PDA

View Full Version : What, if anything, will come of Bernie's lawsuit against the DNC?



SullivanB
12-26-2015, 03:18 PM
At least one forum member has pronounced the flap between the Sanders campaign and the DNC regarding the Sanders' campaign's having has access to the Clinton voter database to be water under the bridge, to be nothing of lasting consequence. I'd wondered if the pronouncement had been a bit premature and this article has me thinking that perhaps it was.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-taking-their-fight-with-200738611.html

The unfortunate connections between the Clintons, the DNC aka DWS, and NPG VAN, the business entity which the DNC retains to handle the DNC's and the candidates' voter databases, continue to be troublesome, at least for some. There's the fact that prior operatives of the Clintons' political machines are employed by and/or otherwise closely associated with NPG VAN, and are or have been in positions of authority and ability to influence the entity's conduct. Then there's the fact that the nephew of DWS is also employed by NPG VAN. At the very least, these connections raise the question of conflicting interests, and at least the potential for biased conduct and outright impropriety.

Reading this article, it appears that the lawsuit filed by the Sanders campaign against the DNC is still pending. If prosecuted further, we can presume the parties will conduct various forms of discovery. Depositions will be taken, and written discovery documents will require further answering of questions, as well as the production of all documentation (including electronic forms) pertaining to the incident(s) in question and other matters that might be pertinent. Folks will be required to answer questions under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. The conduct of the parties and relevant others that occurred before and after the incident in question will be subject to scrutiny. And it will likely all be of public record.

Too, it would be occurring in the months leading up to what some consider to be the most important election to have occurred in a very long time. It has, I fear, the potential for becoming a real fiasco for the Party, anything but a small matter of no consequence.

S.V. Airlie
12-26-2015, 03:22 PM
settled from what I've read.

SullivanB
12-26-2015, 03:34 PM
settled from what I've read.

If so, that'll be very good news for the Party.

S.V. Airlie
12-26-2015, 03:44 PM
What is your idea of good news. I'm not trying to be snarky, good news for the DNC, Clinton or Sanders?

PhaseLockedLoop
12-26-2015, 03:57 PM
settled from what I've read.

Nope. http://www.inquisitr.com/2657695/bernie-sanders-campaign-continues-lawsuit-against-dnc/

Edited to add: If it somehow sinks Mrs. Clinton's campaign, it'd suit me. She's a shrike in hawk's clothing. Not that Bernie is much better.

SullivanB
12-26-2015, 04:00 PM
What is your idea of good news. I'm not trying to be snarky, good news for the DNC, Clinton or Sanders?

I meant that a dismissal of the suit would be good news from the perspective of not adding to the Party's difficulties going into the election. It would certainly be good news for DWS/DNC.

As for the integrity and health of the Party, I'm not at all convinced it would be good news. Maybe shining the light of day on what's been happening with the DNC is just what's needed from that perspective.

I'm looking for anything that tells us whether the suit is dismissed and all I've come up with so far is this 12 hours old article suggesting that the suit is still pending. If the DNC is not going to be forthcoming with information about the whole thing, I don't see why the Sanders campaign would dismiss the suit.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2657695/bernie-sanders-campaign-continues-lawsuit-against-dnc/

bobbys
12-26-2015, 04:06 PM
Bernie has to do a little protest to make the democrats think he is a real contender.

In effect she has it locked up and he fondled her and forgave her already...

What a joke.

RonW
12-26-2015, 04:21 PM
Yep, looks more and more like foul play from the hillary camp...........nothing new here..


Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC breached the contract by suspending Bernie Sanders’s campaign from access to voter data without giving them the necessary 10 days to remedy the problem. According to points 14 and 15 in the lawsuit, the contract between the campaign and the DNC does not permit suspensions of access without notice, nor does it permit termination or suspension without allowing the offending party to resolve any issues.

The Bernie Sanders campaign has not officially accused anyone of conspiracy, with the exception of the anonymous adviser who spoke with Yahoo News. Yet in the interest of entertaining this theory, we can look at some facts unrelated to the lawsuit.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign co-chair.

Nathanial Pearlman, the co-founder of NGP VAN, was Hillary Clinton’s chief technology offer for her 2008 run.

NGP VAN Stu Trevelyan has a long history with the Clintons. He worked on the 1992 Clinton campaign. In June 2014, Trevelyan tweeted a photo of himself with staff members in front of a “Ready for Hillary” bus with the logo “Powered by NGP VAN” above the windshield.

Do these facts alone indicate a conspiracy to ruin Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic nomination?

SullivanB
12-26-2015, 04:39 PM
Yep, looks more and more like foul play from the hillary camp...........nothing new here..

There's nothing yet to implicate the Clinton campaign in any such conspiracy but there are certainly some fair questions that this lawsuit might answer, if prosecuted.

CWSmith
12-26-2015, 05:03 PM
I don't know if this will backfire onto the Clinton campaign, but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz looks like a bad investment to anyone with any sense. It's one thing to have bias, but another to be caught. In my opinion, she has been caught.

elf
12-26-2015, 05:23 PM
This morning I read something that said the suit was going forward. I would really like to see it take Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz either out or way down in the power structure.

And, of course, I would like to see it lead to a vastly better designed database management system. There is no reason for individual candidates to have their proprietary data stored within the master system.

If Bernie's lawsuit forces the DNC hand on this, I would be very happy.

In addition, if Wasserman-Schultz refuses to budge it's going to leave a very bad taste in the mouths of Sanders supporters, and it would be nice if it also led some Clinton supporters into leaving the fold.

RonW
12-26-2015, 05:54 PM
The DNC allowed him a couple moments, but he will be sitting at the kids table soon enough.

I don't think so...first off the DNC, little miss debbie shultz limited the debate candidates to only 3 for hillary's benefits, and the same with the number of debates, bernie is drawing too much attention and this mess only adds to and hurts hillary. Besides rumors are that by spring hillary will be out, just like Petraeus and Martha Stewart.

SullivanB
12-26-2015, 06:06 PM
This morning I read something that said the suit was going forward. I would really like to see it take Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz either out or way down in the power struction.

And, of course, I would like to see it lead to a vastly better designed database management system. There is no reason for individual candidates to have their proprietary data stored within the master system.

If Bernie's lawsuit forces the DNC hand on this, I would be very happy.

In addition, if Wasserman-Schultz refuses to budge it's going to leave a very bad taste in the mouths of Sanders supporters, and it would be nice if it also led some Clinton supporters into leaving the fold.

Whatever comes of the lawsuit, DWS is a disaster for the Party. She should resign or be tossed out, but that will not occur without lots of heat from the Party faithful because the Party's elite are with her. If the lawsuit should turn up serious misconduct in time for the voters to digest and appreciate it, she might be shown the door before the election. But either way, she's done the Party a real disservice and, as a result, it will suffer at least some consequences with this election.

John Smith
12-26-2015, 06:32 PM
Nope. http://www.inquisitr.com/2657695/bernie-sanders-campaign-continues-lawsuit-against-dnc/

Edited to add: If it somehow sinks Mrs. Clinton's campaign, it'd suit me. She's a shrike in hawk's clothing. Not that Bernie is much better.

Unless I've missed something, the Sanders campaign staff got data from Clinton's campaign, not the other way around.

Seems like another fruitless effort to blame Clinton for some she neither did nor benefited from.

John Smith
12-26-2015, 06:34 PM
There's nothing yet to implicate the Clinton campaign in any such conspiracy but there are certainly some fair questions that this lawsuit might answer, if prosecuted.

Or it could just add to the cloud over Clinton, in spite of, again, clearing her.

Let's go ahead and see if we can manage to elect a Republican. That, I think, is what this lawsuit would help do.

S.V. Airlie
12-26-2015, 06:53 PM
Every one of your posts have been BS with, as expected, no proof to back it up.

SullivanB
12-26-2015, 07:05 PM
Or it could just add to the cloud over Clinton, in spite of, again, clearing her.

Let's go ahead and see if we can manage to elect a Republican. That, I think, is what this lawsuit would help do.

It's the Sanders campaign that's calling for a full and independent investigation. It DWS who's stalling. If DWS and her staff are clean in this matter, then the lawsuit should vindicate her if it goes forward. If neither Clinton nor her staff are implicated, the lawsuit should vindicate her as well. If NPG VAN has not engaged in misconduct, the lawsuit should demonstrate just that. The DNC, the Party and Clinton's campaign would be stronger as a result.

If the Republicans take the White House, it will most likely be attributable to the gross negligence (at best) of DWS and possibly others, as well as the bald faced arrogance of the Democratic Party establishment.

S.V. Airlie
12-26-2015, 07:08 PM
I don't think the masses who favor Trumpet are smart enough to know anything about the issue raised muchless, give a hoot. That takes a bit more intelligence that apparently, most don't appear to possess.

RonW
12-26-2015, 07:58 PM
Unless I've missed something, the Sanders campaign staff got data from Clinton's campaign, not the other way around.

Seems like another fruitless effort to blame Clinton for some she neither did nor benefited from.

Looks like John has got the inside scoop on this one...........it's another right wing conspiracy against the Clintons..

S.V. Airlie
12-26-2015, 08:17 PM
DUH!

Norman Bernstein
12-26-2015, 08:47 PM
This all seems like a long way to go, in order to establish 'excuses' for Bernie Sander's potential loss to Hillary Clinton....

.... but it's always handy to have a scapegoat.

Bernie Sander's popularity and draw, among democrats, is what it is, and it has NOTHING to do with the number of debates, or some minor database transgression (regardless of which direction it went in). Bernie has done well on the stump, and he's drawn lots of financial support... in short, for a very liberal senator who is more than willing to call himself a 'Democratic socialist', he's done amazingly well....

....just not well enough to get closer to Clinton... and this is NOT Hillary's fault, it's not Debbie Wasserman Schultz's fault, and it's not the fault of the DNC. He's a brilliant guy, and a lot of people like him.... just not enough, plain and simple.

Nonetheless, the 'excuse seekers' are going to see a conspiracy behind every rock. They are welcome to look for them.

elf
12-26-2015, 09:47 PM
Unless I've missed something, the Sanders campaign staff got data from Clinton's campaign, not the other way around.

Seems like another fruitless effort to blame Clinton for some she neither did nor benefited from.
The chief data wranger on the Sanders staff was recommended by the DNC and the company which runs the software. Bernie would probably have done well to pick that person's brain and then let him go before this happened, but the whiff of his connections to the party does look suspicious. The Sanders campaign is not pleased with that connection and how it became a liability.

But that's partly the fault of the Sanders campaign.

John Smith
12-26-2015, 10:20 PM
It's the Sanders campaign that's calling for a full and independent investigation. It DWS who's stalling. If DWS and her staff are clean in this matter, then the lawsuit should vindicate her if it goes forward. If neither Clinton nor her staff are implicated, the lawsuit should vindicate her as well. If NPG VAN has not engaged in misconduct, the lawsuit should demonstrate just that. The DNC, the Party and Clinton's campaign would be stronger as a result.

If the Republicans take the White House, it will most likely be attributable to the gross negligence (at best) of DWS and possibly others, as well as the bald faced arrogance of the Democratic Party establishment.

It's not that simple. EVERY investigation of Hillary has vindicated her. Yet they created a cloud.

I think the fact that Sanders' people file the suit will create the impression that Hillary's campaign did something wrong. Perception is far more important than fact. It was the Sanders campaign that had to fire staffers for breaking the rules.

Seems he's not the one that should be suing, but then it depends on their goal. If they want to add to the cloud over Clinton, this lawsuit likely helps that effort.

SullivanB
12-27-2015, 10:06 AM
It's not that simple. EVERY investigation of Hillary has vindicated her. Yet they created a cloud.

I think the fact that Sanders' people file the suit will create the impression that Hillary's campaign did something wrong. Perception is far more important than fact. It was the Sanders campaign that had to fire staffers for breaking the rules.

Seems he's not the one that should be suing, but then it depends on their goal. If they want to add to the cloud over Clinton, this lawsuit likely helps that effort.

This lawsuit exists because of the conduct of DWS and her agents. The Sanders people filed suit because DWS left them with no choice. It was DWS and/or her agents, not the Sanders people, who went public with the matter. It was the Clinton camp, not the Sanders people, that promptly and publicly suggested the possibility of criminality by the Sanders campaign. It was DWS who decided and publicly pronounced that Sanders would not be allowed to access even his own campaign data, what with his campaign's misconduct being so egregious.

And it's not just the past conduct of DWS we're talking about. Even now, she's stonewalling the call for an independent and thorough investigation. You do understand that it's the Sanders people who are calling for the light of day to be shined on the whole shebang and that it's DWS who's resisting? Instead of bemoaning it's existence, those Democratic Party supporters experiencing heartburn with this suit might want to contact DWS and demand that she allow the light of day to be shown on the whole shebang, and the sooner the better since she's got nothing to hide. One would think she'd jump at the opportunity to call Sanders' bluff.

As for the suggestion that it ought to be someone else doing the suing, if DWS and/or Mrs. Clinton or NPG VAN feel aggrieved by the conduct of the Sanders campaign, let them file a counter suit and we can get it all out in the open, just like those Sanders people are calling for.

And as for the suggestion that the Sanders people filed suit in order to create the impression that Hillary's campaign did something wrong, I'd again remind folks that this suit exists because DWS forced the Sanders people's hand. She's the one to be complaining about, and to. Besides, if the suit moves forward, the Clinton camp can rest easy knowing it will reveal them to be the innocent bystanders they are. It might even help mitigate that untrustworthy impression so many Americans apparently have regarding Mrs. Clinton.

John Smith
12-27-2015, 10:14 AM
I understand all of that. To make an analogy, someone dropped a $20 bill. Sanders' staffer found it. He knew who's it was, but put it in his pocket..

What I do not know is how it came to be the data of one campaign became available for the other campaign to access. I do know that those working for both campaigns knew they should not access the data, but some did when the opportunity presented itself.

I don't know if the 'wall' broke down by accident or on purpose. I suspect that's a hard thing to prove. I do know that some people took advantage of the situation and accessed data they knew, or should have known, they were not entitled to.

All that said, I see no way this suit proceeds and does NOT in some way harm Clinton, whether or not she deserves it.

If you think they can proceed with this suit and not have it reflect badly on Clinton, you give, IMO, the public far too much credit.

SullivanB
12-27-2015, 12:07 PM
I understand all of that. To make an analogy, someone dropped a $20 bill. Sanders' staffer found it. He knew who's it was, but put it in his pocket..

What I do not know is how it came to be the data of one campaign became available for the other campaign to access. I do know that those working for both campaigns knew they should not access the data, but some did when the opportunity presented itself.

I don't know if the 'wall' broke down by accident or on purpose. I suspect that's a hard thing to prove. I do know that some people took advantage of the situation and accessed data they knew, or should have known, they were not entitled to.

All that said, I see no way this suit proceeds and does NOT in some way harm Clinton, whether or not she deserves it.

If you think they can proceed with this suit and not have it reflect badly on Clinton, you give, IMO, the public far too much credit.

Well, your analogy would be closer to reality if it had an agent of the DNC placing that $20 bill in a spot where the Sanders staffer(who'd just recently been recommended to Sanders by the DNC and NPG VAN) was sure to find it. Of course, how it all happened is just one thing a full and independent investigation or, if necessary, a law suit might answer.

As for the data and how it came to the Sanders camp, that's another thing that might be nailed down by a full and independent investigation or, if necessary, a law suit. We do know that the vendor retained by the DNC had afforded the campaigns access to the others' data some weeks prior to the incident in question. And we know that it was the Sanders campaign, as opposed to any other, that reported the security lapse to DWS and its vendor handling the data. We also know that the vendor allowed the data to be accessed by at least the Sanders campaign this time, as well. And we know that access was allowed by the vendor, this time, on the heels of some impressive Sanders gains, and on the eve of the third Democratic candidate debate. Finally, we know that it's DWS who's currently keeping us from knowing the only big thing we don't know. And that's how it all came down. As for it being difficult to figure out what happened, I suspect that it would not be very difficult, especially if the various parties are placed under oath and required to answer, subject to the penalties of perjury.

Assuming for purposes of this discussion that it was just more negligence on the part of the vendor handling the data, there was a better way for DWS and her agents to have handled the response. DWS opted for the way most harmful to the Sanders effort and, even more unfortunately, most dangerous for the Party. Why would anyone assume that the Sanders campaign would just roll over and meekly submit to the heavy handed tactics of DWS or, for that matter, any other party who might be involved? For a variety of good reasons, they should not.

Garret
12-27-2015, 12:12 PM
Bernie is that old uncle invited over to a thanksgiving gathering that nobody really wants to get cornered by. The DNC allowed him a couple moments, but he will be sitting at the kids table soon enough.

Obviously, you've never had a conversation with Mr. Sanders. I have had several & he is a very bright, articulate man with a good sense of humor.

And no, I don not agree with everything he says.

bobbys
12-27-2015, 12:53 PM
This all seems like a long way to go, in order to establish 'excuses' for Bernie Sander's potential loss to Hillary Clinton....

.... but it's always handy to have a scapegoat.

Bernie Sander's popularity and draw, among democrats, is what it is, and it has NOTHING to do with the number of debates, or some minor database transgression (regardless of which direction it went in). Bernie has done well on the stump, and he's drawn lots of financial support... in short, for a very liberal senator who is more than willing to call himself a 'Democratic socialist', he's done amazingly well....

....just not well enough to get closer to Clinton... and this is NOT Hillary's fault, it's not Debbie Wasserman Schultz's fault, and it's not the fault of the DNC. He's a brilliant guy, and a lot of people like him.... just not enough, plain and simple.

Nonetheless, the 'excuse seekers' are going to see a conspiracy behind every rock. They are welcome to look for them.
..

BS will always have a solid base from the vote to live crowd that loves the Govermeant goody bag ..

There's more people signing the back of the check then the people signing the front.

He panders to the back of the check signers...

And why not? .

He's a career politician that never took risks in the market like DT.

S.V. Airlie
12-27-2015, 12:58 PM
It's interesting this town is very republican vote republican and many are on welfare. Actually, at a party Christmas Eve, a guy told me a possible reason; they don't think they're poor like those who they think really are, Kinda strange outlook but...

SullivanB
12-27-2015, 01:29 PM
It's interesting this town is very republican vote republican and many are on welfare. Actually, at a party Christmas Eve, a guy told me a possible reason; they don't think they're poor like those who they think really are, Kinda strange outlook but...

What you've said here is real and it sort of helps demonstrate why Bobby is so wrong about Sanders supporters. They're not the "takers" he's so resentful of. They're simply folks who think the country can and should do better for the struggling middle class and poor Americans, many of whom are the supporters of the Republican mind set that you're talking about. They're the folks having to rely on the very social safety nets that Sanders would strengthen.

Keith Wilson
12-27-2015, 01:32 PM
Absolutely amazing, Sullivan . A Sanders staffer hacks into HRC campaign data, and you write like it's the fault of the Clinton Campaign or the DNC, and mutter darkly about nebulous conspiracies. You're trying WAY, WAY too hard. I can see how one could support Mr. Sanders; I like him myself, but this is ridiculous, and it will almost certainly backfire if folks push it too hard. The Sanders folks f***ed up. It's not that huge a deal; I think you'd be well advised to just acknowledge it and move on.

SullivanB
12-27-2015, 02:31 PM
Absolutely amazing, Sullivan . A Sanders staffer hacks into HRC campaign data, and you write like it's the fault of the Clinton Campaign or the DNC, and mutter darkly about nebulous conspiracies. You're trying WAY, WAY too hard. I can see how one could support Mr. Sanders; I like him myself, but this is ridiculous, and it will almost certainly backfire if folks push it too hard. The Sanders folks f***ed up. It's not that huge a deal; I think you'd be well advised to just acknowledge it and move on.

Keith, I haven't mentioned the word "conspiracy" and all I've said re Mrs. Clinton is to point out that she hasn't been implicated in this thing. And I'm certainly not denying that Sanders' IT guy screwed up. I agree with you that it wasn't that big a deal, at least until DWS made it so. Try a little objectivity, here, and tell me where I've misrepresented the facts up there, at least as they're known.

And if you can't admit that DWS screwed up here, as well, consider the possibility that it's you who's trying too hard. Same goes if you can't admit that there's some ugly looking stuff going on at the DNC.

John Smith
12-27-2015, 02:45 PM
I caught Howard Dean addressing this today. He thinks they should not pursue it, as there is no real point, and it can only serve to help GOP.

I remain convinced that Sanders bringing and pursuing a lawsuit will be construed by many as Hillary did something wrong. Given that probability, if Sanders pursues this, as far as I'm concerned, he loses a great deal of the "high road" he likes to brag about.

Stuff happens. Sometimes it is best to simply move on.

CWSmith
12-27-2015, 02:52 PM
Stuff happens. Sometimes it is best to simply move on.

This didn't just happen. It was a partisan decision by a DNC leader who shows favoritism.

S.V. Airlie
12-27-2015, 02:57 PM
This didn't just happen. It was a partisan decision by a DNC leader who shows favoritism. assumed for the reasons posted. I guess my thinking, if she did what she was purported doing, with her connections people would realize that. Hence the question is, knowing it could hurt Hillary because of the reasons stated why did she?

Keith Wilson
12-27-2015, 03:42 PM
Keith, I haven't mentioned the word "conspiracy" . . . No, but you sure did imply it like the proverbial ton of bricks. Certainly the leaders of the DNC favor Ms. Clinton. So? They are not required to be neutral. Get over it.

elf
12-27-2015, 03:43 PM
Why? Because she's completely blinded by her fanatical compulsion to make sure Mrs. Clinton does not suffer another insult like she did in 2008. There are a lot of lady Democrats where I live who simply can't bear even to think about whether Mrs. Clinton is the correct choice. She's a woman, she was cruelly deprived of her rightful opportunity in 2008 and now is her time.

SullivanB
12-27-2015, 03:44 PM
I caught Howard Dean addressing this today. He thinks they should not pursue it, as there is no real point, and it can only serve to help GOP.

I remain convinced that Sanders bringing and pursuing a lawsuit will be construed by many as Hillary did something wrong. Given that probability, if Sanders pursues this, as far as I'm concerned, he loses a great deal of the "high road" he likes to brag about.

Stuff happens. Sometimes it is best to simply move on.

Again, the Chairwoman of the DNC might resolve the whole thing by allowing that full and independent investigation of the goings on that the Sanders campaign is calling for. Seems easy enough for one who has nothing to hide.

I missed Gov. Dean's pronouncement today that Bernie's lawsuit is helping the Republicans but, to tell you the truth, the value of Dean's stock was already way down and continues to decline with me. The irony in Dean's making such a statement is profound, given that what the Party bigs have been doing to Bernie is so similar to what they did to Dean and his grass roots bid for the presidency. If there's anyone who's not familiar with the political assassination of Howard Dean by the so called Democratic Leadership Committee, read this to find out just who was behind it all. Then ask yourself if it looks like anything going on today. Challenge the corrupt Democratic Party establishment and you'll pay a price.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17881/the_assassination_of_howard_dean

The question to be answered re the Sanders candidacy is whether or not those who've traditionally supported the Democratic Party have come to realize, and care enough about, just how corrupt their party has become, and that the Sanders campaign represents at least some chance to improve things. To date, at least one out of three Dems are there. I think there'll be more to get on board when it's all said and done, thanks in no small part to what's been happening with the DNC.

Keith Wilson
12-27-2015, 03:50 PM
Right. Corruption! Corruption! Boss Tweed, Hizzoner Daley and Mark Hanna all rolled into one! http://forums.liveleak.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Could your language get any purpler? The DNC is not required to be neutral. It was the Sanders campaign that screwed up here.

SullivanB
12-27-2015, 04:06 PM
No, but you sure did imply it like the proverbial ton of bricks. Certainly the leaders of the DNC favor Ms. Clinton. So? They are not required to be neutral. Get over it.

Hey, at least you're admitting how you really feel. That's something.

On the other hand, you're suggestion that the DNC ought not at least maintain neutrality in an election campaign is pretty disappointing. I'd have thought that you, and certainly the average Dem supporter, would insist on at least the appearance of basic fairness and neutrality. It's a sad state of affairs the Party has come to.

Keith Wilson
12-27-2015, 04:14 PM
"How I really feel' is that you are making WAY too much of the modest differences between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton, calling normal politics 'corruption', and getting carried away with your rhetoric. I will happily vote for whichever of them is the candidate, although I suspect that probably Ms. Clinton might do a somewhat better job as president. The most important consideration by far is that we keep any Republican out of the white house.

S.V. Airlie
12-27-2015, 04:26 PM
"How I really feel' is that you are making WAY too much of the modest differences between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton, calling normal politics 'corruption', and getting carried away with your rhetoric. I will happily vote for whichever of them is the candidate, although I suspect that probably Ms. Clinton might do a somewhat better job as president. The most important consideration by far is that we keep any Republican out of the white house.That's the most important thing.

CWSmith
12-27-2015, 07:17 PM
Why? Because she's completely blinded by her fanatical compulsion to make sure Mrs. Clinton does not suffer another insult like she did in 2008. There are a lot of lady Democrats where I live who simply can't bear even to think about whether Mrs. Clinton is the correct choice. She's a woman, she was cruelly deprived of her rightful opportunity in 2008 and now is her time.

I do want to live in a country where gender, race, ethnicity, etc. is not a factor in an election.

That said, I am sick to death of the above "logic". Nothing is owed her. She lost fair and square to a more popular candidate.

elf
12-27-2015, 07:33 PM
No disagreement from me. Her gender is irrelevant. It's her politics I don't care for.

CWSmith
12-27-2015, 07:39 PM
No disagreement from me. Her gender is irrelevant. It's her politics I don't care for.

Actually, if I thought she would break up the large banks, change election finance, and not be a foreign policy hawk, I'd be a lot more interested. In other words, if she were more like Sanders.

oznabrag
12-27-2015, 08:02 PM
No, but you sure did imply it like the proverbial ton of bricks. Certainly the leaders of the DNC favor Ms. Clinton. So? They are not required to be neutral. Get over it.


Why? Because she's completely blinded by her fanatical compulsion to make sure Mrs. Clinton does not suffer another insult like she did in 2008. There are a lot of lady Democrats where I live who simply can't bear even to think about whether Mrs. Clinton is the correct choice. She's a woman, she was cruelly deprived of her rightful opportunity in 2008 and now is her time.

This is the crux. The fulcrum.

The problem is that she is not any good at getting elected.

Contrast her with her husband, and the difference is undeniable.


"How I really feel' is that you are making WAY too much of the modest differences between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton, calling normal politics 'corruption', and getting carried away with your rhetoric. I will happily vote for whichever of them is the candidate, although I suspect that probably Ms. Clinton might do a somewhat better job as president. The most important consideration by far is that we keep any Republican out of the white house.

Mr. Sullivan makes no attempt to conceal his ardent support of Sanders, I'll grant you that, but I think the nature of the problem has escaped your grasp.

The problem, first and foremost, is that no one outside a very tightly-controlled circle should ever have learned of ANY of this crap until everybody involved was dead (never mind what Pinochet might do with that directive).

That's the problem.

Sure, one of Bernie's guys peeked at stuff he shouldn't have, but he got caught and was fired immediately. No muss, no fuss, UNTIL DWS decided to make a stink, and make a little move to destroy Sanders' campaign by starving it of crucial information.

I may be mistaken, but that staffer was a very recent hire, who was recommended by the DNC, the software manufacturer, AND the Clintons, which sounds just a little weird, if you're asking me.

I believe our own DavidG posted a piece by someone who knew the software involved well enough to understand that the level of access obtained to by the staffer was not high enough to allow any sort of wholesale transfer of information, but was limited to viewing one record at a time.

No one on this board should EVER have even known of ANY of this.

That is NOT how electoral politics should be conducted, if one has any intention of winning.



I do want to live in a country where gender, race, ethnicity, etc. is not a factor in an election.

That said, I am sick to death of the above "logic". Nothing is owed her. She lost fair and square to a more popular candidate.

I couldn't have said it better.

She may well be the be-all and end-all of Presidents, but she has to get elected, first.

Like it or not, that is one of the qualifications of office.