So Much for "Unity" at the DNC: Corporate Democrats Purge Bernie Backers

Donna Brazile writes:

"After it was clear in June that Bernie Sanders had lost the nomination, he spent the six weeks leading up to the convention complaining to anyone who would listen about Debbie and the DNC. He claimed that she put the fix in for Hillary from the start. He attacked the rules that allowed party leaders chosen as superdelegates to declare their support for a candidate independent of the results of the state primaries and caucuses. He said all the rules for the primaries had been written to favor Hillary. I have served on the rules committee since 1997, and I could assure him that the rules were not written one way or another. The Rules and Bylaws Committee meets immediately after the election is over to begin the process of writing the rules for the next cycle…The Bernie folks and some other unsettled state delegations from the West were not persuaded that was the full story."

That's what I mean by "resentfulness."

As anyone who's had kids has heard 1000 times: "But it's not fair!"

FilmCarp said:

Nan, I accept most of your condemnation of the DNC, but it has nothing to do with the rules of democracy.  It is a privately run non profit designed to get it's preferred candidates elected.  It is not part of the government. Anyone can start a national committee for any party they want.  Hillary supported and worked for DNC candidates for years.  It was an organization designed to get her elected, not another candidate.  I don't give them money.  You don't have to.  But Sanders ran outside that organization.  They owed him nothing, and they are not even required to back the candidate with the most primary votes.  They don't matter.

FilmCarp,

Being privately run does not excuse a company for not following their own rules. They are in the business of providing a free and fair election because that is what democracy looks like. Being privately owned they are free to say, we are for sale to the highest bidder -- but then we are free to say, "No thanks, we will go with someone else who provides a fairer system."   Who would accept that as OK for purpose of voting?  This is not just any competiton -- it's for the President of the United States--the most powerful person in the world.  They have bylaws and they were not following them.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz publically bragged about the "neutral" process. They were not supposed to favor any candidate during the primary.  This is what we were told was happening.  The agreement between Hillary and the DNC giving her full power was in secret.   It sure did not get mentioned in her book,"What Happened?"  But that is really What Happened.  

So, yeah, you are right, but if they choose to conduct business by letting one candidate buy the nomination than that is not Democracy and we should hire someone else. What shocks me is that so many are justifying this somehow and think it is OK. 

Sanders, O'Malley: "DNC rigged the system for Hillary!" --> Clinton apologists: "The system is fair!"

Brazile reveals Clinton bought control of DNC --> Clinton apologists: "Life is unfair."

When people who hire people like this tell me to "move on" I'm not moving on:

". . .Moore, a principal at the lobbying firm Dewey Square Group, was one of the Perez-appointed at-large members of the DNC. She bristled at the notion that her firm engages in lobbying.

“I am happy to tell you publicly that I have never been a lobbyist, and if I was, I would own up to the reason why,” Moore said. “But what I do for a living is I actually help corporations probably get to where your values are.”

RAHM EMANUEL ON DONNA BRAZILE CLAIMS: “THIS IS REALLY, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT”

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/06/rahm-emmanuel-on-donna-brazile-claims-this-is-really-totally-irrelevant/

paulsurovell said:

Sanders, O'Malley: "DNC rigged the system for Hillary!" --> Clinton apologists: "The system is fair!"

Brazile reveals Clinton bought control of DNC --> Clinton apologists: "Life is unfair."

Again...

"He said all the rules for the primaries had been written to favor Hillary. I have served on the rules committee since 1997, and I could assure him that the rules were not written one way or another. The Rules and Bylaws Committee meets immediately after the election is over to begin the process of writing the rules for the next cycle…The Bernie folks and some other unsettled state delegations from the West were not persuaded that was the full story."

I'm quoting Brazile. Who are you quoting?

GL2 said:

I'm quoting Brazile. Who are you quoting?

Tin-hatted gremlins, perhaps?????????

And there, for me, is the whole Bernie-got-took thing. You can't sway them by putting the actual source of the info in front of them.

We may well see Bernie again in 2020. Why not? Huge rallies. Pie-in-the-sky promises for young idealistic folks. Good vibrations.

GL2 said:

And there, for me, is the whole Bernie-got-took thing. You can't sway them by putting the actual source of the info in front of them.

We may well see Bernie again in 2020. Why not? Huge rallies. Pie-in-the-sky promises for young idealistic folks. Good vibrations.

And enough votes lost to enable Trump to be reelected.

BG9 said:

GL2 said:

And there, for me, is the whole Bernie-got-took thing. You can't sway them by putting the actual source of the info in front of them.

We may well see Bernie again in 2020. Why not? Huge rallies. Pie-in-the-sky promises for young idealistic folks. Good vibrations.

And enough votes lost to enable Trump to be reelected.

I am not sure who is right or what will happen on the next three years, but look what worked for Trump. Wasn't it "Huge rallies", "Pie-in-the-sky promises" for out of work coal miners, industrial workers as well as those who fear immigrants and minorities?

Suppose a left-leaning celebrity runs for the Democratic Nomination by attacking Wall Street, Big Business, The Corporate Media, etc. at Huge Rallies of cheering fans. What result?

I think Hollywood isn't respected by yer average Joe in the way that a "self-made billionaire" is respected. Part of the American fantasy is that any of us has the opportunity to strike it rich. Celebrity/athlete money isn't respected the way "business"money is.

But renewed Bernie resentment isn't productive at all. Anyone taking that POV isn't seeing Brazile's exposé in context: BHO didn't care about the DNC; Wasserman-Shultz wasted tons of money the DNC didn't have (consultants, a body woman, a Chevy Tahoe, etc) and she sucked at the job. So Brooklyn (perfect place for the hipper-than-thou HRC crowd) bailed out the DNC, demanded approval of spending, and basically took over the DNC. Sounds harsh but understandable to me. Brazile resents having been head of the DNC while having limited power.

Clinton did not take over the DNC (in secret--let's not forget) in order to save it.  She took it over so she could be the nominee and use it as a legal money laundering scheme.  That should not be "understandable."  That is against the charter of the DNC; they are supposed to be neutral party during the primary.  It's also not Democratic in the least.  It's more about that than Bernie, although she also screwed him as well.

Of course she didn't take it over to save it. She took it over to help herself. No one's gonna defend HRC's arrogance or the arrogance of the Brooklyn crowd she'd assembled. Brazile was at the pinnacle of her political career and was getting marching orders from those skinny jeans wearing twerps with half the experience she had.

" I sensed we could add great value to the campaign. There is a big difference between someone from the Clinton campaign showing up who has never visited that state before, and Tom or Donnie or me calling someone they’d known in elections stretching back two decades. That kind of personal touch is the glue that holds campaigns together."

If this thread were about how arrogant and awful the HRC people were to seasoned veteran democratic activists, I think we'd all be in agreement.

"A defeated candidate might argue whether or not the rules were written fairly, but they were negotiated in the open with lots of input from the members of the party long before most candidates declared their interest in running. The party did that on purpose so that there could be no influence exerted by those trying to win the nomination. Bernie’s supporters did not participate in these negotiations for a simple reason: he was not a Democrat at that time."

I lost you at "but they were  negotiated in the open"

So frankly, the only candidate with a bone to pick with the DNC is O'Malley.

nan said:

I lost you at "but they were  negotiated in the open"

These are Donna Brazile's words, not mine. She knows a lot about this affair.

Example of why the Democrats stay with a losing strategy.

Democratic Billionares Tell Nancy & Chuck to KNOCK IT OFF!

It is troubling to see that the Dems have not presented a simple talking point like the following: "We're all for tax cuts that benefit the middle class, but why are we giving tax cuts to people who don't need them? We should us the money used for giving tax cuts to the wealthy to fix our infrastructure. I'm sure the wealthy would support what's in the best interests of our country."

Or: "why are we giving tax cuts to the people who need them the least? The economy for corporations and the wealthy has been great. Profits are at record highs. The wealthy have more money than they've ever had. They don't need tax cuts."

There's also very little push back using the fact that there is no evidence that giving corporations a tax cut helps the economy in general.

I really wish the Dems would take a page out of the Repub's play book and spend more time on messaging. They really suck at it.

GL2 said:

Bernie’s supporters did not participate in these negotiations for a simple reason: he was not a Democrat at that time.

That was the main reason the super's did not support Sanders. Clinton also went campaigning in 2014 to help the Democratic down race candidates. Its obvious who they would support after the support she gave them.

We agree about the lack of messaging--that was a big problem during the 2016 election.  As shown in the video I posted, they have no message because they only care about keeping the donors happy. 

It is troubling to see that the Dems have not presented a simple talking point like the following: "We're all for tax cuts that benefit the middle class, but why are we giving tax cuts to people who don't need them? We should us the money used for giving tax cuts to the wealthy to fix our infrastructure. I'm sure the wealthy would support what's in the best interests of our country."

Or: "why are we giving tax cuts to the people who need them the least? The economy for corporations and the wealthy has been great. Profits are at record highs. The wealthy have more money than they've ever had. They don't need tax cuts."


There's also very little push back using the fact that there is no evidence that giving corporations a tax cut helps the economy in general.

I really wish the Dems would take a page out of the Repub's play book and spend more time on messaging. They really suck at it.

No, they supported Clinton because she gave the DNC money and had a singed agreement.  They got Bernie to run because almost no Democrats wanted to run against HIllary because they knew it was "her turn."  They let Sanders, the Independent, run so they should have treated him the same as all other candidates.  That is what the DNC is supposed to do--run a neutral campaign.  Technially, as a private corporation, they don't have to, but since it is about electing the President, we should insist that they do that.

BG9 said:

GL2 said:

Bernie’s supporters did not participate in these negotiations for a simple reason: he was not a Democrat at that time.

That was the main reason the super's did not support Sanders. Clinton also went campaigning in 2014 to help the Democratic down race candidates. Its obvious who they would support after the support she gave them.

Stop whining or start your own party.

Thanks.

sbenois said:

Stop whining or start your own party.




Thanks.

You have no power here.  Be gone before somebody drops a house on you.

Your guy was never a Democrat.  He lost.  End of story.   You've been whining about it for over a year now, go join the Green Party.

sbenois said:

Your guy was never a Democrat.  He lost.  End of story.   You've been whining about it for over a year now, go join the Green Party.

Gee that is funny.  The man from the Green Mountain state garnered approx. 1 3,206, 428 votes from voters across the country in the primaries.  I guess they thought he was enough of a Democrat to trust him with their votes.  Bernie is still very much a factor in the Democratic Party.  HRC continues to blame everyone but herself for the loss.  Had she won the Presidency,  the US treasury would have become a Clinton slush fund

Nan,

Thank you for bringing Sbenois out of semi-retirement.