Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PoliticalMalcontent

(449 posts)
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 08:04 PM Mar 2016

Is anybody else concerned about how the Clintons' wield their political influence?

Hillary Clinton has done a tremendous job of using her political sway to influence the democratic party to her benefit. It started in the 90's and her political influence has only gotten stronger. The head of the DNC (the regulating body of the democratic party) even comes directly from the 2008 Clinton campaign. That, my friends, is stacking the deck in your favor.

Those that help Clinton are pushed into positions of power while those who do not support Clinton have had a history of being thrown under the bus. This causes fear. Real fear of political retaliation.

One example is Claire McCaskill (Get well soon, McCaskill!). She endorsed Obama and perhaps said some things about Bill Clinton that she regretted. And then? Then came the fear. She did a good job of mending bridges though, including endorsing Clinton in June of 2015 (a full six months earlier in the election cycle than her last presidential endorsement). My assumption is that the endorsement came so early because she was trying to get back into Clinton's good graces.

Still, it's hard to ignore the grudges that Clinton has kept.

The Hill: Hillary's Hit List
The Hill: Kerry, Kennedy top Clinton's Traitor's List

It's Nixonian.

I worry about those that are supporting Sanders right now. Those potential bright stars who have bucked the party power players in favor of their own personal beliefs. Tulsi Gabbard was the Vice-chair of the of the DNC, but resigned out so she could speak out. That's how important this was to her.

This is a big difference compared to Debbie Wasserman Schultz who runs the DNC, worked for Clinton in '08 and is supposedly impartial. Debbie did a terrific job of scheduling the initial set of debates on days that would stifle viewership (weekends, holidays, against sports playoffs). She hasn't explicitly come out for Clinton, but she can't due to her position. Actions however, speak louder than words. She's banking on Clinton's name recognition.

Frankly, in my opinion the party would be better off not being so vindictive. As it stands, it is my firm belief that things will get worse before they get better if Clinton is nominated. The deck will be stacked further. Help for the lower and middle class will be further away. That is not what I think the democratic party should stand for. That is not how the party will win votes.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is anybody else concerned about how the Clintons' wield their political influence? (Original Post) PoliticalMalcontent Mar 2016 OP
that's what made Gabbard give up her DNC role MisterP Mar 2016 #1

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
1. that's what made Gabbard give up her DNC role
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 08:16 PM
Mar 2016

same happened to Duckworth--she realized Rahm was using her to crush anyone to the left of him

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Is anybody else concerned...