To be honest, I think Hillary been running for president her entire life.
I am waaay past the facts of this single case which is really just a case of smoke as evidence of fire. I am shocked by the attitude that even if there were corruption, that such corruption is not only acceptable, not only to be accepted but actually a feature or the party process.
Exactly. I don’t know why more people aren’t focusing on this aspect of the story, other than the fact that “Hillary’s rigging the campaign” is a lot more interesting story to sell and read.
Donald Trump is the textbook example of why a political party should never ever be ashamed to do whatever it takes (within reason and the law) to ensure that the candidate that best represents their party and their interests wins. There are no laws against having a bias. There are probably rules (I’m assuming) against acting on that bias, and that is why DWS was sent packing. And it was the right move once she was busted.
But there’s no proof that the elections were rigged. There’s no proof of, say, phone jamming the way that republicans did on election day in New Hampshire in the early 2000s senate race. There’s no rule against blocking voters or voter intimidation tactics. There’s no rule about robocalls spreading lies saying that Sanders was dropping out of the race or that he was arrested for some felonious assault. There were free and fair elections, with many stations in many states staying open well past their scheduled closing times.
Cool, I guess. Let me know if you’re interested in discussing facts.
Yes, yes, and yes! Bernie was never a member of the democratic party; he wanted to be independent so that he could start his own little movement and he used the democratic primaries to give his movement a bigger voice.
In fact rather than fighting conservative extremists the way he said he was going to, he and his wife have actually devoted much more of his time to fighting democrats – well that and purchasing lots of real estate and making schools financially insolvent.
What you call “corruption” is what other people call “relationships”. :rolleyes:
And, yes, having relationships is not only accepted, but it is an actual feature of politics.
No, what I described was bias and corruption and people were not only OK with it, they thought it was a good thing.
Something they would never advertise to the electorate but good nonetheless.
Damuri Ajashi, I am entirely in agreement with you on this. The DNC is explicitly supposed to be a neutral arbiter and facilitator of Democratic candidates, campaigns and elections. Wasserman Shultz corrupted, or tried to corrupt, the DNC in favor of one candidate. She should be toast. It is to Hilary’s discredit that she hired Shultz after the DNC debacle, and if they colluded before that, doubly so.
Though I will still vote for Hilary because the alternative is significantly more terrifying.
As for Schultz, as a partisan hack in a world of partisan hacks, her future now depends on how presentable and articulate she can be as a pundit, or how much she can peddle her influence as a lobbyist. I predict that at the very least she will make a comfortable income for the foreseeable future.
Can someone please state what exactly was done, by DWS or others, that rises to the level of corruption?
Nothing, it’s just a talking point for the Bernie crowd to justify that their candidate wasn’t the popular choice.
I actually like Hillary once I can look past her less appealing traits. For example, she really does seem to be one of the most qualified Presidents we will we have had since HW Bush and you would probably have to go back a few decades before that to find another one. She is tough (as evidenced by her performance during the Benghazi hearings), she is smart (as evidenced by almost everything she has ever done) and she almost certainly wants the job more than anyone else in the history of mankind.
It depends on who her constituency is. I can imagine that there is some district in Florida where she can make the argument that Hillary was a much better candidate on the Israel issue and that we couldn’t risk nominating some hipster candidate that was not committed to Israel as our linchpin of security in the middle east.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/216473
I don’t know if DWS can be as effective as she was before but even at reduced efficacy, she’s probably still a net positive for us in congress. But I suspect she will lose her election and end up taking a position in the Clinton administration.
Who knows what they did. All we know is that there are emails that show that there was bias. We have no idea how that bias manifested itself.
I have conceded that some individuals had personal biases. This is unavoidable. I don’t believe anyone acted on these biases in a way that influenced the primary.
You and at least one other poster have used the word, “corruption.” I don’t see any evidence that there was any corruption. Is there any evidence of corruption or do you just know it in your heart?
It’s heavily Jewish (APAIC-style Israel supporting ones), Hispanic non-Cuban, and gay. It went Clinton over Sanders with nearly 70% of the vote. Polling (albeit by a Wasserman affiliated group) most recently put her up by 33.
Apparently Canova failed to impress the voters there with a proposal calling for disarmament in the Middle East and then stating that he did not mean for Israel to be disarmed.
He seems at best to be horribly naive … really, policy should be to disarm all the actors in the region … no all but Israel? Which one is more stupid to say I don’t know. The first at least was only stupid; the second is pandering as well.
Bias and not knowing how (or if) it manifested ≠ corruption btw.
No question in my mind that the DNC should ideally be free of bias, even any appearance of bias, between candidates running for the nomination. Self-awareness of bias should result if anything in bending over backwards the other way to compensate.
Going from their failing to meet that standard to accepting “who knows” suppositions is the tin foil stretch. A child guilty of shoplifting a candy bar does not mean that suppositions of “who knows what other crimes he may have committed … murder?!?” are warranted even if the shoplifting was wrong and deserves some punishment.
Where do I say that there was in fact corruption? I say that I am shocked at the attitude that even if there were corruption (and I define corruption as tilting the playing field in favor of one candidate over the other), that it would be hunky fucking dory.
If the emails don’t at least make you suspect that there might have been some corruption then I think you are probably in the tank for Hillary and there is nothing short of indisputable proof that would make you think otherwise. When The Bernie folks complain that the debates were scheduled unfairly and these sort of emails come out, and it doesn’t make you wonder if the debates weren’t scheduled to attract the fewest viewers possible, then there is probably nothing short of an admission of corruption by DWS that would make you change your mind.
That is a horrible analogy.
This is not an innocent group of young children who don’t yet know right from wrong but where it would be patently absurd to suspect them of murder.
This is a group of political operative that have a demonstrated bias and you are saying that it would be unreasonable to suspect that they acted on that demonstrated bias. I don’t know if they did or not and neither do you but it certainly gives affirmation to anyone that suspected a titling of the playing field and it plays into some of the negative narratives about Hillary Clinton; even though she is not linked to it, she brought DWS onto her campaign immediately after the incident.
As for DWS re-election chances, I don’t think her preference for one candidate over another should disqualify her from public office. If she wins her primary, I am fine with that, I thought well of her before this fiasco and I still think well of her now, just less so. I thought that her position on Israel might make the difference, the NRA could learn a lot from AIPAC about how to gain bipartisan support.
So here’s the thing about the debate schedule. A choice was made between peak viewing times on cable networks and off peak viewing times on broadcast networks. An argument can be made either way as to which will get more viewers.
Furthermore, in the streaming age, anyone can watch anything they want after the time it airs. I can go watch all the Dem debates right now if I feel like it. Plus debates nowadays are more about which sound bites make news which also doesn’t depend on the live audience. Also the debates were supplemented by thirteen additional forums. Twelve of which both Sanders and Clinton participated in. It’s not like the DNC demanded that Sanders stay home on nights he would have liked to debate.
Here’s the really damning thing. When the Sanders campaign asked for more debates, DWS told them to fuck off. Wait… that’s not what happened. She said how about four more.
Some decisions were made in the debate schedule that you might not agree with, but there is no reason to think that was to benefit any particular candidate and when one campaign suggested that schedule disadvantaged them steps were taken to rectify that. That’s what being as fair as possible looks like.
And they should have had that bias.* Of course* they’d have a bias towards a woman who has supported the Democratic party for decades, raising millions, vs a Independent. Bernie Sanders was, until very very recently, a Independent, not a Democrat.
The thing is- despite that bias- they acted fairly.
No, their bylaws explicitly proclaim their neutrality among democratic candidates. They are supposed to assure a level playing field for candidates to compete on. Instead, the leadership of the Committee, not only Schultz, conspired AND acted against Sander’s campaign. You can argue about whether it made any difference or how effective it was, but their is no question they were operating completely contrary to the stated role of the DNC.
IMO, that’s good enough to call them corrupt.
Name one thing that did.