Not healthy for a Party to embrace only one candidate. No room for us there now.

[madfloridian]

There is almost no sense of reality anymore among Democrats at the national level. If some in leadership are realizing the harm being done, they are keeping their silence. That's not healthy either.

I think the final touch was when the Democratic Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, used a very unfortunate term in referring to Bernie Sanders after she sandbagged his campaign by running to the media first.

She said he doesn’t have anything other than bluster at the moment that they can put out there.

She actually publicly said that a Democratic candidate had nothing but bluster.

The use of the word bluster made clear that the party of Debbie WS is only for one candidate. It was not a good choice of terminology.

Many supporters of Bernie are new to the party, and if welcomed they might stay and become contributing members. There are so many fresh ideas available to a party that does not seem to want them.

I found an interesting comment today about the great possibility that the harm from the DWS and party handling of the database breach is likely not over.

Why The Democratic Party's Move Against Bernie Sanders Could Backfire

Sanders argued that the breach was jointly the fault of the data vendor and a staffer who made a bad decision to try to exploit the vendor error. The DNC, which is seen as politically aligned with Clinton, responded by abruptly blocking Sanders' access to his own data, a virtual shutdown of the campaign.

Sanders called the DNC’s suspension “arbitrary." Josh Hendler, a top Democratic tech operative, warned Saturday that the DNC's move against Sanders could deeply damage the party in the future by undermining trust in the committee.

"The stakes are higher than the political fight of the day between Bernie and Hillary," he wrote in a blog post. "The DNC being seen as a fair arbiter and steward of the data is critical to this continued advantage over Republicans. If the DNC is no longer that trusted broker, we might see candidates using third party systems. This risks the Party’s access to valuable data collected by campaigns, especially during a Presidential."

The apology from Sanders and the muted rhetoric from Clinton may come from a realization of the longterm stakes of the spat. Democrats are at a financial disadvantage against Republicans and allied outside groups, but have a technology edge due to effective cooperation, which has so far eluded conservatives. Losing the latter edge could be fatal as a national party.

The chairman and many of those surrounding her do not want, and do not think they need, Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the campaign.

That is not forward thinking. She seems not to understand that many Bernie supporters are, like I am, lifetime members of the Democratic Party.

[MH1]

1. I agree, mad, but I think we need to be looking at all three candidates, at least.

Three candidates is a very manageable number to have an actual debate and discussion of ideas.

But I get the impression that the DNC is doing everything it can to suppress all challengers to Clinton. Sanders is doing better at overcoming that because he had a strong national following already, as one of the few real liberals in Congress. O'Malley could be more of a threat to Clinton if he ever got traction, because he would also appeal to voters who can't get past the "socialist oh my god oh my god" tag on Sanders. But he didn't have a national base or even name recognition when this process started. And to be fair, he probably needs a bit more polishing to be ready for national politics (I'm hoping this cycle accomplishes that).

I am really frustrated that the media, 98% of the time, only tells me about Clinton and Sanders. I think TPTB are grudgingly accepting that it's better to give Sanders SOME attention to defuse the victimization/underdog gambit. I think they don't expect Sanders to overcome the "socialist" factor (rightly or wrongly) to beat Clinton, so it is "safe" to give him some attention, and benefits them by defusing the critique that they are in the tank for Clinton. But wait, there is another credible candidate out there, and they keep pretending he doesn't even exist. Hmmm.

I'm truly undecided. But I am royally pissed that the media isn't presenting a balanced view of all the candidates. And don't get me started on the DNC.

[madfloridian]

2. Of course all 3 candidates...goes without saying.

[MH1]

4. Of course! :)

[Armstead]

3. I agree -- except on one point

98 percent of the attention is given to Trump and the GOP these days.

All three candidates are left with the 2 % left over that and the Shock Doctrine of Terrorism

[MH1]

5. True - you got that right! I was referring to 98% of the 2% allotted to discussing Dems. nt.

[madfloridian]

6. Pathetic, isn't it?

[MH1]

11. Very. But they are two separate issues -

how much the major media devotes to the Dem primary vs. Republican primary; how much of time talking about Dems, focuses on the DNC's preferred candidate vs. the others, and the extent to which other candidates are almost completely excluded.

[nxylas]

38. But they're related

Of course the Dem debates don't get covered when they're on the Saturday before Christmas just after the release of a new Star Wars movie. And whose idea was that...?

[madfloridian]

42. It's unbelievable that debate date was allowed to stand.

[SCantiGOP]

67. OP says "no room for us"

There are two parties. Unfortunately, you really don't have any choice outside of those two. That's why I am amazed to see some here saying they won't vote for whoever is the final Dem nominee.

[mountain grammy]

8. Yeah. Funny how the "liberal media" does that and the GOP still whines

and people still believe it.

[Hortensis]

159. Hardly what your specific point, Grammy (and I agree!),

but don't you think the GOP leadership at least has LOTS of reason to whine these days?

After all, entertainment profit centers masquerading as news media basically created the Trump phenomenon and profit-seeking has a lot to do with its perpetuation. Trump himself is a big bag of hot air who'd deflate into nothing if they gave his look-at-me antics brief mention and started focusing on the real phenomenon -- the angry, disaffected mood of large portions of the electorate.

Seems to me, if the GOP as we know it finally collapses, the coup de gras to its long decline will have been delivered by the news media -- whose own once-noble purpose the GOP itself worked so hard to itself destroy.

[mountain grammy]

165. I only hope the GOP will collapse in my lifetime.

[Hortensis]

166. Oh, me, too! Whether collapse or

transform, the white people's party is surely due for either a push-aside or takeover. Given their numbers, how much longer are conservative Blacks and Hispanics going to wait?! They need one of a two-party system's main parties to act in their interests, and for by far most of them the Democratic Party certainly is not it.

That this twisted remnant of the GOP still has so much power is a great dysfunction, but given the that institutional power, I'm guessing we'll see a muscling in, with accommodation to reality by those white Republicans who stay.

Collapse would be very satisfying to watch, though. If it happens, I'll bring popcorn. If it doesn't and factions of bigoted cons end up fighting each other in the GOP tent, I'll also bring popcorn.

[global1]

7. DWS Should Either Resign Or Be Fired Immediately For....

her "bluster" comment about Bernie. That comment alone should illustrate that she carries a bias and is not being impartial in her position.

She doesn't know which of the three Dem candidates will win the nomination and her bluster comment of Bernie essentially hands the Repugs a ready made commercial should Bernie become the nominee. Think of the damage that would do if the head of the DNC made such a comment about their nominee and the Repugs used it.

I know a lot of Dems have endorsed Hillary but one doesn't know the outcome this early in the primary process. DWS's 'bluster' comment could lose the GE for the Dems should Bernie win the nomination.

The Dem Party needs to act now to get rid of her and if they don't it is at their peril.

[rurallib]

14. Who could fire DWS?

I do not know the inner workings of the committee that runs our party.

I guess my question is more of - who can we complain to that might actually have an effect on her leadership?

My understanding was that the party was usually headed by someone hand picked by the President and formalized by the committee if your party was in power, else elected by committee.

I either case I see no one who would have much sympathy in removing Schultz.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Obama has to fire her.

I don't see that happening. She's still there for a reason. And it's not a good reason.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[rurallib]

35. Thanks - that's what I thought

I am sure that is a non-starter

[daleanime]

40. +1

[madfloridian]

85. And he won't.

[in_cog_ni_to]

101. No he won't.

It's part of the grand plan. Why this is acceptable to some people here, is beyond me.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[totodeinhere]

120. Traditionally party chairpeople serve at the pleasure of the president when the president

is of the same party. However technically a majority vote of the full DNC could oust her at any time.

[cannabis_flower]

147. Here's the petition

https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-fire-debbie-wasserman-schultz-immediately

[DFW]

150. The DNC chair does not really get "fired."

When in opposition (e.g. during Cheneybush), the DNC chair IS the head of the party. When we have the White House, the president is the nominal head of the party, which is why Howard didn't stay on after Obama won in 2008. No need for two big dynamic personalities at the head of the party. The DNC chair is elected by an inner circle of the DNC. Howard won narrowly in 2004, and thank goodness he did. He had to overcome a LOT of opposition within the party, if your remember. I don't know who was running against DWS when she won the position, but you can be sure Howard is giving her a piece of his mind right about now. I don't see her hanging on much longer unless she makes a very overt effort to mend a few fences and pacify some very restless troops. She's maybe not the most skillful politician around, but unless she's a complete idiot, I'm betting she wondering how to go about getting started doing just that. Resignation, while making us look bad at the start of an election season, is the only alternative to reaching out to those she has offended, whether intentionally or not, and I don't think she wants to (could be wrong there, too--I don't know her at all).

[Raine1967]

158. Excellent observation, DFW.

I have met her, and she is very charming -- nothing wrong with that imo.

Her bahavior during this campaign (and the reslutls of the last election Cycle) really leave me to believe that she is not up for the job, but -- you present a decent solution, that hopefully she would acknowledge.

This is really alienating a lot of people in our tent and that is not good long term for the party.

[Ferd Berfel]

28. DWS - You're Fired!

The DNC simply does not represent me. it represent Wall Street now.

[Hortensis]

89. "The basic purpose of political parties is to nominate

candidates for public office and to get as many of them elected as possible. Once elected, these officials try to achieve the goals of their party through legislation and program initiatives."

I know you guys think the Democratic Party should act like the League of Women Voters used to in presenting all candidates to the electorate, but that's not why any party exists now or ever did.

If Bernie had started running 4 years ago, as he should have (actually more like the day he first entered Congress, earning future endorsements) and convinced the DNC he was our strongest chance to beat whoever became the GOP candidate, the DNC would be tending his candidacy through the primary season.

And, yes, they have identified their strongest candidate and are doing just that -- notably at the same time keeping the door open for other candidates to surge forward. That's their job. I don't know how DWS's performance will be viewed by political professionals in future, but if she's criticized it won't be for trying to get as many Democrats elected as possible, it'll be for not getting even MORE Democrats elected.

It isn't and never was about Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley themselves because they're all great candidates. It's about putting a Democrat in the Oval Office. A vital enterprise in perilous times. No matter what he says in public, Bernie understands that perfectly well and did from the beginning.

BTW, if HRC's and Bernie's positions were reversed, her supporters would be far more understanding that her job was to come from behind and surge ahead and would root and work for that, not whine about how unfair it all was -- when she didn't run a better campaign.

From beginning to end, the DNC is trying to present our strongest candidate to run against the GOP nominee. It's looking like GOP will probably LOSE in 2016 specifically because the RNC is so far failing to do exactly that on their side. Goodness knows they have enough money to flood the nation in negative advertising, THAT's not their problem.

BTW, both political parties (all in fact) are mere shells of the power players they once were. Power is dispersed among many different power centers. If one of us woke up tomorrow with a couple billion, he or she could be yet another in a very crowded field of sharp elbows belonging to people very grabby and good at getting what they want.

[PBass]

118. Good post! You said it better than I could.

Also, Hillary's been running for president since probably 2006. Bernie is celebrated as an "outsider" but then people complain that he doesn't get the same treatment that insiders get.

[Hortensis]

122. So "outside" he's not even a Democrat. I'm glad we ARE the true

big tent party and welcomed him into the Democrat Party primary, especially because he's making such a great contribution to the national dialog, but, sheesh, would a little acknowledgement of that be so unreasonable?

Yay, us.

[Yallow]

132. Bernie Is The Real Democrat

The Wall Street loving, DLC, Third Way sellouts are Republican Lite.

Bernie is the Real Roosevelt Democrat.

Reality.

Why the hell do you think he was "independent" anyway.

I will tell you why. So he didn't have to sell out.

[Tortmaster]

143. Real Democrats don't allow their people to steal from a victim ...

... and then sue the victim!

By the by, when was the last time a major presidential candidate's team stole data? Why is it different when it is a cyber-theft?

[Fuddnik]

144. How about election theft?

That's the more Republican thing to do.

One insider candidate with all the plans of the past, and all the cronies of the past has all the name recognition, while the candidate with better, revolutionary ideas, and a genuine concern for the 99% of us proles, has virtually no name recognition, and is unheard of in our mass media culture.

The supposedly "neutral" party does everything it can to keep those ideas quiet, and assure that the candidate gets as little exposure as possible.

That's covering their own past failures and amounts to election theft.

[Hortensis]

160. Tortmaster, let's be fair.

It's very unlikely that Bernie knew anything about this before it broke. Campaign staffers and volunteers are notorious for slipping the leash. Happens every election.

As for suing, probably any candidate in Bernie's position would have -- the stakes are enormous, after all. He simply couldn't have his own data tied up longer than necessary if the DNC was slow in restoring access. He had to be in position to request a court order for promptest release if it became necessary.

But with your name, maybe I'm telling you something you know?

[Tortmaster]

162. I'm sure that Senator Sanders didn't know the ...

... data was stolen. I agree.

[Hortensis]

155. Nonsense, Yallow. BTW, the far right specializes in

redefining of just about everything to suit their peculiar notions. They find this self deception satisfying initially, but their determined self deception costs them terribly in the long run. The more they do it, the farther divorced from reality they get, and the more unhappy and bitter they are when, inevitably, reality pies they have become incapable of seeing smack them in the face. And, of course, ending up a self-made fool whom everyone avoids talking serious subjects with is...sad.

The truth is whatever it is.

As for the Democratic Party, it is made up of people from across most of the political spectrum, including some who are mostly conservative, with many differing, and often opposing, agendas. There is NO "real" Democrat. I am a Democrat and view today's Republican goals as very serious problems to be stopped and buried before they destroy America. But I'm very different from you.

[Armstead]

154. It's a rigged system

If, as you suggest, Sanders had started preparuing to run for Presidemnt long ago he wouldnlt be Bernie.

He would have sold his ass out to Big Corporations, modulated his message to "It's all okay. Only problem we have is Republicans." He would have spent many of his days on the phones kowtowing to lobbyists and big donors. He would have learned the art of Mush-talk to say nothing with as many fancy words as possible.

He would have disavowed his "socialism" and instead declared himself a proud centrist moderate. He would have pulled a few Suistah Soldia moments, and bashed AAS's or other "special interests" to prove he isn't realllllly one of them liberals. Meanwhile, he would have also made some moves to prove that he is a true friend to minorities.

No it's the politicians who give up and sell out their principles and earn the label of "electable" in the eyes of the Bekltway/New York Elites who get anointed.

[SusanCalvin]

29. In a rational world, yes. nt

[MissDeeds]

124. If she is not fired and is permitted

to remain in her current position, I will leave the Democratic Party. She is the antithesis of everything I thought the party stood for.

[stillwaiting]

9. Many Hillary supporters don't want a progressive Democratic Party.

They are fully aware of what happened with the Democratic Party under the DLC/Clintons direction and they are quite happy about it.

Pay no mind to what is happening to most Americans. It's the same I've got mine mentality that dominates wealthy Republicans.

It is gross, and they are a huge obstacle to restrengthening the working and middle classes in this country. A HUGE obstacle.

If we EVER get a progressive Democratic Party again that FIGHTS for average Americans, many of these people will go back to the Republicans and we will GET BACK many working class people that have been voting Republican. That is a trade-off I would be willing to make if it means a resurgent working class and middle class in this country.

[tecelote]

10. Well said.

[cantbeserious]

19. Sadly, Some HRC Supporters Appear To Want To Live Under The Autocratic Rule Of

Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks.

This Citizen often has the impression that the thinking of some, not all, is I have mine so don't care about the suffering and general welfare of others.

In effect, some HRC supporters remind this Citizen of some opposite party supporters.

In the end, it is clear to this Citizen that HRC will be a repeat of Obama and that the autocratic rule by the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks will will not change should HRC be elected President.

Bearing witness to that future will be bittersweet as this Citizen reminds some zealous HRC supporters of the same starting in January 2017.

[sorechasm]

43. Maybe the same economic policies as Obama

But HRC''s international policies engage in perpetual war. Just compare SOS Kerry's diplomatic accomplishments to SOS Clintion's. One focuses upon making the peace, while the other focuses upon 'carrots and sticks', with emphasis upon some very heavy sticks.

[cantbeserious]

45. That Sad Fact Only Reinforces The Tragic Outcome Awaiting All With A HRC Presidency

eom

[Jackilope]

46. Happy with crumbs

Ready to make excuses for candidate when things aren't as they could be.

In words of Oliver, "Please sir, may I have more?"

[cantbeserious]

48. All Too True - Victims Willing To Accept Table Scraps - Instead Of Warriors Battling The 1%

eom

[bvar22]

90. Want to know where the "Reagan Democrats" went?

I know.

[cantbeserious]

91. Roger That On All Accounts And Particulars

eom

[madfloridian]

92. .....

Me, too.

[zeemike]

21. And I suspect that those who are happy with it

Are doing well financially...fat IRAs and investment income and perhaps a corporate comfortable job.
They don't want anything to change.

[stillwaiting]

22. They really shouldn't worry. Even when truly progressive principles are in place there is still

a wealthy class.

They will be JUST fine if progressive polices are enacted. In fact, they will be more than fine.

The wealthy during the 50's and 60's were not put upon.

[delrem]

49. 12/hr is plenty! Min wage workers are just too damn greedy! nt

[sorechasm]

107. Aiming low before negotiations start is the hallmark of spineless democrats.

Just like 'taking single payer off the table' before there was a healthcare table. HRC starts requesting only $12 minimum wage, it will quickly be whittled down to $10 because 'we didn't have the votes to pass it otherwise.'

'Better than Trump' is going to be history's worst campaign slogan. If HRC can possibly win under such a sorry slogan, she doesn't have to accomplish anything to meet her goals.

[delrem]

137. It isn't spinelessness. It's their heart and soul.

"spinelessness" implicitly assumes that they give a shit, that they prefer otherwise but out of weakness and timidity won't stand up for their true values, and that somehow if they got a spine they'd turn into the good guys. But after several decades of such "spinelessness" I do think we'd better understand that they aren't the good guys, that they've in fact been showing their true colors and true owners all along.

After all, these are politicians who don't even blink at starting insane wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and destroy whole cultures, all for a few more millions in the bank.

[sammythecat]

138. In the previous debate,

when minimum wage was brought up Bernie and O'Malley said $15, Clinton said $12 and I immediately thought what you just said. I'm predicting $9, tops. I doubt she'd even bring it up at all except since Bernie has made it such an issue she has to pretend to make an effort. It'll be a weak, bullshit effort and, exactly as you said, "it will quickly (emphasis on quickly) be whittled down to $10 (or $9) because 'we didn't have the votes to pass it otherwise.' "

I used to be a big fan of hers before the IWR but the more I learn about her the less I like her and I do not trust her. At all.

[Ed Suspicious]

125. Good lord! The greedy working poor? This is stupid.

[delrem]

136. Well, it isn't MY idea! I'm not the damn candidate in question!

[Plucketeer]

30. That sums it up.

I noticed Ms. Clinton was careful not to mention her proposed minimum wage last night (I reminded her from my chair, but she didn't seem to hear me from my side of the screen).

The whole damned crew at the top is out of touch.

[BlueJazz]

71. I noticed that also. We both know that by the time this 12 dollar hour wage is implimented...

..(We'll do it in stages--Clinton)...the damn thing with be worth 8 bucks.

[Plucketeer]

77. Yeah, her proposal probably

was given her by Corporate America. I'm actually surprised it wasn't the $10.10 that was bandied about not too long ago.

[Yallow]

133. And She Makes $100,000 An Hour

Babbling to banksters, telling them not to worry.

[jfern]

140. And she thinks she's "dead broke"

[Yallow]

151. No, She "Was" Dead Broke

Probably from having to lawyer up from all the flying monkey White Water Republican attacks.

I like Hillary, but I like Bernie more.

I hate all Republicans, think every single one is a traitor, or an imbecile, and I hate the corporate owned press even more.

[Plucketeer]

153. I'll bet it wasn't the sort of "broke" I remember

Like the time I had a family and had to beg rides from neighbors to get here and there. Like the stretch of time I lived out of my vintage pickup truck. I'd be willing to bet she and Bill never knew "broke" times like those.

[gregcrawford]

50. An excellent synopsis! n/t

[antigop]

73. yep. Many of them benefit from the status quo or haven't been harmed by it (yet). nt

[madfloridian]

88. Very good post.

[nashville_brook]

95. wish i could rec this post. i have an add, tho...

i think there's two camps of anti-progs.

one is like you said, well aware of the 90s Clintonian history.

the other camp is comprised of young folks who didn't live through it, and who just want to WIN. they're buying the same neoliberal garbage that i bought back in the 90s: a rising tide for Wall Street/big biz floats all boats. that, entrepreneurialism will save us. in broad sense, it's a privileged point of view, and i believe that's why we see so much arrogance coming from this camp.

[Locrian]

110. good points - nt

[Zorra]

164. Third Way would rather have Republicans in office

rather than progressive Democrats, and many Third Way will vote for the republican presidential nominee if Bernie is nominated.

[cantbeserious]

12. The DNC DLC Third Way Establishment Is Apoplectic About A Bernie Presidency - The Panic Is Theirs

eom

[BlueCheese]

13. She was referring specifically to the data breach issue.

She said the Sanders campaign's position on the data breach issue was "nothing but bluster." Not his whole platform.

[madfloridian]

15. I'm sorry, but the use of the word was a serious thing.

Here are some definitions of "bluster".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bluster

bluster
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia.
blus·ter (blŭs?tər)
v. blus·tered, blus·ter·ing, blus·ters
v.intr.
1. To blow in loud, violent gusts, as the wind during a storm.
2.
a. To speak in a loudly arrogant or bullying manner.
b. To brag or make loud, empty threats.
v.tr.
To force or bully with swaggering threats.
n.
1. A violent, gusty wind.
2. Turbulence or noisy confusion.
3. Loud, arrogant speech, often full of empty threats.
[Middle English blusteren, from Middle Low German blüsteren.]
blus?ter·er n.
blus?ter·y, blus?ter·ous adj.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
bluster (ˈblʌstə
vb
1. to speak or say loudly or boastfully
2. to act in a bullying way
3. (foll by: into) to force or attempt to force (a person) into doing something by behaving thus
4. (intr) (of the wind) to be noisy or gusty
n
5. boisterous talk or action; swagger
6. empty threats or protests
7. a strong wind; gale
[C15: probably from Middle Low German blüsteren to storm, blow violently]
ˈblusterer n ˈblustering n, adj ˈblusteringly ˈblusterously adv ˈblustery ˈblusterous adj

More:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bluster


verb (used without object)
1.
to roar and be tumultuous, as wind.
2.
to be loud, noisy, or swaggering; utter loud, empty menaces or protests:
He blusters about revenge but does nothing.
verb (used with object)
3.
to force or accomplish by blustering:
He blustered his way through the crowd.
noun
4.
boisterous noise and violence:
the bluster of the streets.
5.
noisy, empty threats or protests; inflated talk:
bluff and bluster.
Origin of bluster
Low German
Old Norse
1520-1530
1520-30; perhaps < Low German blustern, blüstern to blow violently; compare Old Norse blāstr blowing, hissing
Related forms
blusterer, noun
blusteringly, adverb
blustery, blusterous, adjective
blusterously, adverb
outbluster, verb (used with object)
Synonyms
2. rant, brag, boast, gloat. 3. threaten, storm, bully.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.
Cite This Source

[JackInGreen]

17. If its just bluster she's got not a thing to worry about

And she can continue to loose us elections. Though i am hoping the continued suit and discovery sees a nice big shit sammich delivered to DWS desk though.

[madfloridian]

26. Good point.

What HAVE we won with her as chair?

Obama had OFA, so he didn't have to rely on his own appointment at DNC.

Under Dean we won the presidency, the Senate, and the House.

[Dem2]

20. Huh

Was this a deceit on the part of the O/P?

[magical thyme]

23. which I suppose is why they backed down and restored his access to his data

[FlatBaroque]

16. People like Debbie

do not care about the institutions that they lead. They simply hollow out the assets and leave an empty husk. That's what people like Debbie do. People like Debbie are harmful to humanity.

[daleanime]

18. The Democratic Party has turned it's head away from a chance to grow stronger.....

Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

the primary and the GE will serve to show us how weak it may have became. But I do know one thing, there's no reason for me to remain in a party that treats my goals as "unrealistic".

[ChiciB1]

24. I FEAR For America... As Jimmy Carter Has Already Said

out in the open and very clearly... America is now an Oligarchy!

I say, people BEWARE what this means! TIME TO WAKE UP! We are CITIZENS of this country and THEY are trampling ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION by so blatantly taking BLOOD MONEY!

ON BOTH SIDES now more than ever! We can ALL give a list of our very own Democrats who simply IGNORE what their constituents want and roll over to support ANY candidate who DOES THEIR BIDDING!

I know that no POTUS can make all the changes they want to make, but when you ALREADY know that D.C. is rigged and ONE candidate will keep you comfortable... THE PEOPLE will suffer day by day!!!

[cantbeserious]

25. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[ChiciB1]

27. FOR SURE & SO TRUE! n/t

[George II]

31. There are three candidates, not one, and they're all (for now) on the ballots for the primaries.....

.....that's not "embracing one candidate".

If you're hinting about the DNC supporting one candidate, that too is incorrect.

DWS, when referring to "all he has is bluster", was talking about his (and Weaver's) comments about his campaign being TEMPORARILY refused access not only to his data, but to the data of ALL THREE candidates.

The DNC said days ago that they were cutting him off temporarily until they found out exactly what the problem was and the extent of the breach. Their access was restored Friday evening.

Finally, if nothing wrong was done, he would not have fired his National Data Director AND apologized in front of millions of people on national television.

The investigation will continue. It will be interesting to see what turns up. But, obviously there's more than meets the eye - the campaign National Data Director was fired and Sanders apologized to Clinton on national television in front of millions of people.

[madfloridian]

34. You can't spin away the use of the word "bluster" in any context.

It's a word of contempt unless used about the weather.

[George II]

44. I saw her statement, using the word "bluster" was extremely benign considering....

....the unfounded accusations made against her and the DNC by Weaver during his Friday morning press conference.

[madfloridian]

51. I am sorry, but we will never agree.

[Duval]

63. That makes two of us, madfloridian.

[Phlem]

127. ....

[Justina For Justice]

139. DWS Exposed This Issue to the Press First. It Should Have Been an Internal Matter.

It was the DNC chair's chosen computer company that violated the confidentiality of data by dropping the fire wall that separated the opposing candidates data. When this was discovered by the Sanders campaign in October, the Sanders campaign quietly reported it to both the DNC and the DNC's computer program company. They were assured it would be fixed. It was not fixed and the problem reoccurred.

In October, the Sanders Campaign did not expose this issue to the press, nor did the DNC.

After the vendor caused the same problem again in December, Wasserman-Schultz issued a public press release blaming the Sanders Campaign for accessing data which its own vendor had exposed and then refusing the campaign access to its own voter data.

Insodoing, Wasserman-Schultz violated the specific terms of the contract between the DNC and the Sanders campaign governing use of the voter program.

The contract between the DNC and the Sanders Campaign provided a mechanism for dealing with any problems, allowing for a 10 day window for dispute resolution before taking any action such as shutting off access to the computer system.

Wasserman-Schultz not only breached that contract by denying Sanders access to his own voter information within that 10 day window, but took the outrageous step of publicizing the campaign's supposed "theft" of an opponent's data.

That Wasserman-Schultz, the top official of the DNC, whose job it is to be neutral during the primary process, took these actions, damaging not only Sanders campaign, but the public reputation of the Democratic Party. Why should any voter want to give their information to any party representative, for any primary candidate, if the party can't keep that information confidential?

Wasserman-Schultz's actions hurt general party voter recruiting efforts as well as the Sanders campaign. Her actions also potentially cost the party money in litigation costs and damages from her breach of the DNC-Sanders contract.

In the past, while DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz refused to support Democratic candidates in Florida because their Republican opponents were her friends. She likewise presided over the DNC's failure to properly support Democratic candidates in the 2014 election, contributing to disastrous losses. We need a reliable, strongly committed Democrat as DNC chair, that does not describe Wasserman-Schultz.

Wasserman-Schultz cannot be relied upon to make rational and considered decisions on behalf of the Democratic Party and its national committee. She must be removed and a competent, loyal and committed Democrat appointed in her place. I suggest that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, now a deputy chair of the DNC, would make an excellent replacement.

[madfloridian]

163. That's after DWS went straight to the media to damage Bernie's reputation...

and actually broke contract rules when doing so.

[daleanime]

41. ........

[fredamae]

33. Frankly-There hasn't Been Room

under the "Big Dem Tent" for Progs/Libs for a couple decades now. It's just so damned obvious now...it's harder to "rationalize/justify" why "they do what they do".
"They tolerate the center left" as they used to need our votes...but I almost believe if no one showed up at the polls the corporate-center right-candidate of choice would win by wide margins

[madfloridian]

100. You are right.

[jwirr]

121. You brought up an issue I want to ask a question about.

I read here on DU that this is what happened to McGovern in 72 - the establishment turned against him. Is this true and why?

[fredamae]

152. Center Right Dems Turned

on McGovern. As did the GOP.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/george_mcgovern_he_deserved_better/

I hadn't made any connection here...you stirred me to look. That all happened nearly a half-century ago. (Wow)

He was anti-war amongst other things. They (Republicans AND the Republican Wing of the Dem Party) all wanted war.
George McGovern-was a registered Dem..but that didn't matter to the establishment. That wasn't the issue then because He was already well established as a Dem. With Bernie.....somehow people believe there is greater value in a Letter one marks off in that little box than the service and positions that uphold the chosen party's Values.

I see a Lot of similarity's with us, Bernie and a Much Larger force today that is Against
the people and the peoples choices. At least back then "we" still had good News Networks that were Intent upon serving the interests of The People as the Fourth Estate dictated.

In a nutshell.....Sound familiar?
"The Establishment center...
has led us into the stupidest and cruelest war in all history.
That war is a moral and political disaster -
a terrible cancer eating away at the soul of our nation.
- George McGovern


"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy,
but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain.
- George McGovern"

"I am fed up with a system which busts the pot smoker
and lets the big dope racketeer go free.
- George McGovern"
http://www.quotes-positive.com/quote/establishment-center-led-stupidest-cruelest-210/

[jwirr]

161. Thank you. And yes, it does sound familiar. THIS time we

cannot let them win. There is even more at stake.

[Gumboot]

36. Debbie WS stands for

... Debbie of Wall Street. And she needs to be dumped onto the street ASAP.

We, the 99%, would like our party back, please.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

128. "Debbie Does Wall Street" is probably more apt for a corporate whore.

MODS: When I use the word "whore" in this context I'm referring to Merriam-Websters 3rd definition :

3: a venal or unscrupulous person

[Electric Monk]

129. Some delicate flower alerted on this. Jury results went 1-6.

On Sun Dec 20, 2015, 08:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"Debbie Does Wall Street" is probably more apt for a corporate whore.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=931088

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Please lets not allow comparisons of the DNC chair to a porn series.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 20, 2015, 08:45 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I hope this goes 0-7 and the alerter loses alerting privileges for a day. DWS is a corporate whore and needs to be fired.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This shouldn't have been a hide. This is abuse of the system.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: venal or unscrupulous person sounds apt
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

130. I figured it would be. Hillary folk love what DWS is doing.

I'm thankful the jury is getting fed up with this bull too.

[madfloridian]

37. Here's more context about the word bluster, which was insulting to Bernie. No excuses for it.

Wasserman Schultz has responded precisely how the Sanders campaign would like the DNC to respond: by sounding like an enemy to the Sanders campaign. “I guess that the Sanders campaign unfortunately doesn’t have anything other than bluster at the moment that they can put out there,” Wasserman Schultz said on CNN, “because what they are doing, what they have done, it’s like if you had, if you found the front door of the house unlocked and someone decided to go into the house and take things that didn’t belong to them, and then when they were caught, they still insisted on having access to the house.”

It’s more like the Sanders campaign just wants access back to its own house that has been seized by the authorities. If the DNC wants to sanction the Sanders campaign, there are other opportunities. Fine them. Threaten to invalidate delegates they would win until they provide a full report of the breach. Make Sanders wear a Donald Trump hat for several consecutive days. Or just let the Sanders campaign suffer the political consequences of the impropriety, and don’t get involved at all.

The appropriate reaction isn’t to take away the campaign’s property indefinitely. It causes real, hour-to-hour harm to the Sanders campaign, and it plays into the perception—or reality—that the DNC is an adjunct of the Clinton campaign.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/debbie_wasserman_schultz_s_dnc_has_been_incompetent.html

[leveymg]

39. No repeat of '08. They spent decades building HRC up, only to see her lose from below. Not again

In this election cycle, the insurgent base has been suppressed in every possible way, by every dirty trick in the book. The atrocities on Friday and Saturday night are only the latest in a long line of ratf-cking against the Sanders campaign by DNC and other establishment organizations.

The Clinton Machine has killed the Democratic grassroots.

Volunteer Democratic GOTV in November is going to be practically nonexistent in many places across America - they'll have to pay a lot of people to do it. Spending on paid staff and media is not going to make up for that loss. They may well lose, again.

[Duval]

69. They won't have to pay me and my husband to volunteer.

This election is too important and we're not giving up. Sanders can beat any Republican, according to polls (I know..."polls&quot . But I understand what you mean. It will take money to GOTV. More small donations? We have to try whatever we can come up with.

[Gmak]

109. But, I think, it is this very suppression that is bringing out the fight in we lefties.

We tend to be contrarians, I know, and seeing the Democratic party machinery become just another tool for the oligarchy sure makes me see red. I really cannot understand however, how any political organization can believe that Hillary Clinton can win a general election in this country, when she has to get a good percentage of Independent votes, as Dems make up only 32% of the voting population and her candidacy will cause some of THOSE to stay home. A lot of people in my area left the Dems. because of the Clintons. I am speaking from personal experience. In the hinterlands of the Midwest where I live, the spectacle that played out in the media with the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, was very traumatic for a lot of folks here, who are socially conservative, and turned them away from politics also the Dem party. I should mention that I voted the 1st time in national elections in 1960.

I went out door-to-door today with a fellow who is a Bernie delegate from our district in Illinois, getting signatures to get Bernie on the ballot here and we targeted townhomes of senior citizens who mostly vote Republican, as I had learned in Iowa that you mention Hillary's name and that Bernie is running against her and even tho they know very little about him or what he stands for, they sign very readily, stating that they will sign anything that keeps her from being elected. They are also scared of Trump, and worried about new wars he will get us into.

We have to face the fact that a large portion of our party is as corrupt as the Repubicans and Bernie has a huge or should I say 'yuuge' advantage in that he has run all his other campaigns as an Independent. The 75 million millenials will help us clear out the rotting debris that is clogging the system, I believe, as they know their future is bleak indeed otherwise. If this post gets me in trouble with the site, so be it, I will be in excellent company!

[oldandhappy]

47. Democracy is the opportunity to hear all speak.

I am feeling totally controlled by DNC/DWS. We need the revolution!

[CharlotteVale]

52. As a Bernie supporter, I feel the Democratic Party doesn't want me

either. When they treat Bernie so shamefully, they're treating his supporters shamefully and denying us a voice. That is not democracy and it is not democratic. If this is how Clinton runs a campaign, the thought of her as president is chilling.

[cantbeserious]

58. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[treestar]

60. How sad to feel unwanted

Though I do think the Bernie supporters want us out of the party, as we aren't progressive enough. Which is odd considering we are the majority.

[CharlotteVale]

65. What's sad is the Democratic party is not democratic anymore.

The annointing of Hillary Clinton as the chosen one is not democratic and it is indefensible.

[treestar]

66. I don't get that much hatred for another Democrat

I really don't. I'd think the Republicans would be a lot scarier. I don't see any hatred of Republicans on this board in relation to the amount I see for a Democrat.

[CharlotteVale]

70. You keep putting words in my mouth so I consider this

conversation over.

I didn't say I was "sad" or "hated" Clinton. So there's no point in talking to you as you've already put words in my mouth twice and I have no reason to think you won't do it again.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[Downwinder]

54. Cull not, lest you be culled.

[madfloridian]

59. .....

[FloriTexan]

55. Kick !!

I'm glad the Sanders ' campaign is not withdrawing the lawsuit. A lot could be discovered through the discovery process. Who else new about the holes in the firewall for example. Was Bernie or even O'Malleys campaign data up for grabs?

[madfloridian]

108. Very good point.

I hope things go in their favor. I like the way his campaign has handled this.

[polichick]

56. And many of us left the party because of corruption...

Her comment that we have no place to go says it all.

[whereisjustice]

57. Soviet, PRC style elections - preying on the sentiment of free choice, while rigging the outcome

[Smarmie Doofus]

61. K and R. isn't she supposed to...at minimum... *pretend* to be impartial?

Good lord. Where did they find this one?

[Fuddnik]

145. A Florida Swamp.

[Faux pas]

62. K N R

[angrychair]

64. Excellent analysis

Very well written. The only thing the DNC cares about is HRC winning. If the DNC is choosing which candidates we should vote for than why even have a primary?

[madfloridian]

78. Thank you.

It's feeling like a done deal to me.

[TryLogic]

79. The most important vote is the Democratic primary because all of the Republicans are idiots.

With Wasserman Schultz manipulating the campaigns, even the Democratic party is no longer democratic.

I guess revolution is the right concept. As usual, Bernie hits the nail on the head.

[madfloridian]

103. It's the one behind the curtains..

that is really in control.

[Snotcicles]

68. I think to DWS, HRC, the DNC, and DLC we are viewed as threatening as the GOP. nt

[Duval]

72. K&R from another lifetime member.

[madfloridian]

76. ....

Know that feeling.... and

[antigop]

74. there hasn't been room for us for some time. nt

[madfloridian]

75. Yes, I know.

We were pretty well shut out locally after 2004....we made inroads into change but the DLC supporters here won in the end.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. You're more even handed than me. Where you say "unhealthy" I say "fucking intolerable". n/t

[madfloridian]

94. Thinking the same

[Downwinder]

81. As the Texas Democratic Party slid into obscurity,

I was told by a local Party official: "We don't want people with piercings or tattoos."

And they didn't get them. They dropped out.

[madfloridian]

83. That sounds just about like our Florida party leaders.

Wow, that's pretty lousy to just say it out loud like that.

[Downwinder]

86. A Democratic candidate has not won an election

in this County since then.

[madfloridian]

87. Dems in the Florida legislature are rare indeed.

Republicans in total control with Rick Scott as governor.

[MisterP]

84. but if you don't disenchant your voters, who else can you blame when you lose?

Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

but, seriously, since the early 90s (that'd be right after Richards was defeated by Rove) the Dems have decided that lack of money was the real problem and went about securing a cash flow--not from old Big Business, where each corporation was WASPier than the next, but tolerant, pleasant-sounding sectors like tech, Wall Street, and Hollywood

of course with a steady income that means the hierarchs' checks are the same amount whether the candidate wins or loses ...

so instead of addressing deskilling and outsourcing, they embraced it and gave the blue collars the heave-ho--after all, they're "the old economy" and we were now a service and foolproof dotcom economy (and, later, a fail-safe housing/development economy); now it wasn't "let's make the economy greener and maximize jobs" but "who cares about those whip-and-buggy manufacturers? what are they gonna do, vote for the *other* anti-union party?!"

so now without any principles left the Dems can only think that they can win back GOP voters by aping GOP positions--posing with rifles and making digs at "the Left Coast": of course everyone just then votes GOP

[antigop]

96. speaking of the Texas Democratic Party...check this out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141255766#post42

[Downwinder]

104. I don't know.

Would be nice to see Castro in Statewide office.

My opinions don't amount to much. We carried one of three Counties in Texas for Dukakis and got a cold shoulder in Austin.

[antigop]

105. the point was the bumper stickers were printed up some time ago.

eta: How "neutral" do you think the Texas Dem Party is?

[Downwinder]

106. Point noted and considered.

I've been shilled once, don't want it to happen again.

[MisterP]

82. note the use of "bluster"--they STILL think it's a remake of Dean or Edwards, just another

pol they can finally find a way to sink: it's not SERIOUS, just an attempt by someone who may be a little to the establishment's left but still just wants to be Prez first and foremost, not a Senator who's seen the country put in the hands of the new rich and their yuppie remoras and has made famous incisive videos laying it all out for even Teabaggers to watch

after all, he's still only at 35%! just like how they gloated about he was at only 30% last week, and jeering that he was at only 25% last month ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party -

Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party - though they are quite numerous - is no freedom at all. Rosa Luxemburg

[Maedhros]

97. The Democratic Party establishment has made it clear that

they don't want liberals or progressives in their party. They don't want our input, they don't want our involvement, they only want our votes with no strings attached.

[antigop]

98. they do want our financial contributions. nt

[antigop]

99. so, mad, whatcha gonna do about it? Hmmm? nt

[dlwickham]

102. bye-bye

[Tarc]

111. Then...beat her

Get more people to agree with Bernie than with her.

[Smarmie Doofus]

114. Wasserman's not Clinton. She's supposed to be IMPARTIAL.

Sanders is running against CLINTON; not WASSERMAN.

If she ( that's *WASSERMAN* ) can't be impartial... she shouldn't be heading DNC.

What's complicated about that?

[Tarc]

116. If Sanders wants all the benefits of the Democratic Party...

...then perhaps he should've, y'know, joined.

[madfloridian]

117. If Sanders is not considered a Democrat, then neither am I.

And neither are his supporters and we should not be given loyalty oaths if we are not Democrats and he isn't either.

You can not have it both ways.

[silvershadow]

112. The party does so at its' own peril. If Bernie isn't the nominee, I likely will have to

reconsider my options, as this one clearly will have been proven to not be working.

[Smarmie Doofus]

115. Problem with that is.... we ALL suffer the consequences.

Clinton DEMs will continue to find lucrative work. In private industry or elsewhere.

What about the rest of us? You know.... the rest of the COUNTRY ?

[silvershadow]

135. Just the reality of it. Those who weren't active politically may suddenly find themselves in a

world where they wish they had been. Those who were on the wrong side of history within our party may well find they lacked the support to get us to the finish line, and may find that second best wasn't good enough. There very well be gnashing of teeth. This is ours to lose, and the way we are going I'm still not sure we won't. The party elite are playing with fire. I'm not saying this out of spite, or from any place of ill will. I say this as how I see it, and as a warning.

[BeanMusical]

113. Kick and R

[840high]

119. I know it Xmas - but fuck you Debbie.

[loyalsister]

123. if it is a primary against a sitting president

I can see where there may be some justification. But when the nomination is open to voters it is entirely different. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.

Benefit of the doubt possibilities include... Maybe people believe an election cycle with Hillary on the ballot will be as exciting as 2008 and it will work to our benefit? Maybe they are sincerely afraid Bernie can't win?

Or.... Do they believe it is Hillary's turn? Do thay want the corporate influences she can bring? Do they want to go in a more conservative direction?

None of the reasons I can think of justify the DNC's actions. Depriving voters of their opportunity to access as much information about candidates is pretty similar to the voter suppression.

[senz]

131. Interesting insight, loyalsister.

Depriving voters of the opportunity to access information about the candidates is indeed a type of voter suppression.

I'm thinking of how DWS severely limited the number of debates and then scheduled them for nights when viewership would be low. And I'm also thinking of the media blackout on Bernie. These pro-Hillary tactics deprive voters of the information they need to make an informed choice in the ballot box. They undermine democracy.

I am convinced that the DNC and the MSM both want a corporate-friendly president, not a people-friendly president. We, the people, are being cheated.

The system is dirty and corrupt.

[tech3149]

126. I think mayor 1% made that obvious years ago

Call me and mine "fucking retarded" and I might think that we aren't welcome in your clubhouse.

[Skittles]

134. the swooner mentality is in full force

[merrily]

141. The public apology and equally publc acceptance thereof may have been part of the settlement.

[JDPriestly]

142. K&R from another Bernie supporter who is a life-long Democrat.

And from a family of liberals way back for generations.

[emsimon33]

146. Thank you for the thoughtful piece as always

[Octafish]

148. Is '' Bluster'' code for ''Socialist Rhetoric''?

Can't have none of that in times of austerity, wars without end, and welfare for the wealthy.

[madfloridian]

156. ......

[uberblonde]

149. I realize we're in a post-fact era...

But wasn't she referring to his campaign's silly explanation of the data breach and the surrounding controversy?

The outrage machine is working 24/7 around here.

[madfloridian]

157. "post-fact era"?