Reich and Raul Grijalva felt similarly.

        The outrage ran the gamut from Bernie to Sanders!

        • postmodulator

          And noted Sandernista Terry McAuliffe. Let’s be fair.

      • Sly

        Then I hope that the staffers who wrote those e-mails never get fired. In fact, their pay should be increased 20-fold.

        Because if a bunch of e-mails that no one outside the DNC ever saw convinced millions of people to vote for Hillary Clinton, or somehow influenced the structure of primary elections not in the control of state parties toward those staffers’ preferred candidate, then the DNC has bona fide sorcerers working for them and probably shouldn’t piss them off.

  • Hells Littlest Angel

    When the best evidence you have of a conspiracy is a not notably influential staffer making a dumb and offensive suggestion that was not acted on because it was dumb and offensive…there’s no conspiracy.

    I can just imagine Them chuckling liquidly as one of their agents informs Them that you have reached this conclusion, and the dry, scratching sound as a pen crosses the name Lemieux off the list.

    • wjts

      Seriously. As always, the lack of evidence for a conspiracy only proves how sophisticated the conspiracy is.

      • Warren Terra

        wjts's attempt to suggest the lack of evidence isn't proof of the conspiracy's sophistication proves wjts is part of the conspiracy, and so that the conspiracy is yet more sophisticated

        • Adam Weishaupt

          wjts is not part of any conspiracy. More specifically, he is emphatically not part of the conspiracy that I did not orchestrate.

          • (((Malaclypse)))

            And so, the Eschaton moves one step closer to Immamentization.

            • rea

              Atrios will take over?

              • postmodulator

                I’d be kind of okay with either interpretation.

          • yinz

            +23

  • keta

    Houle’s piece rightly notes the much, much, much bigger problem these leaks have illuminated:

    If the Russians can get in to the severs of the White House, the State Department, and the DNC, then it is possible they can retrieve the digital and data infrastructure of the Democratic Party and its allies in organized labor and liberal interest groups. They have now crossed over from simply infiltrating documents and data to exfiltrating documents to shape public opinion and the democratic elections that determine control over the power of the state.

    Could the Russians wipe out the voter registration rolls in an effort to shape the electorate to benefit Donald Trump? Just last week the Illinois State Board of Elections announced it had been hacked, “most likely from a foreign (international) entity.”

    And what about the Democrats’ advantage in data and analytics? It depends upon the integrity and security of the data. What if hackers installed malware that severely damaged NGP-VAN, the system that Democrats use for targeting and contacting voters? In 2012 the Republicans tried to create a similar system; it was a disaster, causing chaos in its get-out-the-vote operation.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      and the press, so far, is just kind of pretending Santa Claus- or maybe the stork, I dunno- dropped off those e mails under their tree

      • Lit3Bolt

        It is curious how so many journalists are conspicuously silent about the journalist-killer.

        • Pat

          They supported the journalist-killer’s lapdog all through the primary with free media.

    • ThrottleJockey

      While it is an issue of National Security level importance that Russia hacked the DNC emails, and that they perhaps did so at the behest of Donald Trump, this is clearly a diversion technique by the Clinton campaign. That the DNC’s wrongdoing was exposed by a Putin desperate to make a deal with Trump doesn’t mean the DNC wasn’t doing wrong. It merely means it took a state-level intelligence apparatus to ferret it out.

      • Cheerful

        How is pointing out that foreign governments are trying to manipulate elections through selective hacking and dumping of email a diversion tactic? Given how much more important the implications of that are, then the implications of DNC staff having an animus against Bernie are, it strikes me the diversion is going the other way.

        • Matt McIrvin

          Nixon went down for doing less than Putin is doing for Trump.

          • Thom

            Let’s not let Nixon off the hook. For instance, one of the counts of the impeachment, unrelated to elections, was the secret bombing campaign in Cambodia. Watergate was a lot more than the stupid burglary that gave it its name.

          • JMV Pyro

            To be fair, Nixon didn’t have access to modern technology.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        generally speaking the borrower is more desperate than the banker

      • Murc

        While it is an issue of National Security level importance that Russia hacked the DNC emails,

        Russia didn’t just hack the DNC. They hacked the State Department.

        That’s a bit more serious.

        • patrick II

          Does that mean that Hillary was better off having a private server than having her email at State?

          • Warren Terra

            It seems to me, as a layperson, that if the Russians could hack State they could probably hack her private server, and if they were paying attention to the emails they hacked from State they probably would have known her private server existed and pursued it.

            But there’s very little reason to think there’s anything much remaining to be exposed from Clinton’s private server …

            • patrick II

              So, worse case scenario, Hillary’s private server may have been as bad as, but no worse than, having her emails at state.

          • cpinva

            “Does that mean that Hillary was better off having a private server than having her email at State?”

            funny you should ask. as it turns out (and something never mentioned by the republicans), the servers at State were hacked, during her time in charge. not, apparently, by the Russians, but still hacked. because she was using a private, at home server, her data wasn’t touched.

            • lunaticllama

              This is one of the ironies that rings out in my head when I read comments about how Clinton’s insecure handling of her email server is a grave threat to this nation.

      • Cheap Wino

        Wow. The most minor of inconsequential actions by an organization (where entrenched interests of the party reacted in the expected manner to essentially a non-participant in that party moving in) somehow is more important than that the presidential candidate of a major party is working with a state that is, at the very least, antagonistic towards US interests.

        And please don’t feed some bullshit about how you’re not saying the Russians or Trump are wrong. Your post is all about ignoring the real problem to focus on your pet issue, undeniably. Get your shit together.

      • Owlbear1

        Gosh you’re so brave standing up to Hillary like that.

        • Pat

          If TJ ever stood up to Putin, now, that would be something to see.

      • Chetsky

        But but but but TJ, there weren’t any WMD! And Cheney knew it all along!

        ETA: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

      • rea

        It means that Trump is a traitor.

        • calling all toasters

          Surely that pales alongside people saying unpleasant things about Bernie in private or receiving emails of NYT articles.

          Don’t hate because TJ is Putin-curious– LGBTQP rights!

        • Karen24

          A couple of days ago I described Trump’s campaign as the Max Bialystock production of “The Manchurian Candidate.” Now that I have confirmation of my prophetic powers, I’m going to buy stock and lottery tickets and then start my own religion.

          • Warren Terra

            “Muskovian Candidate”.

            • Karen24

              That works.

              • N__B

                Especially given DJT’s more-than-passing resemblance to a musk ox.

                • Karen24

                  The obvious retort is “don’t insult musk oxen.”

                  Just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean it’s not actually correct in this case.

            • Pat

              Putin’s lapdog!

    • Phil Perspective

      We’ve messed around in elections there before. We got Yeltsin elected. And who did Yeltsin appoint as his successor? Hmmmmm!!!!!

  • Regulust

    Meanwhile Donald Trump doubled down on his genius “ditch NATO until they give us more money” plan. All these years hearing the GOP gripe & moan about how Obama was weak towards Putin, & they ended up nominating Putin’s wet dream as their presidential candidate.

    When will the GOP stop killing parody? It’s deader than Loomis’ horse.

    • Hells Littlest Angel

      Of course, all NATO has to do is say, fuck you, you did a shitty job, we’ll pay 25% of what we promised. Now get back to work or we’ll kill you with lawsuits.

      • wengler

        Defense treaties aren’t decided by lawsuits.

        • junker

          I think the joke is that this is how Trump handles his dealings with small businesses.

          • efgoldman

            I think the joke is….

            If you have to explain a joke….

            • GeoX

              Nobody HAD to explain it; it was obviously a joke.

      • Brad Nailer

        Funny that a man who’s made his living stiffing contractors for work performed thinks it’s okay to renege on a treaty obligation because an ally hasn’t paid its bills.

    • Murc

      Trump’s NATO rhetoric is jaw-dropping.

      I mean… there’s a case to be made that other nations should be shouldering more global peacekeeping or containment roles that are currently happening on our dime. Yes. Let’s have that discussion.

      Trump wants to turn NATO into a protection racket. And, I mean. Wow. I haven’t been genuinely, utterly surprised by anything Trump has done by over a year except for this. Everything else out of his mouth was just the same racist shit shorn of pretense, this is right into cloud-cuckoo land.

      • Alex.S

        Yes. Trump’s foreign policy is insane.

        * Turn it into a protection racket.
        * Deliberately set a standard of “We’re not going to tell you what our plans are”.
        * Then shrug and tell other states that they could invade other countries and the United States might or might not react.

        Oh, also going to go into Iraq and crush ISIS with like 1,000 troops or so. And take the oil on their way out.

        • Breadbaker

          I’m sure the Kuwaitis would love to describe how that strategy worked under Bush 41.

        • lunaticllama

          You are forgetting the part where if a country doesn’t want to be in the protection racket, then it should just go off and build their own nuclear weapons. People who hand-wave away Trump’s advocacy for nuclear proliferation get an earful from now. It’s kind of retrograde, but I do not want any more countries, even allies of the U.S., to develop and maintain nuclear arms…

          • Murc

            You are forgetting the part where if a country doesn’t want to be in the protection racket, then it should just go off and build their own nuclear weapons.

            I bet the Ukraine is wishing it had held onto its nukes; they signed a treaty giving them up in exchange for a guarantee of their borders from Russia, an agreement the Russians honored for all of two decades.

      • Regulust

        I would say it’s extortion rather than a protection racket but that’s semantics. It really is completely insane and it actually lends some serious credence to the allegations that the Russians are really trying to influence the election in Trump’s favor whether Trump knows it or not.

      • wengler

        Trump’s NATO jabbering is one of the more unorthodox positions he has. The Washington consensus has been for pushing NATO as eastward as possible.

        Like most things though, Trump knows that promising other people to pay for stuff hits buttons with his fascist supporters. He almost certainly doesn’t give a shit.

        • Pat

          Trump’s NATO jabbering is done on behalf of his Russian investors.

      • JMV Pyro

        Well of course. Trump views the world as a zero-sum game. The idea of “mutual benefit” doesn’t exist in his world.

        I pointed out how dangerous that mindset is in foreign policy to some friends months ago and they laughed me off. They’re not laughing anymore.

  • humanoid.panda

    This story has everything that is terrible about American politics and media in 2016: conspiracy, bad faith, malice, nihilism, cyber-warfare, clickbait, paranoia, wishful thinking, inability to read beyond the headline, self-martyrdom, and more. And yet, the guy who was pondering to spread rumors about Sanders should lose his job, pronto.

    • brewmn

      On The Takeaway today, they actually had a piece with a journalist explaining that the Wikileak is pretty much SOP for Putin’s Russia.

      However. This piece was preceded by a ten-minute piece about Dems in Disarray At Their Own Convention and followed by a piece ridiculing Robby Mook’s use of the phrase “Russian state actors.”

  • lennywick

    Does anyone else feel like the Russians blew this one? They exposed themselves as the hacking source in exchange for exacerbating Democratic intra-party relations that were already unpleasant but not likely to be long-term. Plus they illuminated many indirect links between Moscow and Trump that people hadn’t been seeing, with a prompt for possibly more. All while indicating security issues that can then be addressed. Sms like a big failure to me, unless I’m missing something.

    • Murc

      I’m a little bit worried, not a lot but a little bit, that they’re just priming the pump. That they have something REALLY bad they’re sitting on until like ten minutes after Clinton formally has the nomination.

      • Adam.379

        Or even worse, they have an October Surprise hack. Don’t even want to think about that.

        • CrunchyFrog

          Julian Assange, in a interview 2 days ago, said that Wikileaks next release of Clinton emails will be enough for an indictment of her. It’s also clear that he is carrying on a personal vendetta against Clinton dating back to her statements against Wikileaks in 2010 (following the Manning leaks) and again in 2013 following the Snowden leaks. The first comments were made when she was Secretary of State.

          This should be deeply concerning to the Democratic Party. And there is no evidence that the Party apparatus has considered what this might mean nor set up any contingencies. The leaking of the DNC emails was warned about a month ago (June 24) yet it took the DNC by surprise when it happened. You’d think that someone who was SoS would know enough to have a team of people study what the leaks might possibly be and created some contingency plans or, better, taken some pre-emptive action.

          • JMV Pyro

            Assange says a lot of things that tend to be overblown.

            If Justice didn’t find anything, why should I believe that Assange has “the truth?” The articles at the top show that they already blew the DNC leak out of proportion.

          • witlesschum

            I don’t know if I particularly trust that Julian Assange knows more about what will get you indicted than the average Trump hate rally participant. Nor do I think he’s above lying just to fuck with a politician he dislikes.

            But, yeah, all the normal ups and downs of politics are a thousand times scarier because the alternative is Trump.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            is it just me or does Assange come off as kind of a low-rent Bond villain this way?

          • Pat

            Crunchy writes:

            This should be deeply concerning to the Democratic Party.

            Dude, it should be deeply concerning to the Republican party. They’re the ones who nominated a guy in bed with the Russians!

    • Cheap Wino

      Eh, Putin may be much more politically savvy than Trump but he’s still competing in the amateur hour comedy club right along with him. The only difference is the Putin is actually running the show and has been in the business of politics as a career rather than real estate scams. So it’s no surprise that they played that card at the wrong time.

      I expect HRC and whoever she places in State and other relevant positions will have a competent understanding of how to deal with Russia and Putin. She certainly has a thorough understanding of how the Obama administration has dealt with the problem.

      • econoclast

        Putin does have undeserved reputation for competence. After the coup attempt Erdogan tried to improve relations with Russia. Rather than take an opportunity to complicate things for NATO, he publicly repudiated the notion.

        • JMV Pyro

          Putin’s “skill” is his ability to project an image of strength that hides how unstable his government really is. He knows unless something changes in the short term, he’s screwed, so that’s likely his motivation for funding/supporting all of these right wing authoritarian types in Europe and America. It gives him some breathing room while his enemies are led by incompetent, divisive rubes.

          • lunaticllama

            This is like Russia’s military actions in Syria, which Republicans thought showed how strong Putin was, even though: (1) it revealed pretty severe operational problems in Russia’s ability to project force just a bit further beyond their “near abroad”; and (2) at the time, the U.S. was running significantly more operations in Syria and dropping a couple of magnitudes more tonnage of bombs.

  • shah8

    To the extent that they were rigged, it was during the invisible primary. Bernie was never a serious candidate, just “the alternative”.

    Also, Russia-enemy-talk is utterly lame. People like Andrés Sepúlveda have been helping factions and states fuck with foriegn elections since time immemorial.

    In a real sense, American credibility is far more shot than the Russians when it comes to interfering with elections.

    • Cheerful

      So you’re comfortable with other countries doing to us what we did to Guatemala and Iran? Just part of the great karmic payback that over centuries will make it all come out right?

      Amazing the number of Putin apologists among the American left. He is not much of a progressive.

      • shah8

        **giggles**

        where did all THAT come from?

        Too the extent that the Russians interfered with American elections, they simply released embarrassing information. I wasn’t even *thinking* of Guatemala or Iran. I mean, you white people might think of everything in terms of what horrible thing you all did to others, but I prefer to think in terms of proportion, you know? If it helps, how about the election between Yeltsin and Zyuganov? Even that is much more than what just happened!

        This is an irritant, people. Russians being assholes. You manage them, not go in all high dudgeon and speaking of them as the Adversary.

        • cpinva

          “Russians being assholes.”

          that’s been pretty much their go-to, since the Rus first set up shop a thousand years ago. if anyone hasn’t figured that out by now, they’re just not very bright.

          • shah8

            And neglect their IT infrastructure.

    • Murc

      Bernie was never a serious candidate, just “the alternative”.

      This is straight-up untrue and either you know it and are being deliberately disingenuous, or you don’t know it and are simply ignorant.

      Sanders had been running, and acting, like a serious candidate from the second he declared. He raised and spent money in the manner of serious candidates, not in the way that grifters or vanity candidates do. He built the sort of organization and fought the sort of battles that serious candidates to. I mean, for god’s sake, he got 40% of the vote! That almost makes him a serious candidate by definition.

      At best, you can say he didn’t expect to win when he started. But he sure as hell ran a year-long campaign like a guy who was going to try his damndest to win even if he didn’t expect to. There were some fuckups along the way, but those fuckups don’t make him an “unserious” candidate any more than Hillary Clinton’s far more spectacular fuckups in 2008 made her “unserious.”

      • humanoid.panda

        If I recall correctly, he significantly outspent Clinton during the primary- and a lot of her spending was on organizing for the general.

        • Murc

          Right. This is one of the big things. Sanders didn’t just raise a lot of money, he spent that money… on the primary! It wasn’t kicked back, it wasn’t used to featherbed. He busted his ass raising money that flowed straight into his campaign. That’s the sine qua non of a serious candidate.

        • Phil Perspective

          If I recall correctly, he significantly outspent Clinton during the primary- and a lot of her spending was on organizing for the general.

          Because he was a non-name starting out going up against someone with 100% name ID. Also, too, Clinton had Super PAC’s and Bernie didn’t. The nurses weren’t affiliated with his campaign.

        • Pat

          Democrats are a coalition.

          We are black; we are brown; we are white; we are Asian. We are female; we are male; we are trans-people. We are young; we are old. We are single; we are married. We are educated; we are workers; we are progressive; we are moderate. Everyone here is some combination of these things.

          If you want to lead the Democrats, you have to be able to lead a coalition. Obama did; that’s why he beat Clinton in 2008. And then she joined his team and learned from him how it is done.

          Sanders leads a big, noisy, important faction of the Democrats. However, he isn’t a coalition leader. It wasn’t until after the South voted that he learned what was necessary to become the Democratic candidate. By that time, Clinton was far enough ahead that she didn’t need to spend the resources that Sanders had to.

      • shah8

        No.

        Were Bernie Sanders a serious candidate, the election would have been far different. He wouldn’t have had Killer Mike out there in the South, he’d have had Vernon Jordan. Nationally, he would have had surrogates of high and established repute. He’d have had major businesses stump for him. He’d have come in a prettier package than that old Brooklyn Guy persona.

        If Hillary beats Trumps 51% to 49%, would that have meant Trump actually was a serious candidate?

        • Murc

          Nationally, he would have had surrogates of high and established repute.

          … huh? The Democratic surrogates of high and established repute were mostly backing his opponent. That has nothing to do with his level of seriousness or not.

          He’d have had major businesses stump for him.

          He’d have had major businesses stump for him. As part of his anti-business campaign.

          He’d have come in a pretty package than that old Brooklyn Guy persona.

          I. No. Just no.

          If Hillary beats Trumps 51% to 49%, would that have meant Trump actually was a serious candidate?

          You have a soupcon of a point that this, alone, would not prove that Trump were all that serious. Yes. That’s so.

          But the rest of your points are just inanely dumb. Your argument seems to boil down to “Sanders wasn’t a serious candidate because he didn’t make the strategic decisions I would have in his place and his coalition didn’t include people who were either unavailable or who he hates. Also, he’s not pretty.”

          • shah8

            Murc, come on, you must see this. Had Sanders been a serious candidate, not everyone who matters would be Clinton surrogates.

            Next, you believe that democratic socialism is anti-business? Besides, you believe that Sanders ever even *promised* the full democratic socialist package? I threw out businesses, it’s it’s just one of a broad range of social organizations that Sanders never made a serious effort to appeal to or organize behind his banner.

            Lastly, politics is not about sincerity. It’s about power. The power of labels, the aphrodisiac of success, the feeling that if you follow this person and what he or she stood for, you’ll feel better about yourself and perhaps your future wellbeing, too. Packaging is important, and the lack of interest in projecting a solid image leads the audience to sharply perceive that there is a lack of seriousness whenever Bernie fumbles outside of his well-grooved topics.

            While I wasn’t making a claim about strategy so far as I can see, why don’t I ask you? Did you perceive a strategy? Was it there, only to be undermined by bad assumptions, or bad tactics? I, myself, did not see a strategy. What I saw was a guy who consistently conserved strength for where he thought he could win, overspend his resources on them, and neglect the places where he *must* win.

            Dat coalition? ptssssh! Of who, precisely? Besides younger whites?

            • Murc

              Murc, come on, you must see this. Had Sanders been a serious candidate, not everyone who matters would be Clinton surrogates.

              So… serious candidates have mind-control powers, then? They can make people who don’t prefer them prefer them?

              Next, you believe that democratic socialism is anti-business?

              Uh, yes? The entire raison d’etre of democratic socialism is “force businesses to behave in a socially responsible manner, because history has shown with terrifying clarity that profit-making enterprises attract sociopaths and then promotes them to leadership positions. They need to be chained down and tightly controlled.”

              Lastly, politics is not about sincerity. It’s about power.

              It’s about both.

              Packaging is important, and the lack of interest in projecting a solid image leads the audience to sharply perceive that there is a lack of seriousness whenever Bernie fumbles outside of his well-grooved topics.

              Except that Sanders clearly cared quite a bit about his packaging, because he traded very heavily on his image as an outsider insurgent and spent a lot of time playing that up and cultivating it. His whole schtick was based around being old-school in a very specific way. You might think that packaging was a mistake, but he did actually care about it.

              I also could give a shit what people perceive. I care about what’s actually true.

              While I wasn’t making a claim about strategy so far as I can see, why don’t I ask you? Did you perceive a strategy? Was it there, only to be undermined by bad assumptions, or bad tactics?

              … of course I saw a strategy. Sanders’ strategy was quite clear from day one; run on an economically populist platform and bank on the fact that there was enough of an appetite for that among Democrats, and that were no longer afraid of being tarred as loony leftists, to carry him to victory. Another big part of it was “Hillary is the consummate insider at a time of deep dissatisfaction with insiders, no other outsider is likely to run, so I can exploit that as an angle of attack.”

              It turns out that wasn’t enough to win, but it was enough to make him a serious contender. His missteps were in not really being ready to draw in groups whose primary concern was the culture war rather than economics, which is a common failing in leftists of a certain age, and in flailing somewhat in the final stages of the campaign; there’s a way to take your losing campaign all the way to the wire without looking bad, and he only managed like, 75% of that.

              That’s all pretty impressive for a dude who had never run a national campaign before.

              What I saw was a guy who consistently conserved strength for where he thought he could win, overspend his resources on them, and neglect the places where he *must* win.

              What states did Sanders “must win” that he neglected? He did lose a number of must-win states (as evidenced by the fact that he lost) but I’m having trouble thinking of any he neglected.

              Also, making bad resource allocation decisions doesn’t make you an unserious candidate. By that rubric Hillary Clinton was an unserious candidate in 2008, when she blew through all that money really early and had trouble in the stretch in March.

              Dat coalition? ptssssh! Of who, precisely? Besides younger whites?

              My recollection is that Sanders won the under-30s not just among whites, but among all demos. I could be wrong about this, tho; google is being somewhat uncooperative.

              Also, again, the man got… 40% of the vote. That wasn’t composed entirely of college kids, dude. He had broad support. Hillary Clinton just had… broader support.

          • Murc, you can just summarize all of shah8’s responses to you as “yadda yadda deep state yadda”. This was a person who was convinced that Oregon’s citizen-proposed public tuition funding proposal was obviously a plot by “banksters” without having actually looked at the proposal or where it came from. Conspiracies under every rock.

            • shah8

              You know, man…you can *quite* easily find similar criticisms of that Oregon initiative–that yes, effectively, it’s a back door privatization.

              Look, this is the classic evisceration: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/pay-it-forward-or-pay-it-yourself/

              And I am making the rather simple leap from the clearly untenable necessary planks for such a program to work, into assuming that this is something meant to fail. The consequences of a failure most likely would result in the liquidation of assets, probably way too cheaply.

              But then, you wanna talk like I’m a conspiracy theorist.

              Damn.

        • He’d have had major businesses stump for him.

          Yeah, sure, the democratic socialist should have had major businesses “stumping” for him. How the hell does that work? Are businesses people who can endorse candidates & give stump speeches?

          • witlesschum

            The Supreme Court seems to think so.

          • lunaticllama

            Corporations are people, too, my friend.

      • Warren Terra

        I agree with a lot of your comment, and you could add more about his fundraising (both sum total and number of donors) and his volunteers – but not this:

        I mean, for god’s sake, he got 40% of the vote! That almost makes him a serious candidate by definition.

        It is a simple, sad fact – and this is what most worries me about November – that Hillary Clinton is one of the most thoroughly demonized people on the planet, and it’s not at all clear that getting 40% of the vote as the most interesting or only remaining non-Hillary qualifies you in much of any way.

        • Murc

          Hence the “almost.” There’s something to be said for weight of numbers; when you clear in that many votes, you almost have to be considered just on that alone. Key word: almost. The numbers are a good sign, because unserious candidates typically pull in, say, Gingrich or Carson numbers, not Clinton in ’08 numbers. But they don’t do it all on their own.

          • Breadbaker

            Sanders ran a good campaign but was never, at any time, in danger of actually winning the nomination. He was never, at any time, the leader in the national polls against Clinton. He was never, at any time, likely to win a majority of the delegates. He did better than Gary Hart or Jesse Jackson, but in the end it’s a Democratic party that is slightly to his right when all the votes are counted. And Hillary is essentially where they are.

            • Murc

              All of those things are true, but none of them mean that Sanders wasn’t a serious candidate.

              I mean, by this rubric Ted Cruz wasn’t serious.

      • cpinva

        I see others have responded to these assertions. let’s just say I was less than whelmed by the Sanders’ campaign. as were, apparently, several millions of other primary voters.

  • Warren Terra

    I have to say, reading the stories of unrest and heckling from the floor all afternoon I was worried, but I watched a couple of hours of the primetime speakers on the official Youtube channel – Booker, Obama, Warren, Bernie – and although there was a little bit of heckling noticeable, one individual voice in particular, it was not very disruptive (the We Trusted You chants early in Warren’s speech excepted).

  • Murc

    As one of the two or three pretty hardcore Sandernistas around here… yeah. There’s no “there” there. I’m irked about the DNC for the same reason I’ve been irked by them for the past year, which is that they were pretty clearly in the tank for Hillary. It’s a long, long, long road from “in the tank” to “rigged a primary election with over fifteen million voters.”

    Hillary won. She won as fair and square as you can win one of these things. Indeed, there’s something of an argument to be made that her win was “cleaner” than Obama’s win against her, because there no disavowed states or half-seated states or other procedural weirdness. All fifty states, the various non-state territories, and D.C had their votes. The votes were counted fairly. The dead did not turn out to vote, nor were ballot boxes stuffed.

    Really, the whole thing worked out the way these things are supposed to work; there was a winner and a loser, the winner recognized “gosh, the wind is behind the loser, so I’d better include their faction in the party platform if I care about party unity not just right now, but two, four, and eight years from now” and the loser recognized “hey, I lost; rather than flouncing, I’m going to use my leverage to get the best platform I can get and then hit the campaign trail on behalf of downticket races and urge my followers to fall in line.”

    That’s how it is SUPPOSED to work. It’s very nearly the platonic ideal of how a closely and hotly contested primary in a party that is still undergoing a metamorphosis should play out!

    • lawtalkingguy

      Hardcore Sandernistas now refers to people booing Elizabeth Warren and Bernie. You are just a neo-liberal shill, like the rest of us. Except for that one racist guy who defends white nationalism on the basis “Well Japanese are a minority so their racist immigration policies cant be racist”

    • Breadbaker

      I copied and pasted your comment onto my Facebook page, with a comment that I didn’t think it would persuade anyone, but it pretty much stated the truth.

      This is freaking politics. No one gets laboratory conditions (and certainly Hillary didn’t in 2008).

      • This is freaking politics. No one gets laboratory conditions

        Trump did!

        Of course, it was Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory…

    • “two or three”? Didn’t the informal polling thread show that Sanders/Clinton support here was roughly 40/60? In any case, there’s easily a half dozen Sanders supporters here that make you look like, er, Elizabeth Warren. And that’s not even counting joe.

    • Karen24

      On behalf of the harder-line Shilleries here,

      1. You’re a Sanders supporter, and never a BernieBro.

      2. Thanks for the endorsement, and

      3. I would be deeply irritated had this happened to my candidate, but I hope would have as much sense as you have to recognize that there’s nothing there.

    • witlesschum

      I’m not sure I qualify as hardcore for Sanders, as I was Loomisish in my support. I certainly preferred him to Clinton when it came time to pick, but I was somewhat skeptical of how much good it would do given a Republican House and of whether Sanders would really be a good president.

      That said, I agree with most of this, except mainly with the irked part. The DNC behaved as I’d expect it to behave. No more, no less. I’m not irked by that, because it’s what I expected. Honestly, if the establishment isn’t trying to push back against my anti-establishment candidate, I’d consider again whether I really want to support the guy. I figure if Bernie Sanders can’t beat the DNC and Hillary Clinton, then he’d never have been able to beat the Republicans or do much with the presidency if he got it. Oh well, we lost.

      On to the next battle (hello new we) and this one looks more winnable.

      • Pat

        You didn’t get your preferred candidate, but you got a lot of what you wanted in the platform. So I hope you don’t feel too much like you lost.

    • FlipYrWhig

      My only correction to this would be to say that I can’t tell from the emails or anything else that “the DNC,” the organization collectively, was “in the tank for Hillary.” Individual members of the DNC apparat favored Hillary and were aggravated by Bernie Sanders. Did they influence the organization to the point where the organization actively thwarted Sanders? I don’t see any evidence of that. I have coworkers who I don’t respect and grouse about over email, and I’d be embarrassed if those emails got out, but I’ve never done anything to harm them, because that’d be petty and wrong.

    • Gee Suss

      Thanks for this, Murc.

      • Murc

        I do like to hear myself talk.

    • DrDick

      As another hardcore Sanderista, I agree completely.

  • Owlbear1

    My new name for Trump supporters is Russian Stoolies.

    Has a nice ring to it.

    • so-in-so

      It is good, but I think “Putin’s lapdog” would sting Trump’s phony machismo more.

      • Pat

        Me too!

      • Gregor Sansa

        Would it be OK to use misogyny to get under Trump’s skin? Because he’s needy, he’s bitchy, he’s a desperate ugly rich old hag, and he’s a Putin groupie with no self respect. Can I say that stuff?

        • yinz

          Ironic misogyny is still misogyny.

        • Lucifer

          Donny the Putin Fluffer!

    • Rob in CT

      Putin’s Poodle, surely?

  • wengler

    I know most of you here won’t read any of the emails because of lack of interest and general perceived need to promote a positive line on the Democratic Party, but I have gone through quite enough of them to realize that they represent several problems.

    The first and foremost is that a serving congressperson should never lead the DNC. Her staff was feeding her intel on Bernie’s moves as concerned with her primary opponent and what events he might appear with Bernie. It’s clear that since they were her people they thought their job was first and foremost to protect her and her political interests. This is a really shitty way to run a party.

    It’s also important for the DNC to run primaries in a transparent and objective manner. If 2008 was run with such clear favoritism to one candidate, it would be Hillary supporters shouting at the top of their lungs.

    • Breadbaker

      From what do your two principles derive, other than your own behind?

      The DNC does not run the nomination process except at the highest of levels. It doesn’t run primaries, which state elections. It doesn’t run caucuses, which are run by state parties.

      Sitting officeholders have often held the position. Tim Kaine, just to name one.

      • I think if sitting officeholders are getting intel about their own races, that’s unpleasant for everyone and should be avoided.

      • wengler

        From what do your two principles derive, other than your own behind?

        Good start. Why don’t you go fuck yourself?

        The DNC does not run the nomination process except at the highest of levels. It doesn’t run primaries, which state elections. It doesn’t run caucuses, which are run by state parties.

        The DNC has quite a bit of power in the nominating process including the debate schedule and access to the master voting list. Or did you miss that part when DWS restricted Bernie from accessing the list that his own campaign created?

        Sitting officeholders have often held the position. Tim Kaine, just to name one.

        Yeah I know. I think they shouldn’t. I don’t see how this is a point.

        • Aexia

          Or did you miss that part when DWS restricted Bernie from accessing the list that his own campaign created?

          For fuck’s sake, his national data director was caught red-handed stealing data from the Clinton campaign. I don’t think the Sandernistas really how lightly the Sanders camp got off there. His campaign broke the fucking law stealing from their opponent and the DNC gave them a light slap on the wrist because they didn’t want to appear like they were biased.

          The Sanders campaign should’ve lost VAN access until the Sanders camp owned up to what they did and admitted they were wrong.

          Instead, we’re *still* dealing with conspiracy theories about how Uretsky was a DNC plant and that the logs were forged. Treating them with kids’ gloves just encouraged and enabled their nutty behavior as the primary went on.

          • FlipYrWhig

            If the Clinton campaign had done that database maneuver we’d STILL be hearing about it as one of the reasons why some people find her untrustworthy.

            • CD

              +1.

              Tells you all you need to know about wengler that the “miss the part” bit avoids this context.

    • I know most of you here won’t read any of the emails because of lack of interest

      I went through several. Not a lot. I start with an article which says, “THE MOST DAMAGING EMAILS!!!!” and usually give up when the first and second bullet points point to a bunch of nothing burgers. (The better articles even admit this!)

      So…your two points seem anodyne to me. I mean, important, esp. the first one, but not something we really need an email scandal for (though…I guess so!).

      WRT the second point, can you identify at least one new *action* that was at least intended to affect the outcome? I’m willing to believe that there are, but no one has, that I’ve read, posted anything to this effect.

      • wengler

        I didn’t see any clear new actions, though perhaps they will become evident in new leaks. I think the old actions of burying the debates and restricting the Sanders campaign from his own voter contact list are good enough. It’s a very minimal standard to meet.

        • Yeah, the debates really hurt Clinton. Terrible debater, that one. I bet she wishes there hadn’t been a single debate.

          And gosh, what a shame it was that the DNC locked out the Sanders campaign for accessing and downloading data they weren’t supposed to have access to. Generally you give people a medal for that.

        • cpinva

          “I didn’t see any clear new actions, though perhaps they will become evident in new leaks.”

          no, they won’t, because there aren’t any. if there were, they’d have been the first thing anyone saw. basically, aside from the security issue exposed, the whole thing is a great big, fluffy, nothingburger. there is no beef.

        • But…your comment was based on that there was new evidence in the emails that you found by reading what the rest of us didn’t bother to read. Saying, now, “Well the email don’t anything over what was publicly known” is reasonable, but not coherent with your initial comment.

          • Aexia

            Remember the halcyon days of them claiming that the DNC rigged the voting machines and purged the voter roles and had plants in the Sanders campaign to frame him for stealing data and Hillary had that DNC data staffer killed because he knew too much?

            Now we’re at “well, they were mean in one email”. Oh how the goal posts have moved.

            • Very strange, indeed.

            • twbb

              I don’t think you realize the moral depravity inherent in such…such…intemperance! There, I said the word out loud. Apologies to the gentlefolk who had to hear such language.

            • cleek

              the new line is “Assange hasn’t released the good stuff yet!!!”

              • Stag Party Palin

                They’re in the vault with the whitey tapes.

    • lunaticllama

      Primaries are run by the states, not the national party committee. The DNC has no role that would in anyway affect how any of the primaries were conducted, which each state operates according to its own election laws.

      ETA: See this point was made above, ugh

    • Scott Lemieux

      I know most of you here won’t read any of the emails because of lack of interest and general perceived need to promote a positive line on the Democratic Party

      Yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be acting in bad faith.

      As Bijan says above, the reason I haven’t spent much time with the emails is that the ones cherry-picked by people who despise Clinton show no material impact on the race whatsoever. You, of course, cannot cite anything non-trivial from them either. So why should I waste my time?

  • AMK

    Meanwhile, wasn’t the RNC “rigged” against Trump? Like at every debate, when they conspired with Fox to feed him tougher questions and try to catch him in contradictions on the spot to humiliate him? Like how they basically cut him off from their money and infrastructure for the whole primary? Like when their Chairman went on TV every day during the primary refuting and disavowing the most GOP-popular things Trump was saying? It’s almost as though a national party committee exists to represent the national party establishment, and not cater to the whims of every barking lunatic in the street with a flag.

    The whole Dem thing is so fucking stupid, it’s not worth anyone’s time except the cable news hacks who are paid to create these kinds of “scandals” where none exist.

    • Murc

      Meanwhile, wasn’t the RNC “rigged” against Trump? Like at every debate, when they conspired with Fox to feed him tougher questions and try to catch him in contradictions on the spot to humiliate him? Like how they basically cut him off from their money and infrastructure for the whole primary? Like when their Chairman went on TV every day during the primary refuting and disavowing the most GOP-popular things Trump was saying?

      If I were a Republican, I would be way, way more upset at the RNC than I am as a Democrat upset at the DNC, even if I weren’t a Trump supporter.

  • Steve LaBonne

    Of course the contest was rigged. In Bernie’s favor, by having so many caucuses and open primaries.

  • The contest was ‘rigged’ only in so much that an establishment organization favored an establishment candidate. The real problem is that it just adds fuel to the meme of collusion, justified or not. The big plus here is that DWS was shown the door, finally. She can now go back to Florida and sob in the arms of her payday lender pals. Boo hoo.

    The fact is that Clinton won, she was always going to win, and she would have won whether the DNC tipped the scales or not. Is she the stronger candidate against Trump? That remains to be seen. But she is the candidate that most appealed to the Democratic Party. That’s the way a democracy is supposed to work.

    Bernie achieved his objective of moving the Party to the left. Clinton is a much stronger candidate than when she initially walked in thinking this was already sewn up. If we want to keep her looking left after the election, then we need to flip the Senate and expand the progressive coalition in the House. I can’t stress that enough. Anything else is a diversion.

  • MPAVictoria

    Pretty much agree with this. Hillary won by a large enough margin that none of these low level shenanigans could possibly have made the difference. Still though this type of behavior confirms a lot of the preexisting notions many Bernie supporters had and makes the DNC look terrible. But if you decided to vote for Trump because of this I think you are a dumb Turnip and I hope you reconsider.

  • Nang Mai

    By no surely you meant yes. Your party seems to think so.

    “The evidence in the leaks was so clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned her role as DNC chair—after her speaking role at the Democratic National Convention this week was scrapped—while DNC co-chair Donna Brazile, who is replacing Wasserman Schultz in the top role, has apologized to the Sanders camp.”

    As for Russia’s involvement:

    “No one in the US government, including the FBI and White House (who have reportedly reviewed the situation in detail), have implicated or even suggested Russian involvement in the leak–neither on the record nor anonymously.”

    http://fair.org/home/with-dnc-leaks-former-conspiracy-theory-is-now-true-and-no-big-deal/

  • Bruce Vail
    • Aexia

      Oh my goodness. The DNC pushed back on stories in the media? My heavens!

  • NorthernInvader

    There is no real evidence that the DNC “rigged” the election. As someone earlier pointed out – biased for sure – but they never acted on that bias in a manner that can be measured. There are the incidents of tens of thousands of voters having their party affiliation switched from Democrat to Independent so they couldn’t vote, but the DNC does not control who is eligible to vote in each state, that’s controlled by the states themselves. This could be malfeasance in states the GOP control (as they certainly would prefer to go up against Hillary than Bernie), it could be just data errors. No one knows and until there is something more concrete than supposition it’s nothing more than gum flapping to say the DNC was behind it. Also worth noting is that while the media ignored these missing voters, and the Bernie side of the equation went bonkers over it online, there did not seem to be much in the way of reports on how many GOP voters or Hillary supporters were affected by these problems. If the ratio falls in line with voting patterns that pretty much rules out malfeasance now then doesn’t it. The ongoing lawsuits in several states may bring that information to light.

    While I quite dislike all of the Clintons it is none the less pretty disgusting the way Hillary has been treated by her opponents these past 20 years or so. Accusation after accusation, any of which if proven true would have put her in jail years ago, or at least ended any political career, and nothing proved except she was careless with email as SoS. Yet many on the left keep repeating some of these accusations, much to the pleasure of the right I’m sure.

    We all like to sit back and criticize (I’ve done it a lot) but until you’ve been in the seat of power you can not know all the details that led to the decisions that were made. Does she have a propensity towards conflict – it seems so, and that is a concern, but as Michelle said in her speech the other night (paraphrased) she’s thick skinned and that’s what you want in control of the nuclear codes not someone who can not take any criticism at all.

    I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for her if I was allowed to, even though I would “hold my nose” while doing so. Just a few thoughts from a Northern neighbor who is all too aware of the global consequences of your election, not the least of which will be its affects on global climate change.

It is main inner container footer text