Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:03 AM Apr 2016

Obama and Biden's intervention in PA's senate primary illustrates why the party needs a major revolt

How often do you see a Democratic sitting president and vice-president taking sides in a Democratic senate primary campaign? And against the progressive candidate who actually served in Congress in favor of the so-called "environmentalist" candidate who opposed the PA state Democratic party resolution to ban fracking?

You do when both the president and vice-president are a) fully in bed with Wall Street; b) their favored candidate's record consists primarily of shilling for fracking in her business life, winding up in fourth place in a gubernatorial primary, and being an adviser for Bill Clinton; and c) her experienced opponent (Joe Sestak) is a bona-fide progressive who the party establishment doesn't like.

I don't know about you, but I will not be sending a single penny or putting an ounce of effort to help any of the establishment candidates. Why should I? Why should you?

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama and Biden's intervention in PA's senate primary illustrates why the party needs a major revolt (Original Post) brentspeak Apr 2016 OP
I will not. 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #1
The easily duped are unable to recognize FlatBaroque Apr 2016 #2
Sestak ran against Spectre, and is viewed as a threat to HRC's dominance of the party. Powerful leveymg Apr 2016 #3
Um no. that's not how anyone views him. And he lost PA for us. msanthrope Apr 2016 #8
It's hard to run against the White House and the DNC/DSCC. leveymg Apr 2016 #11
Nor should they. He made Toomey possible. People have long memories. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #14
Toomey will likely beat McGinty. Especially with Clinton on the ballot. Ash_F Apr 2016 #27
That's not what the polling indicates, and PA is a Clinton state. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #30
"A Real Clear Politics average of polling the last two months has him leading McGinty by 12 points" Ash_F Apr 2016 #32
Real clear? Your own article suggests their results are skewed. msanthrope Apr 2016 #33
How does it suggest that? RCP averages different firms. Ash_F Apr 2016 #34
You can't even spell his name. Specter was an obnoxious schmuck his whole career. HERVEPA Apr 2016 #28
perhaps you missed the thread where because of my diminished site I rely on a voice to text app msanthrope Apr 2016 #31
Good luck with changing out the leadership of the party BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #9
This is a lot like 1948, but I have the feeling the cards are about to reshuffled from the top. leveymg Apr 2016 #15
The FBI is the best hope we've got at this point BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #19
What does that say about the political system? Broken. This is what I think will likely happen leveymg Apr 2016 #23
"marked or unmarked classified" BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #24
The "retroactive classified" defense has always been political spin, not legal defense. leveymg Apr 2016 #25
He primaried Specter and then lost. How did that help anyone except the GOP? YouDig Apr 2016 #13
I'm familiar with the backstory. The fact remains, Specter was the Dem candidate and the party leveymg Apr 2016 #16
I shouldn't. And I won't. Punkingal Apr 2016 #4
Sad and Disgusting 2banon Apr 2016 #5
The Third Way Wing of our party has the power and is purging rhett o rick Apr 2016 #6
The candidate who was labeled "the most progressive" in this race was John Fetterman. blue neen Apr 2016 #36
Nope. Nothing outside our local area. oldandhappy Apr 2016 #7
Sestak blew what should have been a gimmie election in 2010 Freddie Stubbs Apr 2016 #10
long memories. Sestak made Toomey possible. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #12
Lack of establishment party support of an independent Dem made Toomey Senator. leveymg Apr 2016 #18
THIS nt vintx Apr 2016 #40
Joe Sestak is the Martha Coakley of Pennsylvania politics Tarc Apr 2016 #17
There are a lot of paranoid and unfounded accusations in this thread. LonePirate Apr 2016 #20
We elected those Establishment figures. Orsino Apr 2016 #21
I'll just leave this here and see myself out... Blue_Tires Apr 2016 #22
So in that respect, Sanders is more like a Libertarian: every man for himself! randome Apr 2016 #29
kick! ViseGrip Apr 2016 #26
How were Obama and Biden treestar Apr 2016 #35
Nothing new here. sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #37
disgusting amborin Apr 2016 #38
Totally unsurprising. vintx Apr 2016 #39

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
2. The easily duped are unable to recognize
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:05 AM
Apr 2016

that Hillary represents our true enemies. So to answer your question, no reason.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. Sestak ran against Spectre, and is viewed as a threat to HRC's dominance of the party. Powerful
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:06 AM
Apr 2016

enemies. I agree, the leadership has to be changed out.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
8. Um no. that's not how anyone views him. And he lost PA for us.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:20 AM
Apr 2016

Spectre was the better candidate on the dem side and would have taken the state. Sestak's already proven he can't carry the middle of PA..

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
32. "A Real Clear Politics average of polling the last two months has him leading McGinty by 12 points"
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:12 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/john_baer/20160427_Here_comes_McGinty_v__Toomey.html

What polls are your referencing?

Dems need turnout and especially new voters to win this one. Sanders was the best hope there.

Also I would cite Obama's failure to use the bully pulpit in his first two years as the reason turnout was bad in 2010.

McGinty's support of fracking will hurt her. Remember that PA was a closed primary.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
33. Real clear? Your own article suggests their results are skewed.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:59 PM
Apr 2016

Clinton/Trump swings Clinton in PA.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
31. perhaps you missed the thread where because of my diminished site I rely on a voice to text app
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:15 PM
Apr 2016

That sometimes makes unfortunate and hysterical spelling errors.

Spectre was a complete and utter asshole true but he would have won the state for the dems. I see my voice to text app thinks I'm talking about James Bond. I am not.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
9. Good luck with changing out the leadership of the party
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:25 AM
Apr 2016

They would be replaced by more just like them. And wait to see the post election purge of progressives if Hillary becomes President. She will ensure Schumer and the rest of the Democratic leadership in the Senate does everything possible to marginalize Bernie.

My hope is that Bernie goes back to being an Independent, helps organize a third party movement for progressives and acts as a watchdog and whistle blower in the Senate against both parties.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
15. This is a lot like 1948, but I have the feeling the cards are about to reshuffled from the top.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:30 AM
Apr 2016

Can you imagine what the outcome of Truman v Dewey would have been if the FBI had reported that Harry had violated his signed security oath as VP? Don't count out the Progressives, just yet.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
19. The FBI is the best hope we've got at this point
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:45 AM
Apr 2016

But I don't see that happening with an Obama Justice Department. I think there's a better chance of an official whitewash followed by leaks from outraged FBI agents.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
23. What does that say about the political system? Broken. This is what I think will likely happen
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:08 PM
Apr 2016

The FBI Report will find she violated the terms of her signed security agreement. That is essentially the same as a finding she violated one or more federal laws referenced within it. While the Bureau can make a recommendation, it is up to the Attorney General, by way of the US Attorney with jurisdiction, to decide whether to convene a Grand Jury -- or, if that has already happened, and the GJ has voted to indict -- to actually unseal the indictment.

I think it is entirely possible that an indictment will not actually be issued, provide that HRC cooperates with an out of court agreement to release her delegates once she reaches the magic number. In the end, Obama will pardon her, anyway, just as Bill Clinton did his former CIA Director, John Deutch.

Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793.

1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:


UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.


Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
24. "marked or unmarked classified"
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:17 PM
Apr 2016

So her argument that she didn't pass on documents marked as classified is not just absurd from a common sense point of view, but also legally based on a contract that governed her conditions of employment.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
25. The "retroactive classified" defense has always been political spin, not legal defense.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:30 PM
Apr 2016

The campaign and spinsters has been lying to her supporters. They don't want to panic the herd before the handover of delegates is a done deal at the Convention.

YouDig

(2,280 posts)
13. He primaried Specter and then lost. How did that help anyone except the GOP?
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:28 AM
Apr 2016

Also, Obama promised to support Specter in exchange for switching parties. Specter switching parties was huge, since it gave the Dems 60.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
16. I'm familiar with the backstory. The fact remains, Specter was the Dem candidate and the party
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:39 AM
Apr 2016

should have supported him. Specter wouldn't have lived out his term, anyway. This was nothing more than another power play to preserve hegemony and to make an example of Sestak. Well, they appear to have succeeded.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
6. The Third Way Wing of our party has the power and is purging
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:18 AM
Apr 2016

all progressives. Sadly those here that want social justice badly will side with the conservative wing. They've sold their souls for a promise of a little social justice. Fools.

blue neen

(12,322 posts)
36. The candidate who was labeled "the most progressive" in this race was John Fetterman.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:55 PM
Apr 2016

He received 19% of the vote, most likely taking away votes that otherwise would have gone to Sestak.

Fetterman is a good guy and a great candidate, and it would be great if he runs for further office....but his presence in this race really hurt Joe Sestak.

oldandhappy

(6,719 posts)
7. Nope. Nothing outside our local area.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:20 AM
Apr 2016

DNC is waaaaay too controlling and manipulative for me. I will try to help local candidates running against Issa and Hunter. Our local Dem club is donating to area candidates only. Members are encouraged to give on their own as they wish. I am grateful Obama has been our president and I have been really discouraged with his open involvement in the primary process.

Freddie Stubbs

(29,853 posts)
10. Sestak blew what should have been a gimmie election in 2010
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:26 AM
Apr 2016

He's been running for the Senate for the past seven years straight and still got blown out of the water.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
18. Lack of establishment party support of an independent Dem made Toomey Senator.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:43 AM
Apr 2016

Simple as that. The powers that be would rather have Republicans elected than support independent Democratic candidates.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
17. Joe Sestak is the Martha Coakley of Pennsylvania politics
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:42 AM
Apr 2016

You can only hand someone so many chances here...

LonePirate

(13,426 posts)
20. There are a lot of paranoid and unfounded accusations in this thread.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:48 AM
Apr 2016

First off, just because someone is a progressive, it doesn't automatically make them a good candidate. Do some research on Sestak. He was given a golden opportunity back in 2010. He had plenty of support and he blew an incredibly easy race for him to win. That left a bad taste in some people's mouths and he became viewed as a bad candidate regardless of his positions.

Not only that, but Fetterman grabbing a quarter of the vote probably also contributed to his loss. I'm not saying Sestak would have won but his vote count was likely reduced because of a three way race.

Also, the endorsements from Obama and Biden probably played very small roles in the race. Not many voters wandered into the voting booth thinking they are going to vote for the candidate Obama endorsed. However, Obama and Biden are wildly and deservedly very popular among Democrats and the PA primary was a closed primary. So if the most popular and respected Democrat in the country/world throws his support to a candidate, that support will matter to some Democrats. Sestak would have had Obama's support this year if he had won his easy race back in 2010.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
29. So in that respect, Sanders is more like a Libertarian: every man for himself!
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:41 PM
Apr 2016

Interesting info.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

treestar

(82,383 posts)
35. How were Obama and Biden
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:29 PM
Apr 2016

able to stop voters in a PA senate primary from voting for who they wanted to?

If they spoke in favor of someone - they have freedom of speech. The PA voters did not have to listen to them.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
37. Nothing new here.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:07 PM
Apr 2016

Obama interfered in our election for Senator
about 6 years ago. As far as I know he is also doing
the same thing in Florida.

They want their own stooges, and don't give a hoot
about the right of the people in their own states. And
if you think that the interference from the WH is negligible,
you might as well buy a bridge for nothing.

 

vintx

(1,748 posts)
39. Totally unsurprising.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:45 PM
Apr 2016

And yes, after this election I am done doing a damn thing to help this formerly Democratic party.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Obama and Biden's interve...