The DNC Screwed Hillary — Now Get Ready For A Bernie Sanders Earthquake - Salon

[WillyT]

The DNC screwed Hillary — now get ready for a Bernie Sanders earthquake
Limiting debates did her no favors. Now she's barely leading a 74-year-old socialist. This debate is pivotal.
Bill Curry - Salon
Monday, Oct 12, 2015 09:38 AM PDT


(Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin/Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Photo montage by Salon)

<snip>

With so many people thinking the system is rigged and that politics has devolved into mere vulgar entertainment, the Democratic Party’s choice of a Las Vegas casino as the venue for its first presidential debate seems counterintuitive. That the casino in question bears the surname of Steve Wynn seems odd as well. In 2012, Wynn, once a Democrat of sorts, dropped $10 million on Karl Rove’s Super PAC. He’s gone on Fox News to lambaste Obama, whom he calls a socialist. His punishment: a ton of free publicity plus whatever it cost to rent the hall.

The Democratic National Committee delayed the debates as long as it could and limited their total number to six. By way of comparison, there were 26 debates in 2008. The first was held in April 2007; by this point in the cycle there had already been 13. To enforce its new limit the party threatens a drastic sanction: anyone caught participating in a rogue debate will be locked out of all party debates.

The phrase ‘Democratic National Committee’ is imprecise. When DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced the schedule last August she didn’t say who made the decision or how. Nor did anyone ask. It seems like an awfully closed system for an outfit with the word ‘democratic’ right there in its name. I wondered how the party picked it. Did its national committee hold a meeting? If so, was it public? Was there a notice, agenda, or minutes? Was there even a vote?

On Thursday I spoke to the DNC communications director, a nice man named Luis Miranda. After a few minutes of polite evasions I had my answers: no, no, no, no, no and no. From what I could glean, staff made recommendations to Schultz and she then made the call all on her own. It isn’t clear that party rules authorize her to do so. What is clear is that they shouldn’t. Miranda told me the party consults with all the candidates. I don’t doubt him, but the consultations don’t appear to mean much, in that four of the five candidates wanted more debates.

The fifth is Hillary Clinton, who recently said in a low whisper that she’s ‘open’ to more debates. Clinton is still the nominal frontrunner and the establishment choice. In 2008 Schultz was in the bunker with Clinton till the bitter end. Clinton is the only candidate in the field likely to retain Schultz in her present job or otherwise advance her career. There’s a good chance the only important consultation Schultz had was with Clinton. This should come as no surprise. Every four years party insiders tweak the process in hopes that some establishment favorite can wrap things up early. Due to the law of unintended consequences, and because these people aren’t nearly as smart as they think, this almost always backfires...

<snip>

More: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the_dnc_screwed_hillary_now_get_ready_for_a_bernie_sanders_earthquake/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. People are sick of Politics-As-Usual and the games that politicians play.

[randys1]

3. I hear that a lot from teapartiers.

Kind of no matter who, no matter what, no more politics as usual.

Might be good, might not be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Mark Twain wasn't a Tea Bagger.

“History has tried hard to teach us that we can’t have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn’t be wise.” Mark Twain

[randys1]

5. THREAD WIN, Hillary attacker actually quotes TWAIN LOL

I think you will be the first person I blame if the GOP takes the WH.

Promise me you will be here so I can do that, OK?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Are you also going blame Mark?

Funny how the powerless, irrelevant Left is transformed into the powerful and relevant force that swings elections when tweedle-dee Democrats lose.

[randys1]

9. Your use of TWAIN is laughable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Twain was a humorist.

And often poked fun at ambitious politicians without principles like Hillary.

[randys1]

14. I am a prophet, did you know that?

Let me show you how I do it.

If the right and the Hillary haters are successful and ANY con is elected, given the teaparty madness, we will see changes thru the SC and legislation that will turn back the clock on Women, minorities, education and the environment.

Women will die in back alleys, minorities will die in streets.

This is guaranteed.

So dont pull Twain into this nightmare that some seem to think is acceptable if not getting their candidate isnt possible.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. And, Twain would be responible for that?

I'm not a Hillary Hater. I just don't want her to be president.

[randys1]

18. Stop dragging Twain into this nightmare DU libertarians are preparing us for.

[wendylaroux]

52. haaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!

are you flipping kidding me????!!!!

holy shit,we want true liberal democrats back, and you are calling us libertarians?

my mind------>

[Old Crow]

111. +1. Nailed it. (N/T)

[pinebox]

53. Jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Oct 12, 2015, 11:57 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

THREAD WIN, Hillary attacker actually quotes TWAIN LOL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=668090

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

open mockery. geez

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:01 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wouldn't make the qualifying rounds in the Gungeon.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is disruptive
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't understand the alert here. The post finds humor in someone quoting Mark Twain. There is obviously something I fail to understand.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How can I put this delicately . . . I can't. So I'll just politely disagree with the alerter.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is being a dick, but come on.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. FWIW, I would have voted to leave it alone.

Differences of opinion are what makes horse races. Mark Twain

[pinebox]

77. I did

[pinebox]

54. Libertarians? From a HRC supporter? LOL

Let us know how that's working out for you considering you're to the right of Bernie supporters with supporting Hillary. Hi, welcome to the dichotomy.

[ucrdem]

56. Juror 6 here and you so nailed it. nt

[randys1]

79. Thanks, and the alert is a perfect example how stupid this is now. Disagree with

certain Bernie supporters, tell the TRUTH and you are silenced, or attempted to.

You see I wont blame a rightwing asshole for being a righwing asshole when he or she votes for our destruction, they dont know any better, I will blame alleged liberals though, and I will do it all day long until I am silenced


p.s.

fuck it, i'm out

no more GD for me

AA only from now on...

I suggest all liberals stop posting in GD, AA forum and I guess Hillary are the two best, even though I am a Bernie supporter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. No. I agree with Twain and I think his statement is appropriate to the discussion.

[daleanime]

118. You want prophecy? I'll give you prophecy....

what ever happens, you'll blame the "Left".


Now cross my palm with silver and have a good night.

[druidity33]

127. Dire imprecations! Death and mayhem follow...

if you stay your course! Can't you see, Bernie Sanders will be the Ruin of us all???!!!


wth?



and that initial quote with Twain was spot on. You really think Mark Twain would've had kind words about Hillary if he were alive today? He was a cutting wit and anyone who he deemed deceitful or dishonest would get commented on, especially Politicians.

[AlbertCat]

27. "Hillary attacker " "libertarians"?

Hmmmmm....

Smells of desperation.

[Ned Flanders]

89. "We have the best Congress money can buy." Mark Twain (nt)

[840high]

138. 'aye

[deutsey]

90. Twain is often cited as inspiring the term "New Deal"

"I was become a stockholder in a corporation where nine hundred and ninety-four of the members furnished all the money and did all the work, and the other six elected themselves a permanent board of direction and took all the dividends. It seemed to me that what the nine hundred and ninety-four dupes needed was a new deal."

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Whether true or not (and it appears to be: http://www.twainquotes.com/NewDeal.html), I recommend reading Connecticut Yankee. It's nothing at all like the de-fanged TV/movie versions of it. It's a little uneven, but it has some of the harshest critiques of Gilded Age capitalism and organized religion and it even seemed to foretell the nightmarish disaster of WWI.

[navarth]

123. Thanks, I'll add that book to my list.

....how will I EVER find time to read them....fingers crossed...

[rhett o rick]

13. You appear to be saying that as an insult, but it isn't. The TeaParty grassroots people

are hurting along with the Democratic grassroots. They are getting screwed just like we are. To have a common dislike for the tyranny of the American Oligarchy isn't unusual. We do have different ideologies and your insinuation that we don't is absurd.

There are two sides to this class war, the 99% vs. the 1%. Most Republicons and the conservative Democrats believe that the 1% (e.g. Goldman-Sachs) should rule. While those of us that want freedom and liberty want to change the existing corrupt government system. And change won't come from voting in more of the status quo.

[randys1]

15. I have nothing in common with racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc.

Your attitude about the teaparty is very very telling

How many of you Bernie supporters agree that the teaparty and us liberals have enough in common to do whatever??????

I really wanna know

[rhett o rick]

24. Your attempts to distort what I say is telling. You are apparently not able to address

what I say without that.

"I have nothing in common with racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc." That sounds so tough and authoritative, but you do have a lot in common. You are all human, some are the same sex, have families, work at same kind of work, what some of the same tv shows, and if you both saw a house on fire, you'd both say "fire".

Our government has been corrupted by money. If a Tea Bagger says it, I will agree with them. I just don't agree with their ideologies. Interesting though, some Conservative Democrats share similar views with Republicons. Like fracking and free trade agreements.

[randys1]

33. THIS is what scares me and should scare all liberals. Are you as willing as you seem to be to

go along with rightwing haters if you get some economic relief?

If the choice is little to no change in minimum wage, or actions against Wall Street, etc., or increasing taxes on corp/rich to support jobs but liberal social positions and SC justices with Hillary

OR

Some change (wouldnt be much, considering who runs the house and senate) in economics but also since we now have a rightwinger as president, SC justices who will reverse social issues?

Which do you choose?

Please tell me.

This is assuming the ENDLESS BASHING of Hillary harms her enough that she does win the primary but not the GE and a con does, lets just play that possible scenario out, please

[rhett o rick]

65. Our founders decided that they didn't want to fight for small changes, they

wanted freedom and liberty. We have again reached a point in our history where we see the need to fight again for freedom and liberty. And the small change the Oligarchy is offering is not enough to reduce poverty, end the killing of unarmed black males, reverse the imprisonment of Americans, end the endless wars that profit the 1% and kill the 99%, to raise the min wage to a living wage, protect our environment, protect American jobs.

I think it's immoral to support a status quo that has given us 16,000,000 American children living in poverty.

[randys1]

76. So the social issues dont really effect you, got it.

[rhett o rick]

104. Social issues are very important to me. I don't think we will get much social justice

from a puppet of the Oligarchy.

[JackRiddler]

129. Which "founders"?

The federalists who wrote the constitution?

They were the 1%.

[rhett o rick]

130. Are you trying to make a point? nm

[JackRiddler]

136. Just bored with everyone's bullshit about the "founders."

There's no need to invoke them, and I understand no political gain in describing them as exactly who they were. We're both for Sanders. Back then I would have been for George Mason, I guess.

[DhhD]

68. You have gotten off the issues of the campaign against the GOP.

[passiveporcupine]

81. You state this as if it's already decided

It's Hillary or the GOP.

Even Wasserman now says Bernie can beat the GOP. And we've been saying that all along. He has a better chance of beating them than Hillary does, as her numbers continue to plummet and his to grow.

You guys might want to take off those shades. They may look cool, but they do make it harder to see.

[Vincardog]

87. That is a False choice. We ain't choosing between HRC and a GOP stooge it is HRC or SANDERS

We are choosing a Liberal Democrat over a Corporate DINO.

[cui bono]

105. +1,000,000

[840high]

141. ...^ that

[mahina]

100. Bernie doesn't bash Hillary, nor do I.

I shut down the bashers whenever possible.

Keep it positive.

[bjobotts]

139. Bash Wasserman Schultz for keeping agenda obscure

[beerandjesus]

57. This is how you rationalize calling Hillary a "liberal".

You define the word "liberal" as exclusively meaning "not-racist, not-misogynist, and not-homophobic", as if that were some sort of gold standard, rather than the absolute, bare minimum.

Then, anyone who supports anyone OTHER than Hillary--because Hillary, but that definition, is just as liberal as anyone else--is either (a) misguided, (b) nuts, or (c) a secret Republican. There's no reason to ask for anything more than the absolute bare minimum, because the absolute bare minimum is all that exists. And of course, there is no common ground to be found with non-"liberals", because the definition of "liberal" is now so narrow that barely anything else intersects with it.

I think it's fascinating.


By the way, you notice how I used the expression "gold standard"? Well, that PROVES that I'm a libertarian in love with Rand Paul!

[cui bono]

106. Exactly. And that's why they fabricated the faux social justice vs. economic justice outrage.

To justify backing a corporate candidate. When they say economic justice just isn't that important they can feel better about themselves for screwing over most of the people in this country because they can believe they took the high road by backing social justice.

Problem is Bernie has done more for social justice than Hillary has AND he fights for economic justice.

[rhett o rick]

108. It's interesting who call themselves liberal. As you put it, they think that if they are for

social justice they are automatically liberal. They are sadly misguided.

Liberals don't:

Help the Republicons invade Iraq.
Support fracking and put oil profits before the People's clean water.
Condone torture and domestic spying.
Persecute whistle blowers, honest journalists, and protesters.
Support job killing Free Trade Agreements.
Drone killing innocent people including children.
Turn their backs on our vets, college grads, and seniors.
Give big corporations carte blanch tax breaks and let our infrastructure crumble.

Liberals don't let big corporations buy our government.

HRC isn't a liberal.

[GoneFishin]

133. +1000.

[workinclasszero]

28. Yeah F*** the tea party

I sure as hell have nothing to do with those racist/religious right haters.

They are just pissed that white men aren't still in charge 100%. They are good little lackeys for the "man", they claim to hate!

Anyone wanting to unite with the stinkin tea party is no friend of freedom and democracy that's for damn sure.

[rhett o rick]

109. Wow, that's very tough of you. But be aware, while you are doing that, Goldman-Sachs

is picking your pocket.

[elehhhhna]

73. It's about with whom your candidate has things in common,

It's not about you at all.

[pinebox]

80. You want to know?

I'll tell you. Not ever Tea Party supporter is a racist or a misogynist POS as much as you'd like to believe that. If anything, that is the kind of talking pointy that parallels RW thought of "poor people are lazy".
Generalizations are a very dangerous thing.

But let's start here shall we?

Opinion: Progressives and Tea Party find common ground as they oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/opinion_progressives_and_tea_party_find_common_gro.html
So, you think the idea of progressives and the Tea Party working together or achieving a common purpose is some woolly-headed, academic fantasy without the proverbial snowball's chance -- that it cannot happen because the gulf separating these two factions is unbridgeable? Well, think again.

There already is clear evidence it's happening in anti-corruption and campaign finance reform. Take the 2-to-1 cross-partisan vote that approved anti-corruption laws in Tallahassee, Fla., last Election Day, as Exhibit A.

Still not convinced? OK, then keep a sharp eye out for the Trans-Pacific Partnership careening into Washington, D.C., and heading for a quick up-or-down vote in Congress. Both the president and the Republican leadership in Congress are in the driver's seat. TPP - the secret trade deal many haven't heard of - is also bringing progressives and the Tea Party out in droves, and the noise they are making has the establishment concerned.

There's common ground on many issues and in fact it was Trump who just today said live o MSNBC that he agrees with Bernie on trade deals. That's how you get shit done! By working together and finding common ground.

[Lurks Often]

116. You made someone sad

On Mon Oct 12, 2015, 07:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You want to know?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=668534

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Defending the Teabaggers? Wth is wrong here people? Why is this on DU?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 12, 2015, 07:34 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster wasn't defending the teabaggers, merely stating that we can find some common ground. Nothing wrong with that.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerted poster actually has a point. I am not here to defend that point, but needless to say see no reason to hide this post. I am not in favor of DU being more of a echo chamber than it already is.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a pathetic alert. The alerter needs to grow up and stop whining.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Debate, don't alert.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pinebox]

144. imagine

The freakout that would happen if they knew my girlfriend was a libertarian lol

[Lurks Often]

154. Yeah, I think we both have a pretty good idea

who did that absurd alert

[840high]

142. ...+1

[PatrickforO]

94. I don't think it is that we agree with the tea party.

It began as a very small grass roots movement, and then was nurtured into what it is now by the Koch brothers. Still, there are people to the right who do not believe that the 1% should rule. My bone to pick with the TP is that they chose the wrong enemy. They seem to want government to do the Grover Norquist thing and get little tiny so it can be strangled in a bathtub. Then, they feel (actually, they have been carefully propagandized and programmed to feel) that the 'invisible arm' of the market will benignly take care of everything.

Basically, what the Kochs did is harness the anger and focus it on a shiny object.

Like the 1% has ALWAYS done.

So when the poster to whom you are replying says we have something in common with the TP, we do. Anger at the way things are now and the feeling that we've got to do something about it. Where we diverge, of course, is in the nature of that something.

[zeemike]

96. You have more in common than you think.

The most obvious one is the use of hyperbole. name calling and the use of fear to herd your sheep.
Different ideology but same MO...

[restorefreedom]

37. could not agree more

that is why bernie has so much crossover appeal. people getting screwed by the 1% are not likely to care which party is associated with it. they just want and deserve a quality of life and a fair shot at opportunities.

also agree with #24. many people getting screwed on both sides are not necessarily homophobes and racists. some on the right are, no doubt. and if anything, poc are getting screwed worse by the corporate mic elite in pretty much everyway.

[rhett o rick]

67. The 1% Oligarchy wants us to fight among ourselves, but they are the problem. nm

[restorefreedom]

69. yup. i have a vision

of bad seniors getting freshman to participate in fight clubs while they rake in $ from the betting pool.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

117. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[one_voice]

147. Whoa!

The TeaParty grassroots people are hurting along with the Democratic grassroots. They are getting screwed just like we are. To have a common dislike for the tyranny of the American Oligarchy isn't unusual

The Tea Party grassroots aren't anything like the Democratic grassroots. The Tea Party was born our of a hatred for President Obama. The fear of 'the different' he was gonna take your rights away. They care nothing about their fellow citizens.

They don't give a crap about the banks and what they get away with, they don't care one bit about the student loans, they fought health care every step of the way--not because they wanted something better but because they wanted nothing at all--except that you keep you damn hands off their medicare. They fought & are still fighting marriage equality. They want them people to stop get the free stuff. They fought the Dem grassroots on everything. There may be one or two issues they agreed on, I can't think of one.

No, they're not getting screwed, they want to screw people.

Here's the difference in a nutshell,

Sarah Palin=Tea Party Elizabeth Warren=Dem grassroots

Ted Cruz=Tea Party Bernie Sanders=Dem grassroots

Only one of those groups is being screwed, the other is doing their damnest to screw others.

[rhett o rick]

148. Those in the Tea Party you are mentioning are not the grass-roots. Those you are describing are

not part of the 99%. The group being screwed is the 99%. Some are white, black, females, seniors, vets, etc. The 1% Oligarchs want the 99% to fight among ourselves. The 1% is the enemy. They want all of our wealth. And some Conservative Democrats, for some strange reason, are helping them.

[one_voice]

149. Every Tea Party person..

I've come into contact with fits that mold. Even those in the 99%. They blame the Dems--Obama in particular. They blame everyone on welfare, everyone getting food stamps, Obama care (cuz they have to pay for that, especially birth control) and so on. That's why they're poor. That's why they're under employed. blah, blah, blah.

They repeat everything Fox News tells them. And every single person I've met that identifies as a Tea Party member, that was there from the beginning fits that mold. Every bad thing---Obama.

I have never met one that blames the 1%...the just the libbies hating the rich and wanting to implement socialism...blah blah blah.

[rhett o rick]

150. I am not arguing any of that. We've gotten away from what I said, probably because

no one wants to address what I said. Someone posted that people are tired of the corrupt political system that has big money running our government. I agree. Some Tea Party grassroots people also agree. Do you agree? Or are you ok with a political system that has given us 16 million American children living in poverty. Well if you are ok with that, then go ahead and support the status quo. Not me. I want to see a change.

[olegramps]

155. Right on!

They were the proverbial silent majority when Bush and his PNAC neo-cons ran up the National Depth and led to us into war on lies that will eventually cost trillions of dollars assisting the soldiers who were nothing more than cannon fodder. As soon as Obama was elected they jumped on the Norquist band wagon. I attended two Tea Party events and I was appalled by the vehement racism that was displayed. The glue that held them together was their hatred of that damn Black man in the White House.

[AlbertCat]

23. "no matter who, no matter what,"

But you don't hear that from progressives.... or even "regular" Dems.

[randys1]

25. When someone says my way or the highway, same thing

[AlbertCat]

32. "my way or the highway,"

Who said that?

Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths?


Besides, that sounds more like those for the "Anointed One"....'cause, "only she can win", doncha know.... or something...

[Indepatriot]

134. Sparky Anderson said that...

[Armstead]

34. I hear that a lot from everybody

And if you weren't trying to espouse blind partisanship, you'd be saying it too.

WTF do you think helped make the GOP and Corporate Conservatism AND Social Conservatism so powerful? (Hint: sounds like "politics as usual.&quot

[randys1]

39. Oh please, partisanship LOL

I am a socialist (democratic socialist, sure), and a socially liberal person.

The most socialist and liberal person I know, so to me politics is about the least harm.

Politics in capitalism like what we have cant work, it can only serve the rich.

So the question is what do we do to cause the least harm.

[Armstead]

42. Well if that's yoour attitude I'd say you are a circular defeatist

Without a complete socialist revolution and the abolition of capitalism we have to enable Big Corporate Capitalism and strengthen their hold...as long as they throw a few social issues as crumbs?

Sorry, but if that is truly your view, and if that's why you believe we need to increase the hold of corporatism on politics, I can't even pretend to have a logical response.

[randys1]

45. You lost yourself, now you dont even know what you are talking about.

Lemme help you, the LEAST harm is all you can get from a broken system

And I didnt come close to saying anything you just alleged I said.

This is not complicated.

ANd, if social issues dont matter to you much?

hmmm

If you are a str8t white male, we might not have much to discuss

if you are a minority, then you have to understand this or something is missing in your database as to information

[Armstead]

47. ....and you say we have to accept that the system has to stay broken

I disagree.

[passiveporcupine]

83. That is a defeatist attitude, a defensive attitude

Politics in capitalism like what we have cant work, it can only serve the rich.

So the question is what do we do to cause the least harm.

Bernie is on the offensive, to do more than just cause the least harm. He want's to get money out of politics so we can actually take control of our system again.

[sabrina 1]

92. I hear it lot from Democrats. They are not happy with the Third Way takeover of their party.

A majority of DUers eg, have made it clear that they are 'sick to death' of these tactics. Are you saying that a majority of DUers are NOT Democrats? How about we start here with honest debate, rather than this kind of innuendo.

What exactly did you mean by that in response to a DUer's accurate statement regarding voters opinion of the games played such as THIS ONE by DWS?

[Docreed2003]

103. Nicely stated....

Many lifelong Dems are fed up with the "Third-way" types. Personally, im tired of them throwing the left an occasional bone on social issues while continuing to strengthen the current economic system for the few.

[lewebley3]

8. You cannot be President and not be a politician: It takes good politician to win!

Hillary is the most qualified to become President, and
she will be breath of fresh air. There nothings usual
about Hillary, she is one of a kind.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Opinions differ.

I think she is unqualified to become president. See IWR vote for reference.

[Enthusiast]

84. Opinions do differ. I would rather have someone right off the street even with no qualifications if

they had a good mind and their heart was in the right place. You know, someone that hasn't been sullied by corporate money and influence.

Maybe that's how we should seek a candidate in the future. Find someone untarnished from..............................somewhere.

[url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php][img][/img][/url]

[navarth]

124. unwise to feed trolls. nt

[rhett o rick]

17. Even if you are correct that she is the most "qualified", that doesn't mean she will

help the 99%. She is a member in great standing of the 1%. They (e.g., Goldman-Sachs) have paid her very well for her personal wealth. I believe she cares for the 99% some what but will not do anything to solve the imbalance of wealth in the country. The billionaires that are financing her will expect quid pro quo. Tell me they won't. Tell me the billionaires care about the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty.

[AlbertCat]

35. Hillary is the most qualified

I thought you had to be a "good politician."

[JackRiddler]

137. To do what?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. Hillary is --

and always has been -- whatever her campaign's internal polling tells her to be. I've been watching her closely for 20+ years now, and I have gone from a staunch supporter to a deep skeptic about her. "Clinton" air has gotten very, very stale for me.

[840high]

143. Same here.

[Autumn]

62. Hillary is whatever the polls want her to be. I wouldn't call that a breath of fresh air, I would

call her a politician who want to be president and will say what needs to be said to get her there. .

[jtuck004]

64. Perhaps true for the candidate. That doesn't mean the people win. n/t

[lewebley3]

158. President use to chuckle about people who wanted there Kids be President!

Because people thought you could become President without
being a politician, which is the job of the President.

Hillary is not an ideologue she will do what is best for the country, not
just follow just things left wing Sanders people.

Hillary is loyal Dem, she will sign anything Dem's have the votes!

[jtuck004]

159. No, the job of the president is to serve the people. Your views sound very much

like Ms. Clinton's. And Donald Trump, too, for that matter. Ironic, eh? I hope you all get what you have worked so hard at. I think you deserve it.

As for me, I am gonna keep gardening, raising carrots for my pony-to-be. And I will vote for President Bernie Sanders, either as a selection or a write in.

You have a nice day.

[lewebley3]

160. Politician is a person who brings people together: That is a person serving the people:

You are an unrealistic ideologue who doesn't live in the real world: your vote
will help the GOP gain the White house, but you will feel good: just
like the Nader voter did: until the GOP gave America 911 ,2 wars, and trillions
of dollars of debt, with tax cuts for the rich.

If the GOP get power again the are going to war with Iran, Senator Tom Cotton
already wants to bomb Iran.

Clinton, is not trust a fund baby, she and Bill worked their way up from pour state:
Trump was given 200,000 million to start his life with, very different from the Clinton's.

There no way a could vote for socialist, to much is on the line

[cui bono]

107. Uh... I guess you didn't actually read the article the OP is about.

[ladjf]

126. Not sick enough or Bernie would be the front runner right now. nt

[99th_Monkey]

2. Just wow. This lays it out, loud & clear - BOOM!

Great find WillyT. You've done it again. Thanks so much for this truth-bomb.

[WillyT]

22. Very Kind Of You To Say, 99th_Monkey

[Boov]

6. Well written

Even took the time to read it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. Yes, agree...excellent. Nice work!

[Mnpaul]

122. I was better than most

He makes some real comparisons to past debate history and goes more in depth than most.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. K & R

VERY good read!

[rhett o rick]

19. I think that if there were more debates, she'd be polling lower. nm

[hifiguy]

40. Bernie is going to benefit greatly from the debates, delayed as they are.

So is O'Malley.

Neither of them has one bit of trouble giving straight answers to even tough questions.

HRH fails miserably at that test.

And could someone throw that worthless POS DWS an anchor? PLEASE?

[Vinca]

20. I imagine when the contrast between Bernie and Hillary is seen,

they'll wish there were more debates scheduled so Hillary might have a chance to redeem herself. I'm betting she's locked away somewhere in debate prep because her handlers want to make sure not one spontaneous utterance comes out of her. Bernie on the other hand isn't preparing. He doesn't have to. He knows what he stands for and you can take it or leave it.

[tularetom]

21. She has surrounded herself with sycophants and ass kissers who only tell her what she wants to hear

An environment where loyalty is valued over honesty does not lead to soul searching or self examination.

Of course there is still a very good chance she can get nominated - she has a ton of money and the party machinery on her side.

But she'll never be elected president no matter how much she panders to "had working white Americans". Republicans hate her worse than Obama, and a lot of younger disaffected Sanders voters will view her as tweedledee to the other side's tweedledum and just stay home.

Remember the old General Patton saying - "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way"? She can't lead, she won't follow, so there really is only one choice for her.

[restorefreedom]

30. has the phrase "everyday americans" been scrapped?

hard to keep up.

agree, she will not be president, not gonna happen even if the party elites manage to pull the nomination out of their asses for her.

good patton quote, btw. i expect we will see it a lot more in the weeks and months to come.

[AlbertCat]

38. Of course there is still a very good chance she can get nominated

There was also the last time.

[hifiguy]

43. +!. And no one can motivate more of the reichwing cave orcs

to come out just to vote against her like HRH can. She's worth an extra 1-2 million Repig votes in the GE.

[redstateblues]

46. A Socialist on the ballot

will do the same thing. 90% of DUers have talked themselves into thinking Socialism is not a winning platform for the GE.

[hifiguy]

49. Give it a rest, in the name of the FSM.

Bernie is about as much of a "Socialist" (and he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, in the style of European Social Democracy, not a Marxist Socialist) as Hubert goddam Humphrey was. And he sounds just like Hubert did.

[BillZBubb]

82. While true, to the average, low attention span voter Socialist = Communist.

The Democrats will be spending the run up to the general election trying to get people to understand the difference. The repugs will be filling the airwaves claiming Sanders = Communist. Humphrey never called himself a Socialist that I am aware of.

I have little doubt who wins that scenario. A lot of voters aren't too bright.

[eridani]

153. To the average voter, socialist = Democrat

We have 40 years of Repuke yammering to thank for that. We might just as well make use of it.

[BillZBubb]

156. I disagree. The average voter doesn't view Democrat = socialist.

The ones that believe that are the repug base and libertarian independents. For all their yammering, the right wing hasn't made that fabricated equivalency stick.

The problem for Bernie is he has self-identified as a socialist, which means he'll have to fight hard to get voters to understand what that means.

[eridani]

161. The RW has indeed convinced the general public that public goods are socialist, that is "bad"

Naturally they think that blue states should pay for the public goods of red states, and that is pretty much the case.

[leftupnorth]

26. Great read! Thanks for posting!

[JDPriestly]

29. Intelligent analysis. Bernie will win Tuesday. Hands down.

After I watched him on Meet the Press yesterday, any doubt in my mind vanished.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. Very interesting -- and insightful -- read.

These two paragraphs really resonated with me:

"Clinton doesn’t need to be more authentic, she needs to be more honest. The email affair may go down as the ultimate example of the old saw that it isn’t the crime, it’s the cover up. I don’t know if she broke any law. I do know everything she said in that circus of a press conference at the UN has thus far proved untrue. And to what end? Imagine if she’d taken a different approach..."

"This is her problem; misunderstanding many of the issues she studies so hard. She can’t speak with conviction of the evils of globalization, she spent years cheering it on and doesn’t really get what’s wrong with it. She can’t get too worked up about pay to play politics; she perfected it and still deems it the best way to win elections. After four years as Secretary of State she still doesn’t see the folly of exporting democracy by force of arms, or that our safety lies in the rule of law."

I truly believe Hillary is her own worst enemy. She repeatedly shoots herself in the foot by her actions.

[jonno99]

98. +1 nt

[TheKentuckian]

131. That is about the heart of it.

Experience is often touted but I don't see this incomparable level and depth argued and I don't like what I see with the opportunities she has had as a Senator and as Secretary of State anyway.

Whatever the outcome of the debate on quantity of experience when it gets big picture and life and death as well as wealth versus people I don't like the instincts and worldview drawn be it from gut, environment, education, nurture, nature, or product of the much trumpeted experience.

The 3am phone call cap was projection.

Clinton is at her worst in the moment. When forced to react real time poor understanding regardless of available knowledge and experience we get some stuff that needs to bee evolved on.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Earthquake, guess this is a new look on the outcome, I will have to bookmark this one.

[magical thyme]

48. Ouch! K&R

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. There ya go! Four out of the five candidates wanted MORE DEBATES. The 5th...wait for it

was Clinton!!!!!

Are we shocked yet?

I truly, truly, truly hope DWS is sent packing in her next election. She needs to suffer consequences from this.

[DFW]

95. After the general in 2016, she is gone anyway.

Unless something unexpected occurs, the Democratic nominee will be the next president.

As Howard said, when the your Party has the White House, the party chairman is the president, not the committee chair. With a new president, there will be a new party chairman, pretty much automatically. It's the opposition party chair that should (in theory) be the party's mover and shaker. Howard showed how that's done--in spades. Of course, Steele and Priebus have given stellar examples of how an opposition party chairman can be completely worthless to their party, despite being the supposed top dog. Of course, when the de facto party co-chairmen are Roger Ailes, Charles Koch and David Koch, a wet washcloth like Prieubus fades pretty quickly into the background.

[LiberalLovinLug]

128. but but but it's not up to her...

"If only we could have more debates...but thems the rules"

I'd really like to see all the other candidates call Debbie's bluff, hold a "rouge" debate. What is she going to do?...Still hold the official ones with only one participant? If the other candidates did this, I suspect Hillary's camp would relent and behind closed doors instruct Debbie to scrap her edict.

[BernieFan57]

51. This is a great article that really sums up the difference between the two leading candidates.

I'll leave out the truthful negatives mentioned about the frontrunner, we've heard them all, and try to just include the positives about my preferred candidate:

Sanders faces different challenges. He takes justifiable pride in never having run an attack ad and has taken care throughout this race never to attack Hillary. On Tuesday he must lay out their differences and explain why they matter. It wouldn’t be ‘negative’ or personal, it would be logical and factual and also indispensable.

Bernie doesn’t have an authenticity problem. He is that rare politician who stood his ground and waited for the world to come to him. The bum advice he gets from the Zeitgeist consultants pertains to anger. They equate him to Trump, the idea being that both are vessels of populist anger. It’s only a tiny bit true. The violent rage of Trump’s base has to do with race, gender, sexuality and status. Those who feel it would be happy sitting in the audience of the Howard Beale Show, or just listening to Rush in their car. When Trump gets vicious they get a vicarious thrill.

The rest of America is over the condition of the middle class, the democracy and the planet. All they want to hear is a plan. Only a portion of the hard core of Bernie’s base is in the least bit dogmatic. They may like a little anger but what they really like is the truth. Sanders’ enemies hope to paint him as an ideologue and a grouch. He must make it through the night without giving them any ammunition.

Bernie’s miles ahead of Hillary on the issues that count the most but there are two things he still needs to do. The first is to speak more to the problem of public corruption and inefficiency. On most issues most voters are Democrats, yet Republicans run two of the three branches of the federal government and stand a very good chance of perfecting their monopoly in 2016. Voters want to know that the party of government is ready to fix the government.

I look forward to seeing Bernie the School Teacher-- the likeable straightforward public school history teacher that some of us had, who loves his work and doesn't hold his tongue, who throws away the textbook and tells it like it is.

I hope to see equal numbers of smiles and scowls.

Thanks for the post, WillyT!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

119. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[MisterP]

55. a big issue is that the more Clinton's side uses its levers of party power the more it backfires

but ever since the 2006 "victory" the DNC has badly damaged the party by using the populists to provide cover for the corporatists, while sending out the hall monitors to blame everyone but the perfect planners for debacle after debacle since 2010

the real "hope" for "change" in 2008 just produced another cohort of glassy-eyed party votaries (who're already turning on The One they were so devoted to) and yet ANOTHER way to keep Americans' needs from becoming policies, Rahm's famed "veal pen"

so what's happening is that the wonks see themselves lectured as spoiler voters by a hierarchy that would rather throw Arkansas and openly oppose their own candidate in Connecticut

their job is to keep the big donors happy, because "without them we'll lose": but at the same time they don't WANT to win since that might mean passing bills that affect the gravy train; so while we criticized them for only wanting to win with any ex-Pub DINO, it's even worse than that

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. "because these people aren’t nearly as smart as they think, this almost always backfires... "

[JaneyVee]

59. "Barely leading". Hahaha!

56-32.

[Adrahil]

60. Now a 15-20 point lead is "barely" leading apparently. Yeah, no agenda there... nt

[jeff47]

61. It is when it used to be a 60-point lead. (nt)

[morningfog]

63. The hill shills love to ignore that she is trailing in the first two contests and losing ground

elsewhere, including nationally. If she suffers a one two loss and steps in it at the debate, all bets are off.

She is barely leading for a formidable front running juggernaut four months out.

[ucrdem]

66. What is he complaining about? Sanders has made no discernible effort to join the party.

Why should an independent get ANY free air time from the DNC?

[shenmue]

85. Doesn't matter. GDP is now a place for flamebait. Only one opinion is allowed.

[DirtyHippyBastard]

91. PARTY BEFORE POLICY

Who cares if Sanders has the best plan to help the majority in this country, because he ain't no DEM. Only her royal highness has raised enough $, gathered the banking and Wall Street corporate endorsements, and has the big D after her name. That is ALL that matters, because reasons and loyalty and stuff. And it's her turn, too. Just because Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination doesn't mean he is a Democrat. (even though it does)


Sell this shit somewhere else, because we are not buying this tired old line.


Your next line of attack should be one of the various socialist, racist, or elderly varieties. They don't work either, but at least you will be in keeping with the status quo for people who try to get the rest of us to believe bull shit.

[ucrdem]

93. Sanders has no party, no constituency, no bench and exactly two endorsements.

Tomorrow night is where the Sanders bus stops so he'd better enjoy the rest of the ride.

[DirtyHippyBastard]

99. Well, you convinced me

of absolutely nothing. Keep whipping that horse though. Tomorrow is very close.
"no constituency"- more bullshit. It is Hillary that has none.
con·stit·u·en·cy
noun
a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body.
Who elected her to current position?

[Ned Flanders]

101. whistling in the dark... (nt)

[We Want Bernie]

110. Go ahead, ignore the fact that Bernie will defeat Clinton soundly enough that everyone notices

Even you.

Good luck with your favorite candidate, because she is not going to last much longer. Her burn rate has just increased four fold, effective after the debates.

[840high]

145. Thank you.

[BernieFan57]

120. It's high time that the party join Bernie (and the rest of us).

They left the middle class (the leadership did) when they decided to keep house with Reagan and others.

It's time they come back to us, we never left.

[Uncle Joe]

70. Kicked and recommended, the author nailed it.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT

[Jack Rabbit]

71. Thank you, Willy

K/R

The last paragraph is worth noting:

The second thing he or any progressive must do is help people connect the dots: show how climate change, globalization, pay-to-play politics and mindless militarism reinforce one another, then offer them not just another liberal to do list but a coherent theory of the problem and a strategy for solving it rooted in values deeper than ideology. It’s been so long since any politician in America has done that and he’s one of the few who could. If he starts that discussion on Tuesday night, there’s no telling where this will all go.

[WillyT]

88. Yes It Is...

[wyldwolf]

78. So now limited debates are a GOOD thing.

[BillZBubb]

86. That is to be determined.

Strategically, the Hillary insiders may have made a huge tactical error. On the other hand, it probably was the best course for her no matter what. Limiting the debates is a two edged sword for the presumptive leader.

It certainly raises the stakes considerably for Hillary in the first debate. If she does well, no problem. If Sanders shines in comparison, she's in trouble. If I was in her camp, I'd be worried.

BTW, I haven't decided which candidate gets my vote. I see problems with both Hillary and Bernie.

[Gmak]

97. Hm, big change in DNC photo in email I got from them today about the debate.

Now Bernie is in the middle, and his head is just a tad larger than anyone else's. Photo I saw posted on DU a couple of days ago, again, from DNC re:debate, had Bernie's head literally in the background between Jim Webb and O'Malley.

I'm hosting a debate watch party tomorrow nite. Only one in West Central IL, within 40 miles, and only way I have any guests is by combining with a watch party across the river in MO, 40 miles away. But I am confident that once Bernie has a chance to reach a national audience at the debate, there will be a groundswell like we haven't seen since RFK. Today, at the bank, I introduced Bernie into the conversation with a 20 something, intelligent young teller and when I outlined Bernie's plans for tuition-free public colleges and unis, she said I had given her goosebumps and she can't wait to watch him tomorrow nite. I can't believe how easy it is to proselytize for Bernie!

Pic here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205264855002622&set=a.10205264854522610.1073741829.1284349062&type=3&theater

[Eric J in MN]

102. Should the DNC Chair have the sole power to decide

...how many official debates there are, and whether candidates can go to unofficial debates?

That's the good question raised by that article.

Maybe it should be in the bylaws of the Democratic Party that candidates can't be punished for going to unofficial debates.

[Mnpaul]

121. That would be a good resolution

to bring up in caucus.

[ALBliberal]

112. Bernie suggested the Democrats debate the Republicans during primary season

Can you imagine how our five/six candidates would have cleaned the Republicans' clocks? Can you imagine how that would've helped us in the general election up and down ticket? Debate is healthy for our democracy!

[tomm2thumbs]

113. DWS picked the wrong horse, and she'll have to ride it out of town

It is ironic that she can't even put on a good enough act to pretend to be impartial.

Guess she is not very authentic.

Hmmmm... birds of a feather

[EEO]

114. This looks like a way to explain a poor performance by Hillary and lower expectations.

My expectations are already pretty low for her.

[hopemountain]

115. i was wondering why the first debate is in a casino

- a hellhole of a place. i hope the casino workers are unionized. or was that even a consideration?

[navarth]

125. Yes I noticed this too

And the OP stated how the owner of the casino is a major asshole. Nice choice of a venue when you need to convince middle class people that you're not spoiled billionaires. Seems to me the choice of venue says something about the individuals making the choice.

[840high]

135. Willy - thank you for

a most excellent read.

[WillyT]

140. Anytime 840high, Anytime...

[Major Hogwash]

151. "Clinton Loses First National Democratic Party Debate."

That will be the headline after the first Democratic debate is held on Tuesday.
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC will all use some form of this same headline announcing the results of the first debate.
They will tell us that Hillary stumbled during the debate, and that her lead in the race is now in perilous trouble.

All of those so-called news organizations will tell you that on Wednesday.
I just did.

The problem is, their focus will be on Hillary losing the debate, instead of on Bernie winning the debate.