“It Sure Looked Unethical”: Brazile Discloses Deal That Gave Hillary Clinton Control Over DNC Before Primary

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_Benghazi220px-donna_brazile_1The DNC and Clinton emails released by Wikileaks ultimately exposed a pattern of false statements by Democratic leaders particularly Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Schultz insisted that they were completely neutral in the primary despite every indication to the contrary.  It was later revealed that Donna Brazile, who replaced Schultz, had first leaked questions for the debate with Sanders to Clinton and then lied about the incriminating emails later to the media (she suggested that they were fake).  Now Brazile is making a come back and has been put back into a position of power at the DNC and ironically on the Rules Committee.  She is also shopping a book. In the book, Brazile confirms that Hillary Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for control over the organization before the primary.  In other words, as shown by the earlier emails and now by Brazile’s own account, the primary was indeed rigged against Bernie Sanders and anyone running against Clinton.

 

 Brazile says that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” She in return agreed to take care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.  Even Brazile (who was fired from CNN for unethical conduct) said that the deal was legal  “but it sure looked unethical.”  She further states that the deal gave one campaign (Clinton) “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” She now agrees that the Clinton deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”

What is obvious from this latest disclosure is the utter mismanagement of the DNC during the Obama Administration as well as misleading statements from a host of Democratic figures .  That failure played into the hands of the Clintons who proceeded to take over control over the DNC to guarantee that no one but Hillary would be nominated. It was not just a dubious arrangement from an ethical standpoint but ultimately rigged the primary for what many view as the worst possible candidate for that election.  From the earliest polling, it was widely understood that the election would an anti-establishment election.  It was also clear that Clinton continue to carry extremely negative polls on her trustworthiness and honesty with many voters.  Nevertheless, virtually every Democratic member of Congress and the DNC would work tirelessly to guarantee the most establishment figure in Democratic ranks would run in the most anti-establishment election in history.  Indeed, many have commented that Clinton may have been the only leading candidate that could lose against Trump.  They were both the most unpopular candidates to run respectively for their parties.  In the end, Clinton was largely campaigning on not being Trump. That was enough to great more votes but many experts believe that other candidates would likely have swept both the popular and electoral voters.  Ironically, what many voters did not like about Clinton was her perceived dishonesty and inauthenticity.  This allegation from Brazile only reinforces that image.  When Clinton and Wasserman Schultz were denying any special arrangements, they both knew that Clinton was effectively handed the keys to the DNC before Sanders ever hit the campaign trail.

The deal was struck before Joe Biden was essentially pushed out of the race by Clinton allies.  (Many experts believe that, even though himself an establishment figure, Biden would have won handily in both popular and electoral votes against Trump since he had fewer polling negatives on issues like trustworthiness).  We discussed earlier the email sources suggesing that one of Biden’s closest aides, Ron Klain, reportedly admitted to working for Clinton behind the scenes to scuttle Biden’s chances.  

If true, Clinton and her people left nothing to chance in first gaining control of critical parts of the DNC and working within the camps of potential challengers to undermine them.  Sanders was all that remained in the end and he came close to dislodging Clinton (even with the concerted work of people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and allies at the DNC).

In the end, the most damaged figure beyond Clinton herself is Schultz. She was previously booted for her biased and dishonest work as DNC head.  This disclosure further shreds her reputation and her veracity.

Then there is the DNC itself.  The DNC just kicked out Sanders supporters and brought back Clinton supporters in a controversial shakeup. It also never disclosed this deal to the public.  

Moreover, some if not all of those powerful Democrats on the board presumably knew of the arrangement. Yet, they continued to express disbelief at the suggestion of any special arrangements with Clinton.

In other words, the public view of the election and the duplicity of key leaders was largely accurate.

 

171 thoughts on ““It Sure Looked Unethical”: Brazile Discloses Deal That Gave Hillary Clinton Control Over DNC Before Primary

  1. So how is it lawful for a candidate to seemingly evade contribution limitations by instructing donors to give money to a party that so controlled as to be an alter ego of the candidate?

  2. Glancing through I saw nothing about the basic legal make up of how primary candidates and how the parties themselves are run. Each party is responsible for selecting it’s own candidates using it’s own rules. Period. Example. The Republicans using their RINO majority had a rule and the rules committee brought it up to block Trump at the start of the convention. The main ruling group had the right to over rule that rule and did so.

    In examining the facts the only people who have an axe to grind are the members of the Democratic Party so the complain must come from them. Individually Sanders, not a member, has no axe to grind. Neither to do his supporters. H’s a registered Independent.

    Was it crooked? Ask a Judge and Jury IF IF IF you were a Democrat.

    Was it crooked at the federal level for the General Election run? Probably not, nor were complaints in the opposite direction. Mights’ well blame the Independendts for running a campaign which brought in 40% of the total vote and boosted President Trump into an unassailable lead for having a total campaign fund of zero.

    Out of curiousity how much of the 1.2 billion was Hillary’s and how much of that came from Pay for Play?

    One must look at the facts and turn their back on nonesense such as compraring a Representative Constiutional Republic which exists to a Democracy which in the USA does not exist. A point the progressively regressive members of the Stupid Party and their foreign ideology supporters fail to recognize.

    Should Hillary be jailed. Certainly but this dilemma is an internal squabble at the outset and only becomes national in scope when the Attorney General decides to investigate the real criminals for real crimes.

    Of which collusion is not one but bad comedy should be at the head of the list.

    • Haha. “Should Hillary be jailed. Certainly….” Hillary derangement syndrome. No person had been through more investigations than Hillary in the last 30 years. What’s been found? That’s right, Ugots…Change the channell, Hannity, Rush, and whatever other flavor of conspiracy wingnut you prefer are playing you for a mark; they don’t believe the trope they spew, and really can’t believe there are so many, many gullible dopes who have televisions. You’re welcome.

      This is to the dude who forgot to type a legible handle.

  3. This is another reason for abolishing private funding in politics. Our peer nations, the true democracies have realized long ago that there is no way to regulate private contributions other than to outlaw them, beyond a token amount per registered voter. Yet Americans believe that the oligarchical system of determining who runs the country is somehow better. The US is fast becoming the most corrupt political sewer in the free world. Somewhat ironic as America sees itself as the crucible of democracy. The social systems in the US run on sham presentations to a populace entertained by everything but the issues. The Trump/Clinton joke could not illustrate this better. America may be the best of the best in a lot of areas, however, in administering itself, America ranks near the last. As long as elections are predetermined through gerrymandering, candidates are bought and paid for before reaching the podium, and the population is spoon fed ideological mumbo jumbo instead of the issues, this country will continue to slide away from the very values upon which it was founded. Now, for the ‘We’re number ones’ to pipe in.

    • Ok, so you want taxpayer funded campaigns? Tell me then, who decides which candidate gets how much funding and who doesn’t?

      • Andrew

        It seems that the real democracies: Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, and all the rest do much better under tax payer designed and funded systems. Whatever you want to call the system, tax payer funded or, as is in America, oligarch funded, you get what you pay for. A taxpayer funded system funds a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Our system funds a government by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs, and of the oligarchs. The quality of elected representatives in the US, at all levels is deplorably low when compared with the quality of elected representatives of the truly democratic countries. The slam dunk argument for this statement is Trump and Clinton, two scum bags that can only be compared to each other as one being the lesser of the two evils. Perhaps Berlusconi in Italy comes close, but no other leaders match as bottom feeders, these two. Add hundreds of other examples and it becomes apparent that our system is perverted.

        The election of representatives of the people is the responsibility of all the people and should be paid for and administered by the people, for the people.

        As for who decides there are a variety of well designed systems that work well, unfortunately not here. In the US, the system is top dollar for the best puppet. This country has been slipping away from its ideals for a long time. The only question is how far further down do we have to go before we wise up. Imagine an election where the candidates were limited to illustrating their platforms and strategies over and through and objectively designed system. If you need any further convincing, just play back the Republican primaries and Trump’s behavior. Trump won because he was the better blowhard, con artist, blame thrower, A**hole, demeanor, etc, not because of merit; unless all that represents merit to you.

        • What does comparing the ‘real democracies’ which aren’t when examined have to do with a Representative Constitutional Republic. As usual Comrade Isaac starts offs and runs with false premises but then what can one expect from a foreigner who only makes non relevantg comments into a joke?

          • )

            Your response illustrates the raw material for an oligarchy better than I ever could. You use words you don’t understand, are derailed from your rights by placing your American self above a ‘foreigner’. When a person believes that he or she is holier than thou by virtue of being born somewhere, they have crossed the line into that mob of easily riled up ‘townspeople’; the type upon which carnival barkers and other con artists prey. Comrade Issac believes in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. You seem to believe in a fantasy world, the world fed to you by the oligarchs that own the system, whatever you wish to call it. In other words, you have no problem with others doing your thinking for you.

  4. I sure do NOT know campaign finance law, but it seems to me that the Hillary Victory Fund was designed to circumvent that law by encouraging donors to make sham donations to state Democratic parties – not campaign – that were then turned over, literally 99.5% to the DNC where those funds were gobbled up by the Clinton campaign. I would like to see a US attorney look at this.

  5. The professor opines, among other thoughts and assertions, “…
    [ Ms. Donna ] Brazile is shopping a book. In the book, [ Ms. ] Brazil confirms that [ Ms. ] Hillary Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for control over the organization before the primary.
    “…
    “[ Ms. ] Brazile says that she discovered an August 2015 agreement [ writing? ] between the national committee and [ Ms. ] Clinton’s campaign that gave [ Ms. ] Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
    “…
    “… When [ Ms.] Clinton and [ Ms.] Wasserman Schultz were denying any special arrangements, they both knew that [ Ms.] Clinton was effectively handed the keys to the DNC before [ Mr.] Sanders ever hit the campaign trail.
    “…
    “… In the end, the most damaged figure beyond [ Ms.] Clinton herself is [ Ms.] Schultz.
    …”

    I understand the professor claims to “teach” torts.

    Is fraud a tort?

    Individual(s) and entity(ies) who contributed money to the D.N.C. were they not allegedly victims of fraud? ( fraud on the inducement? simple, straight forward fraud?, among other torts, )

    My reading of this “legal” blog and my understanding of the “professor” leads me to conclude both are more than a little “intellectually” dishonest and inauthentic.

    This is not my “perceived” sensory experience. This is based on the words, syntax, opinions and assertions of the professor.

    [ The professor’s hesitancy, or in ability, to make a direct charge even when his own words provide evidence and support, i.e., “… Ironically, what many voters did not like about Clinton was her perceived dishonesty and inauthenticity. 
    …” ]

    Another of the many apparently unending sloppiness and lack of character by the professor is his numerous inane sentence construction and failure to read his own words, i.e.,
    “…
    It was also clear that Clinton continue(?) to carry extremely negative polls on her trustworthiness and honesty with many voters. 
    “…
    That was enough to great (?) more votes but many experts believe that other candidates would likely have swept both the popular and electoral voters. 
    …”

    Explanations may abound. I suggest the professor although not an oligarch by some definitions certainly is a member of the power elite who reinforce, support and criticize in his words the oligarchs and the Oligarchy only to a “civil” degree, if not self affirming and self congratulatory manner.

    Hilarious, if it were not pathetic.

    dennis hanna

    • dennis hanna – I think that Ms. Brazile’s book is a CYA book. She is throwing Hillary, Barack, and DWS under the bus so she doesn’t have to take any responsibility. Could her version of events be true? Maybe, but I don’t think so. There were lots of stories of financial irregularities in the DNC and it had already been reported that Hillary was using the DNC for her own slush fund. The only new thing is how early she started the takeover and how much Barack still owed the DNC. Everybody knew the primaries were rigged. And why Bernie still went on and campaigned for her is beyond me. If she was an honest person she would have exposed the mess as soon as she found out, but she waited until the election was over and Hillary lost. Do you think if Hillary had won, Donna would have written the same book?

      • If anyone reads these posts and does not freakin LOL, then you need to lighten up. This reality show could not be funnier.

        Was it Jimmy Buffet who sang ‘if we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane’? True.

        • So the woman who violated the rules and passed debate questions to Hillary was put on the Rules Committee. The candidate who rigged the election and corrupted the process was just honored with Democratic Woman of the Year award. And the candidate who said in response to sexual harrassment accusations, “believe me, she wouldn’t have been my first choice” is now POTUS.

          Hilarious.

          • 🙂 On a positive note, this should help those still grieving Clinton’s loss to move on to the acceptance stage. On a negative note, they will now have to start all over again as they come to grips with the news their preferred political party is clinically dead.

            • I rather think those identified are popping corn right now in anticipation of the slow drip of federal indictments….Who’s gonna draw the black marble today? Justice may be slow, but’s it’s certain, it appears.

              This is to “my guy is a goody, Hannity said so” olly

              • Marky Mark Mark – if you have actually been paying attention, which it appears you haven’t we all know who is on the bubble. Even the DM knows who is next.

          • It makes complete sense when you consider that Kevin Spacey played the gay card in an effort to get a pass for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor (and the media initially led the news with that and buried the lede) and some media outlets described Saipov as yelling “God is Great” in Arabic, as if the words “Allahu Akbar” aren’t more meaningful, and at this point, universally understood in that particular context. Up is down, and down is up. For progressives, reality is subjective.

            • It makes complete sense when you consider that Kevin Spacey played the gay card

              He didn’t. He felt compelled to explain himself and that’s a component of the explanation He could have stonewalled or just said he didn’t recall the incident in question and left it at that. The thing is, if you don’t recall an incident, you certainly do recall whether or not you were given to something like that. When he’s asked about it, there’s an implicit follow up question. He answered the follow up pre-emptively. Either he could see where this was going or some PR man told him where it was going. This fellow Rapp accuses him and immediate 3 or 4 other men say he hit on them at one time or another.

              Spacey is striking a pose when he says he’s ‘beyond horrified’. He’s almost certainly not. However, he has to do this fan dance with the media in order to attempt to remain a marketable commodity. As entertainment industry scandals go, Spacey’s is a nothingburger. However, in this present addled moment, his nothingburger is a career ender while people who’ve done much worse get off scot free.

              Please not also the precise content of Spacey’s statement. What he admits to is bisexuality and that he’s elected to stick to men at this point in his life. That’s the sort of thing more likely to inflame the gaystapo and their media minions than to placate them.

              • AAWG, members of the LGBTQ+ community like Wanda Sykes, Milo, Zachary Quinto, etc. are saying he played the gay card. It’s not only conservatives who are noticing that he tried to play “member of a protected class” so the focus could be on that instead of the alleged pedophilia. And the media played along until Rosie and others called Spacey out on it. The whole thing was a PR stunt. Everyone in Hollywood has known he was gay for 20+ years, it was the second least well kept secret in Pedowood. Personally, I think there’s been way too much “me too” ism going on in LA with accusations of sexual harassment continually being leveled, but frankly it’s way too entertaining to watch these bubble-dwellers go after each other. WRT Rapp’s specific allegations against Spacey, they’re 31 years late, memory is unreliable, and I’m not the only one to point out the accuser’s parents were out of their minds to let their 14 yo boy stay until midnight or so at a party with Spacey and others in the industry without adult supervision.

                “However, in this present addled moment, his nothingburger is a career ender while people who’ve done much worse get off scot free.” So what? He’s an actor, not Einstein. He’s a victim of timing. Netflix can’t be seen enabling an alleged pedophile/sexual harasser so soon after Weinsteingate. WRT your statement on his bisexuality and choosing only to date men, is it your point that the media would prefer bisexuality to just being gay? I’m not sure I’m getting your point. When was the last time Spacey was legitimately in a relationship with a woman? I think those references in his conditional apology were thrown in there to provide cover for HoC viewers in flyover states; if the women were beards, the gay communities in LA/NYC would have known that.

                http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-st-kevin-spacey-20171031-story.html

                • AAWG, members of the LGBTQ+ community like Wanda Sykes, Milo, Zachary Quinto, etc. are saying he played the gay card.

                  So what? I’m perfectly capable of reading his statement myself, as are you. You don’t need these characters to tell you what to think.

                  WRT your statement on his bisexuality and choosing only to date men, is it your point that the media would prefer bisexuality to just being gay? I’m not sure I’m getting your point.

                  You’re not getting my point. Bisexuality is a phenomenon which is incongruent with approved personal narratives in the media and among the gaystapo. They have two reactions to it: ignore it or pretend bisexuality is a fiction. (Dan Savage has preferred the latter tack). That Spacey says his homosexual trysts are a personal choice is a something these characters gag over.

                  the gay communities in LA/NYC would have known that.

                  The male homosexual population in greater Los Angeles and greater New York likely sums to about 600,000. I’ll wager only a small minority are personally acquainted with Kevin Spacey.

                  • DSS, I’m well aware I don’t need anybody else to tell me what to think. I said Spacey played the gay card. You disagreed. I brought up that many in the gay community see it the same way I do. You stated you could read. We haven’t moved any further. If I’m interpreting your statements correctly, you seem to place a whole lot more faith in Spacey’s written comment than I do. I think the guy’s just gay, not bisexual. I think his statement was intended to draw an emotional response from the bootlicking press to distract from the alleged crime. It didn’t work out. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter which team he plays for.

                    I don’t know who the heck the “gaystapo” is and I really don’t care. If gay people in the larger community don’t accept bisexuals as legitimate, that’s their problem. My gay and bi coworkers and friends don’t suffer from that kind of intolerance that you describe. From where I’m sitting, Hollywood embraces both gay and bi actors (e.g., Maria Bello, Anne Heche, Anna Paquin, Bai Ling, Megan Fox, Amber Heard, etc. none of whom looks to have suffered due to being bi); the issue is the pedophilia, and that is the reason Spacey’s losing support and jobs.

                    • Exactly right. The media dishes out a watered down politcally correct, but factually incorrect version of what Allahu Akbar means as if we are stupid. They don’t bother to explain that the “hu” or “u” on the end means our God is Great-er than your God. Up is down and down is up and Donald Trump is in The House. 😉

                    • the issue is the pedophilia, and that is the reason Spacey’s losing support and jobs.

                      Not really. The two people who have accused him of molestation were not, at the time, prepubescent children, but adolescents. That is pederasty, not paedophilia. One of the claims to have been an enthusiastic homosexual bouncing back and forth between a cousin of his on the one hand and Kevin Spacey on the other (I think his account of himself is largely fictional). The other says Kevin Spacey made a pass at him, he refused, and that was the end of it. Both sets of incidents occurred more than 30 years ago.

                      I don’t know who the heck the “gaystapo” is and I really don’t care.

                      I take it you don’t read newspapers.

                      I brought up that many in the gay community see it the same way I do.

                      You fancy what Wanda Sykes says is probative. It isn’t.

                      If I’m interpreting your statements correctly, you seem to place a whole lot more faith in Spacey’s written comment than I do.

                      It’s Spacey’s statement we’re parsing. Yes, my understanding of what Spacey’s saying is derived from … what he actually said.

                      I think the guy’s just gay, not bisexual.

                      You’re talking out of your ass. Dan Savage does that too (in addition to using his sphincter in ways contrary to nature).

                    • A 14 year old and a grown adult – regardless of gender or sexuality – should not be engaging in sexual activity. Period. I don’t care whether the grown adult is Kevin Spacey or Doug working the cash register at the corner store. Are some suggesting Spacey should get a pass because he’s rich, white, and an actor? Sure seems that way. I mean, compare Bill Cosby’s treatment versus Spacey, Weinstein, etc.

                    • andrewworkshop – Spacey is a predator of young men under 30 as anyone who works with him can tell you. More and more stories are coming out from the Old Vic and Netflix. His agent has dumped him and that is the kiss of death. There are enough stories to probably get him arrested like Weinstein. The Brits are looking into a case of Spacey and a 14 year old.

                    • For a guy whose past statements suggest he’s a Catholic who abhors homosexuality, you sure do profess to know a lot about it, and those who practice it. And once again, any time you do not have a cogent response to a comment, you throw out an unnecessary ad hominem. Well done!

                    • A 14 year old and a grown adult – regardless of gender or sexuality – should not be engaging in sexual activity. Period. I don’t care whether the grown adult is Kevin Spacey or Doug working the cash register at the corner store. Are some suggesting Spacey should get a pass because he’s rich, white, and an actor? Sure seems that way. I mean, compare Bill Cosby’s treatment versus Spacey, Weinstein, etc.

                      Quit striking poses. No one stated or implied that 14 year old youths should be sodomizing anyone, much less someone 8 or 12 years their senior.

                      Bar in rare circumstances, 31 and 36 year old complaints should be non justiciable. The 37 year old complaint is frankly bizarre and not trustworthy. The 31 year old complaint is much more plausible, but there isn’t nearly as much to it.

                      The men in question are presenting themselves as injured parties (or that’s the gloss the media is putting on their statements). One has supposedly been an active homosexual since 1990 and the other since 1980. I think if you fancy that in that time neither has ever done something indiscreet or compromising, I’m vending bridges. The gay subculture isn’t some button-down suburb. (And the fellow lodging the 1981 complaint certainly has an assessment of his situation that’s rather … protean over time). Even if they were injured parties and are discreet in their daily lives, 31 years is rather a long time to be stewing over someone having come on to you.

                      The other complaints amount to: Spacey’s a nuisance on the set, Spacey made a pass at me, &c. Well, that’s unprofessional and merits discipline by his employers. Somehow, I doubt being a nuisance or a lecher is terribly rare among Hollywood performers whose agents and PR contractors haven’t yet deserted them.

                      A predator? He’s actively homosexual seeking out entertainment. That’s what homosexual men do. It’s just that most of them have a more refined sense of when and where to hit on people.

                    • aAWG, this response should be a to Andrewworkshop, not me. I’ve already addresses the 31-yo nature of Rapps complaint, and the problems inherent. And neither AndrewWS nor I suggested that the 14 yo was sodomizing the older man.

                    • For a guy whose past statements suggest he’s a Catholic who abhors homosexuality, you sure do profess to know a lot about it, and those who practice it. And once again, any time you do not have a cogent response to a comment, you throw out an unnecessary ad hominem. Well done!

                      This is completely non sequitur. Sober up.

  6. This is also an interesting take on the situation: “t’s absolutely devastating to the Democratic Party as well as Hillary Clinton personally. We now know for certain that the real reason Donald Trump is President has nothing to do with Russia, but everything to do with Hillary Clinton and the DNC.”

    https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/

    • Seriously? Is this what it took for Hillary’s cult-like followers to finally be ‘woke’ from their sycophantic mindless devotional stupor to the reality of the decades and decades of lying, corruption, exploitation, and criminality that is the Clinton Crime Family Political Machine?

      • Haha. Another excellent post. “Hillary derangement syndrome.” I haven’t kept up with my college algebra, but by my calculations, Hillary has been indicted exactly zero (0) times; despite being nearly continuously investigated by the wingnut faction of the Republican Party whenever they can strongarm a subpoena. Yep, I double-checked my figures; came to zero (0) again. Change the channel, Hannity, Rush, and whatever wackjob you subscribe to are playing you for a mark. Eyeballs and clicks are the goal here, not factual accuracy. “So sad!” to quote an infamous grand jury target.

        this is to “but Fox & Co. seem so sincere” tbob

  7. This is interesting. Wikileaks has a copy of the unsigned fundraising agreement. Jared Beck, one of the lawyers who had been suing the DNC on behalf of ripped off Bernie supporters writes the following at his twitter feed:

    “unless I’m missing it, this draft of joint fundraising agreement doesn’t contain provisions for control by Hillary campaign cited by Brazile”

    Maybe Donna can produce the signed version for us since she is so into transparency and just wants to get to the bottom of what happened?????

  8. Much ado about nothing. Why? Cuz the Dims will keep voting Dimocratic without regard to the mischief and malfeasance in which the party hacks are engaged.

  9. “I love the smell of Progressives roasting other Progressives in the morning…”

    Donna saw the bullet coming at her, she ducked, and it hit HRC in the head. It remains to be seen, but if Donna has permanently removed HRC from the public stage, as we hope is the case, she deserves some sort of special recognition for her immense contribution to the world and humanity.

  10. One must note that Bernie Sanders had never been a Democrat. Yet he expected the Democratic nomination shortly after joining the party. Then he immediately attacked the super delegates who were essentially the party’s officeholders. Super delegates were those who would have shared the ballot with Bernie. Then Bernie claimed that Hillary ‘rigged’ the Arizona Primary when Republicans had clearly sabotaged that contest to demoralize Hispanics. That story was widely covered in the mainstream media.

    Throughout the primary season, Bernie typically won in small, mostly White states like his adopted home of Vermont. While Hillary typically won the bigger more diverse states. Yet Bernie and his supporters kept claiming that ‘he’ was more electable! And just to make sure he was more electable, Bernie’s supporters kept posting vicious memes on social media attacking Hillary. Ironically those memes were intended for Trump supporters. But the Bernie Bros kept posting them with gleeful abandon.

    Finally one should note that Bernie is 6 years older than both Trump and Clinton. Had Bernie been elected he would have been 79 years old in 2020; too old for a second term. Yet Bernie seems hell-bent on running that year anyway. And weasel Donna Brazile sees her future with him.

    • You either missed yesterday’s earth shattering news how HRC purchased for money the DNC debt caused and overseen by herself and Jesus Obama, in exchange for outright absolute control of the nominating process, or you desire to deflect said news by saying, “Look at that shiny thing (Bernie’s alleged faults) over there…”

      Please, by all means, I sincerely welcome Progressive’s permanent state of delusion like yours.

    • HRC’s run was laughable. She was hated unlike Sanders. Just look at the turn out for the rallies and town halls (the few she did)

      And the “convention” was a travesty – they shut off the lights and brought out sound machines to silence the pro Bernie anti war/TPP, etc. contingent. Nina Turner was not even allowed to speak. Meanwhile Bernexiters increase and the coffers are growing empty. Maybe they can arrange a uranium sale again with Russia.

        • Roscoe, you’re welcome! Lately I’ve been into Hard B#stard – he’s very profane and his shows are long but I like his analyis.

      • Ben Shapiro believes that the Dem party is Bernies party now, and he would be a fool not to run in 2020. Fauxcahontas clearly made her political intentions known when she verbally hit the witless JakeTapper upside the head the other day. Personally, Bernie’s dead to me based on his stumping for the Borg Queen. It will be an interesting few years, nevertheless.

        • Bernie will be 79 years old in 2020. A man that age has a life expectancy of about 9 years. About 15% of those between the ages of 80 and 85 have some measurable dementia. No one that age has any business running for a demanding political office.

          The trouble with Bernie is that he’s nearly unique. The Capitol Hill Democratic Party is a collecting pool of sludge.

    • Chuckles. Bernie Sanders won 43% of the ballots of Democratic voters, whether or not you fancy he should be counted as a ‘Democrat’ or not. Strange as it may seem to the collection of poseurs and rent-seekers who are the Democratic Party’s base, you actually don’t get extra pokemon points from local boards of elections from getting the votes of black women. Every vote counts the same. And, of course, Republicans aren’t responsible for low hispanic turnout in Arizona or anywhere else, bar in your imagination.

      Bernie Sanders is passably honest for a pol, something no one of sense would ever say of Lady MacBeth. They hypothetical match ups with various Republican alternatives showed Sanders performing better than Hilligula would have contra all four. You’d have been better off with Bernie.

      The superdelegates, by the way, were the brainchild of Charles Manatt and others who thought the popular choices of Democratic voters (George McGovern and Jimmy Carter) inopportune. McGovern and Carter had something Hilligula and Obama do not: clean hands.

      • AAWG

        re: “Strange as it may seem to the collection of poseurs and rent-seekers who are the Democratic Party’s base, you actually don’t get extra pokemon points from local boards of elections from getting the votes of black women. ”

        Excellent observation IMO. And I suspect it’s gonna be harder for the Dims to rally black women once the church ladies die off. Younger, savvier black women are tired of being used every election cycle.

        • Ethics depends on one person’s or one group’s values and morals and it should go without saying those of the left including their right wing the RINOs are far far different from the rest of our Constitutional Republic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: