It’s been evident for months now that DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is denser than lignum vitae. She should have sensed last fall that she was no longer welcome in her position, even from the Clinton camp which supposedly was advantaged by her partisan support. The administration wasn’t happy with her, the Clintons have been looking to dump her for months, and the Sanders campaign and their supporters have been gunning for her since the debate schedule was announced last summer. Apparently, the only thing that saved her was that no one in a position to have her sacked was motivated enough to deal with the hassle. Here’s a couple of different spins on that:
Clinton’s team has long known that Wasserman Schultz was an unpopular chair. But the feeling inside the Brooklyn campaign headquarters was always that her removal was not worth the time, effort or public brouhaha that would result.
John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman — and a former top adviser to Barack Obama — broached the idea of replacing Wasserman Schultz as early as last fall, only to be rebuffed by the president’s team, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation.
“It came down to the fact that the president didn’t want the hassle of getting rid of Debbie,” said a former top Obama adviser. “It’s been a huge problem for the Clintons, but the president just didn’t want the headache of Debbie bad-mouthing him. … It was a huge pain in the ass.”
You don’t have to sort that out. People talked about her being a disaster and about options for replacing her. But, ultimately, it was just easier to try to ignore the problem.
It’s been painfully obvious for weeks and weeks and weeks that Wasserman Shultz has irritated Sanders and his supporters to the point that she was one of the biggest obstacles to the party coming together. We didn’t need to read a private memo from the Sanders Team to know that ousting DWS was on the list of their key post-California demands for making a Clinton endorsement. All the Wikileaks revelations have done is provide the heretofore missing motivation for moving her out.
Yet, apparently, Wasserman Schultz tried like grim death to hold on to her position all weekend long, only agreeing initially not to address the convention. It took a massive intervention to persuade her even of that, and she still expects to gavel in and out the Philadelphia festivities.
Then, this morning, she made the stunning error of trying to address her home state Florida delegation, only to get booed off the stage Ted Cruz-style.
The Florida lawmaker, who will resign after this week’s convention in response to the disclosure of emails that showed top members of the DNC working to boost Hillary Clinton’s primary bid, had to strain her voice to yell over the flurry of protestors who showed up to interrupt her speech.
“We need to make sure we move together in a unified way,” she said over shouts from the crowd.
As she spoke, people stood on chairs holding up signs that said “emails,” “No!,” and “Thanks for the ‘help,’ Debbie.”
Others repeatedly shouted: “Shame.”
The heckling didn’t stop even as Wasserman Schultz mentioned last night’s shooting in Fort Meyers, Florida, that left two dead and more than a dozen injured.
Wasserman Schutz was defiant, insisting delegates would see more of her.
“You will see me every day between now and Nov. 8 on the campaign trail and we will lock arms and we will not stand down,” she said.
She also took on those heckling her.
“We know the voices in this room that are standing up and being disruptive, that’s not the Florida we know. The Florida we know is united, the Florida we know will continue to create jobs,” she said.
Yet the remarkable scene raised more questions about the wisdom of having Wasserman Schultz gavel the convention in and out.
She must be the last person in America who thinks she isn’t persona non grata in the convention hall and that it would be in any way helpful or even appropriate for her to preside over any part of the proceedings.
She reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld, who talked about Dead-Enders in Iraq but wound up being the worst Dead-Ender of all in the Bush administration. While it’s true that there are known unknowns, things that we know we don’t know, and there are unknown unknowns, things that we don’t know that we don’t know, there are also known knowns, like the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should get on the first flight out of Philadelphia International Airport.
And that she should not look back.
UPDATE: She’s so dense that the decision had to be made for her, and now Rep. Marcia Fudge will handle the responsibilities of chairing the convention for the DNC.
She wasn’t booed off Ted Cruz style. Cruz was booed by delegation members. DWS was booed by protesters.
Well, delegates make up some fraction of the people in the convention hall, but she should expect the same reaction later today. She will be hollered down in Philly any place that she appears, including the exit terminal of the airport.
It was the Florida Delegate Meeting.
Those were delegates (some of whom I know), not protesters.
DWS has been hated in by the left of center in Florida for years.
This isn’t a surprise to anyone who knows Florida politics.
So here is a story everyone missed and is about to find out. To become a delegate you go to the candidate caucus.
At most of the Sanders candidate caucuses it was the left activists who won.
The Bernie delegates are to his left, and not nearly as disciplined.
I’m pretty sure that Clinton delegates are also to her left, and not nearly as disciplined.
are not mutually exclusive?
My conclusion from the reporting I’ve heard (including, i.e., that this occurred at a meeting of the Florida delegates to the convention; I presume random, non-delegate “protestors” would not have been allowed entry) is “they were both!”
Well, if it takes something like this to get rid of her, so be it. She should have left after 2014, if not sooner.
She’s been tone deaf and counterproductive for some time. A poor leader who has not been particularly creative or effective in her role. Sorry to see her get blown out of the water in such a public, embarrassing way. All of this could have been avoided if the problem had been addressed sooner. Much as I love Obama, he often fails to take a principled stand around elections and it usually comes back to bit him. Like when he disowned Ned Lamont. If anyone can make sense of that for me, please do.
Make sense of Ned Lamont for you?
Lieberman endorsed McCain and could have easily gone over to caucus with the Republicans. Had he done so, no ObamaCare.
Sure, getting Obamacare is partly Lieberman’s doing. Its flaws are also partly his doing.
Democratic primary voters in Connecticut tried to get rid of him. The DNC leadership — including both Clintons, who endorsed his “independent” run — wanted to keep him.
Whoops, my mistake: the Clintons only endorsed him in the primary.
Maybe I’m confused. Didn’t Lamont win the primary in 2006? Obama supported Lieberman before the ACA was ever an issue. Had Democrats worked to make clear the distinction between Lamont and Lieberman, we might have had both the ACA and a public option. What am I missing?
You’re missing the fact that Lieberman had built up a pile of relationships in Connecticut and that there would not have been a monolithic progressive/liberal effort to elect Lamont even if all the nationally prominent Democrats had gone Ned’s way.
I’d be interested in hearing from Connecticut Democrats about the work the State and County Parties did in that race, and how many State Dem leaders campaigned for Lieberman in the general election despite the primary result.
Do you not remember that Turdblossom endorsed Holy Joe and told GOPers to vote for him? That the actual GOP candidate only got 10%.
Yes, I remember.
What did leading Democrats in Conneticut do, from electeds to rank-and-file leaders?
I don’t know about the state party, but a lot of Democratic Senators came to Holy Joe’s defense. Meaning they still openly supported him after Holy Joe lost the primary.
Donna Brazile says “the allegations, the e-mails, the insensitivity, the stupidity needs to be addressed.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donna-brazile-interim-dnc-chair
I guess there isn’t universal agreement on that.
How about they fire the company of DWS’s nephew, NGP Van? A bad product with piss poor security and the whiff of nepotism.
On a related topic, I’m missing a sock from my wash over the weekend. I know who took it, I just don’t know how Putin got into my basement to steal it.
I’m sure it’s Putin because former sock stealers like Osama bin Laden, Khadafy and Hussein are all dead. It MUST be Putin.
Actually, it’s one of my cats. She’s fond of bringing stuff like socks home. Still waiting for the neighbors to come around asking about this.
So your cat is a Putin operative too?
How was I to know
She was with the Russians Too!
EVERY cat is a Putin operative. It’s a vast network
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack
Bob, stop watching RT for a few minutes and maybe look into this stuff. It turns out the Russians are also capable of engaging in the same shenanigans that you’ve long suspected of the US.
Just from the last few weeks you’ve speculated about US involvement in government crises in Brazil and Turkey without even the barest amount of proof.
Of course they are. I’m waiting for their military buildup along our borders. They should be in Vancouver any day now.
Meanwhile, back in America, if one of the two Democratic camps told the DNC that their computers were hackable and the best that the head of the DNC could do was blame the Sanders camp, and then bad man Putin and his henchmen (or the Chinese or wikileaks or Snowden or that guy in Romania or one of the million other hackers out there in the world) hack the DNC computers and find embarrassing emails, you know, after the favored candidate in the race has been embroiled in a controversy over her emails as SOS, yeah, it’s Putin’s fault.
DWS should be considered the most incompetent DNC chair in history. But before she was even the DNC chair she was the head of a Dem program to unseat Republicans and refused to run candidates against her Republican friends down in Florida, so her incompetence has been telegraphed to the world for a long time.
You want a conspiracy theory? Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who would not protect the DNC computers, is working for Putin. Sure, why not? She’s certainly done more to damage the Democratic Party than those Russian troops in Manitoba.
Bob,
I agree with just about all of what you’re saying here about DWS and the DNC. They are certainly responsible for lax security and any embarrassing information found on their servers.
I just find it impressive that you don’t see these as two separate stories worth looking into rather than dismiss it as simple Putin bashing. On the contrary, it is in Putin’s self interest to attempt to manipulate the US election and electorate. It’s also a little bit of payback.
However, in doing so, he has invited backlash.
I’m fairly sure that you would be critical of the US government, and rightfully so, if we were the ones engaging in IO ops and selective leaks in order to affect an election.
I’m fairly sure that you would be critical of the US government, and rightfully so, if we were the ones engaging in IO ops and selective leaks in order to affect an election.
You do appreciate that hack/leak is a contemporary method to do what has long been done by other means, don’t you? In both domestic elections and US interference in foreign elections.* How effective this latest method will be remains to be seen.
*Other than those that are principled and informed, Americans never minded US interference in foreign elections at all. Some Americans have praised or boasted about such activities. One interference was instrumental in leading to the Vietnam War. So, I, and I assume Bob, appreciate that such interference should be off limits. (But so too should be destroying countries based on a pack of lies.)
However, I also know that those the engage in such nefarious activities also engage in projecting their sins onto others when caught in a sticky-wicket and onto their enemies is their first line of defense.
When, or if, the facts become verifiable is when I’ll judge the actual participants in this situation.
Yeah, my jaw kinda hit the floor at that line.
Why? We certainly do engage in that behavior.
Look at my history of commentary here and you’ll see I’m a critic of it whether its the US doing it to others or whether its another nation doing it to us.
Then I misinterpreted your construction.
I’m finding this discussion entirely opaque. first of all, it wasn’t a disinformation leak, it was a leak of emails that show wrongdoing on the part of the DNC – i.e. violating their neutrality.
Second. well i’ll wait to see what Assange releases.
I’m actually not concerned with the substance of the emails. They show some odious attempts at strategy and a clear lack of independence at the DNC which most have rightly suspected throughout the whole primary campaign. None of this is very shocking.
I’m more interested in why external actors decided to target the DNC and the medium they chose to disseminate any potentially embarrassing information found. The leak was timed to coincide with the start of the convention. What if there’s a leak two weeks before the election? That would be interesting.
Assange has committed to selectively releasing throughout the remaining months of the campaign. That potentially could have an effect on how the election plays out but mostly likely it won’t make much difference. Still, it goes beyond merely revealing what the elites want to keep hidden to subverting the political process.
Another way to look at it is to imagine your reaction if it was Bernie’s campaign that was the target. Or the GOP. That’s why its an issue that will get a lot of attention from the VSPs.
as others have pointed out, there are 2 issues; the substance of the emails, i.e. a thumb on the scale of the primary. and second, who hacked the DNC. thumb on the scale is important for the party. it’s been discussed that we only had 3 candidates running then to find out there was no level playing field? I’m glad to find out this out, frankly. does no good to pretend nothing happened.
Yes, sure. So, what?
Marie, am I supposed to say “two wrongs don’t make a right” here. It sounds silly typing it but that’s really the only response to your statements that are quite obviously true.
Just because we are potentially the victims this time doesn’t make it right or justified. Either be consistent or this is meaningless.
There is enough evidence out there already to draw conclusions. Read the vice article. Far more than there was for comments here about MH-17 or the Gouta chemical attacks.
There will likely never be enough evidence to convince anyone otherwise when their personal ideology prevents them from finding certain official or alternative sources credible.
Who is Warburg Pincus?
Who owns Crowdstrike? I’ve never heard of Crowdstrike before looking at the article. Did you know that Crowdstrike has ex-FBI people populating its offices? Who invested in that kinda wacky gossip site?
The first thing that strikes me as curious is that the Sanders campaign said in December 2015. And then in June the DNC’s lightbulb goes on.
No, there is no proof in the article that Putin or his minions did anything. I’ll grant that he’s one of many suspects, but that article pretty much relies on unnamed sources.
I would remind you that a few years ago we found out that the NSA is spying on anyone with an internet connection.
So go read that article again, make note of how many suppositions are made by unknown people.
In fact, everyone should read that article to see how propaganda works.
The is the most definitive and documented proof in the article:
“In the wee hours of June 14, the Washington Post revealed that “Russian government hackers” had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee.”
But then WaPo has been so good at getting to the bottom of things, like those WMDs. Yup.
Bob in Portland’s comment seems a joke a Republican would make: unfunny, and utterly detached from the issue at hand.
Bob, while the case isn’t ironclad, there’s certainly evidence that Russian security services may have been involved in the DNC hack. What’s considerably more disturbing is the cozy relation between Trump and his advisors and Putin.
You might want to read up on that.
So you haven’t noticed how the propaganda targeted at you works? How did it work against Saddam? How did it work against Khadafy? How did work against Assad? The guy in Nicaragua who wore the fancy sunglasses? The horrible guy on Grenada who was an imminent threat to US medical students? Allende? Ho Chi Minh? Sukarno? The guys in Iran and Guatemala? If you need any more examples, I’ve got a lifetime of them.
It’s not funny to you because you believe the propaganda that’s fed to you. I’m not laughing at Putin. I’m laughing at people like you who are incurious and incapable of understanding the world around them. That’s why you didn’t get the joke.
We’re preparing for next year’s war, you just haven’t noticed.
DUUUUDE — WE CAN’T BELIEVE ANYTHING!!!!
Tell you what — get back to me when you’ve examined the evidence.
Do you believe the NY Times after the WMD stories? Good for you.
What kind of ridiculous people you think we are to accept this dodge of yours?
Who has been Paul Manifort’s primary client for the last decade? He’s bragged about it. No mystery here.
Why has there been no hacking of the RNC staff email system, much less a bulk email release timed for the beginning of their convention?
Are both Wikileaks and the Russian government highly motivated to ratfuck the American government and President Obama’s political Party?
You are incredibly credulous in service of maintaining this extremely fixed worldview. You’re centering this defense of yours on credibility of sources. It might be worthwhile to consider the possibility that you’re being manipulated by your news sources.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
DWS is not a dead ender, I tell you, she is not. She is now the proud holder of an honorary position to foster Democratic advances in ALL 50 states. How revolutionary of the Clintons, what a creative way to put lipstick on a pig, Dick Cheney style. What a disgusting clusterfuck Hillary Rodham Clinton has turned out to be.
Really? Geez how oblivious are these people?
My advice would be to keep her under wraps. No appearances onstage. After the election she can visit Hillary in the Rose Garden. Meanwhile, how’s Tim Canova doing?
Copy that. Some security people should escort her to the airport. Maybe Newark would be best to get far away.
That’s not how it works. Failing upwards is the norm for DNC chairs — Rendell (2000), McAuliffe (2001-2004), Kaine (2009-2011), DWS (2011-yesterday). Only Dean was told to take a hike.
Breathlessly agog awaiting news of the next one to be crowned as DNC Chair… not.
Endless parade of corporate suck ups.
DNC is ALL about the money. And DWS was a hellacious fundraiser. THAT is why they kept her.
Maybe that’s part of it but I think it had something to do with the Iran deal vote. The rumor I heard/read awhile back was that DWS was on to the backroom attempts to force her out and threatened to label it as anti-Jewish move.
That story is consistent with the Obama story (didn’t want to deal with the criticism) posted above.
How did she get the position in the first place?
Duh!
“We need to unite”
/
“you must not disagree with me”DWS seems to be one of those folks who don’t see the difference.
I guess the “Putin did it” allegation wasn’t effective enough to clean up the goo from the DNC emails. So, on to Plan B — throw DWS under the bus. It’s best that she not go willingly because BernieBros can smell a con when they see it. Put everything on DWS’ head to avoid it spilling over to those that had some responsibility for her being there in the first place. Team Clinton woulda if they coulda gotten rid of DWS long ago. So, Podesta tosses the flaming goo stick over Obama, the ultimate decider in this case, and claims he tried to get Obama to ax DWS almost a year ago. Obama must have been so impressed by her 2014 mid-term elections performance she was his gal.
In this whole (bleeping) mess, there’s been but one principled and honest participant. She tried to tell Democrats (but was constrained in what she could say), but did they listen?“>Congresswoman quits Democratic National Committee, endorses Bernie Sanders
Sadly, they didn’t throw her under the bus … they invited her onboard.
They need to back up over her a few times.
I don’t want the Democratic Convention to be a mess. Just hide her somewhere for the next week. Put her on a plane and send her to Aruba. Every time her mug is seen on stage she will be booed.
How Tim Canova doing?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100
Thanks, Obama!
Historical revisionism right before our blinking eyes, eh?
That’s my take, but others here seem to disagree and are buying into the notion that DWS is so stupid and arrogant that her colleagues have been forced to drag her out of her position as she kicks and screams and long after they had concluded that she had to go. Could be true.
But we’re not talking about Nixon in 1974. When this storyline was true.
DWS had her assignment and accepted that she would take all the public heat, should any materialize, to accomplish the goal. The goal was achieved before the heat got turned up, and with the flames now lapping her patrons, they’re in damage control mode. Removing her from a speaking slot only made the flames sizzle. Removing her as DNC chair may have sufficient if HRC hadn’t reconfirmed DWS’s position on her campaign. So, on to hastily arranged PR Plan Z. DWS as unhinged while all her colleagues have been and remain the rational actors. If that means sacrificing her House seat — well,
Here’s the thing for me. Unlike Nixon, DWS’ patrons, colleagues had plenty of goodies (and better than being DNC Chair) they could offer to DWS to publicly, gracefully resign at any one of several points during the past year. She does, after all, have a primary and general election of her own to run. And she does have a day job that she’s being paid to do. But, having put that big ole thumb on the scale and needing to keep it there through the CA primary, could anyone else have managed that as well as DWS? Could have taken all the heat without quickly crumbling. Doubt it.
So, it’s looking like Kabuki and historical revisionism to me.
I wondered why the Clinton campaign didn’t get rid of her a few weeks ago to get ahead of any issues. I suspect they kept her on as a convenient foil with the full intention of letting her go if the heat turned up.
However, I think most are overplaying the actual influence of the national committees in this day and age. They are mostly obsolete. The RNC is a perfect example in this cycle. It’s more about the individual campaign and their home-grown infrastructure now.
So, with regards to thumb on the scale, I don’t think ~30,000,000 voters took direction from the DNC, one way or the other.
I’m not sure how to respond to this. The emails reflect several top DNC staffers acting unprofessionally, and they should be fired/disciplined for doing so. However, there is no evidence that any plans were put into place to undermine Sanders. DWS is so incompetent that I frankly don’t understand how she would be able to put a “thumb on the scale” in any event. The outcome of the primaries was clear well before California, owing to Clinton’s relative strength, the number of pledged delegates she had amassed, and the Democratic Party’s proportional delegate allocation system that ensures that someone who falls behind by (in Bernie’s case) several hundred delegates can never make up the difference. Adding a few debates to the schedule (and there were nine of them, let’s not forget) would not have changed those fundamental realities. Essentially giving up the entire South is what did Sanders in.
At about that time Sanders religiosity or lack of it, and his Jewishness, were both exploited by Clintonites on Salon, Balloon Juice and a number of other sites where I’ve been banned.
So saying that this wasn’t ever raised by Clintonistas is just not true. What hasn’t been proven is whether they got the meme directly from the DNC or it was just “in the wind.”
And Clinton didn’t exploit her white skin in 2008 and her team weren’t participants in the “Black people don’t like Bernie” PR?
The RNC, and state and local affiliates, has been known to put a thumb on the scale when needed. We don’t know what machinations were in place and/or employed in this election cycle to secure the nomination for a chosen one. It’s possible that the major GOP patrons chose to take a dive this time since HRC was so inevitable and they appreciate that doing business with a Clinton is a good deal for them.
What can be surmised is that they wanted nothing to do with Cruz or Paul. The first two entrants of any standing to enter the race. Both of whom shouldn’t have been all that difficult to take out by means fair and/or foul. But who was their horse in this race? In late 2013 when provisional decisions begin to be made, Christie was the leading contender, but his GW Bridge scandal sidelined him at least temporarily. By late 2014 Walker moved up into contention after his reelection, but like Christie, he had a little legal matter to address. Thus, as Christie and Walker campaigns were delayed, they looked to Jeb? as the pinch hitter. None of those three were ready (and may never had the stuff necessary to succeed if they had been ready) when the witching hour came.
Trump was their black swan.
The RNC, etc. could have put their thumb on the scale, but for whom? Maybe that was the underbelly of the short-lived Marco-mentum. Perhaps with far too late in the cycle, they attempted to do it for Kaisich. But a “thumb,” to be effective, has to be employed in different ways at various stages of an election cycle. With the black swan in, the RNC, etc had to delay using it when it has maximum power until after the predicted Trump slump and implosion at the end of the Summer or early Fall. oops.
Had a candidate of some stature taken over the RNC with his/her loyal pros in 2014, the GOP primary would have played out differently. And an outsider like Trump would have lost.
In regards to Ms Wasserman Schultz’ failure to recognize that it’s time to step down, this sort of behavior will be familiar to anyone old enough to remember Nixon and Watergate. More recent examples, of course, such as former governor John Kitzhaber here in Oregon, who had to be told by all the Democratic leaders in the legislature that he had to resign. (You can look up the details of why.)
5 Ways Republicans Are On The Verge Of Unprecedented Political Domination
July 25, 2016 12:30 am
You have to give the Republicans who have decided not to get on the #TrumpTrain — possibly the world’s all-time worst metaphor given Trump’s unique appeal to hordes of online antisemites — a little credit.
Sure, they’d love to accomplish all the things Trump would have to do as president to avoid an inevitable primary challenge, including gutting Medicare, slashing taxes for billionaires and their kids, and guaranteeing that big oil will be able to accelerate climate change by slashing regulations. But they’re willing to risk all that because they’re clear-headed enough to be scared shitless by him. They recognize Trump’s unique disregard for the truth, societal norms, and the institutions that have kept the world from avoiding World War III.
Even if Trump weren’t the nominee, America is on the verge of a massive decision, unlike any we’ve faced in our lifetime.
More than fifty years ago, conservatives began a quest to reverse the gains of the New Deal, the Great Society and Civi Rights movement by fighting for an agenda that would gut the federal government’s powers to guarantee benefits, establish parity between workers and basses, and protect individual rights. And they’re on the verge of achieving the power necessary to do all of that and more. That the party is still on the verge of a crackup given the enormous spoils of a convincing win in November is a tribute to the unique threat Trump presents.
@LOLGOP
5 Ways Republicans Are On The Verge Of Unprecedented Political Domination
July 25, 2016 12:30 am / 48 Comments / Congress, Featured Post, Politics, Top News
5 Ways Republicans Are On The Verge Of Unprecedented Political Domination
Share this on Facebook75Tweet about this0Share this on Google+1Share this on Linkedin0Share this on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this page
TAGS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
DONALD TRUMP
REPUBLICAN PARTY
STATE LEGISLATURES
SUPREME COURT
Republish
Reprint
You have to give the Republicans who have decided not to get on the #TrumpTrain — possibly the world’s all-time worst metaphor given Trump’s unique appeal to hordes of online antisemites — a little credit.
Sure, they’d love to accomplish all the things Trump would have to do as president to avoid an inevitable primary challenge, including gutting Medicare, slashing taxes for billionaires and their kids, and guaranteeing that big oil will be able to accelerate climate change by slashing regulations. But they’re willing to risk all that because they’re clear-headed enough to be scared shitless by him. They recognize Trump’s unique disregard for the truth, societal norms, and the institutions that have kept the world from avoiding World War III.
Even if Trump weren’t the nominee, America is on the verge of a massive decision, unlike any we’ve faced in our lifetime.
More than fifty years ago, conservatives began a quest to reverse the gains of the New Deal, the Great Society and Civi Rights movement by fighting for an agenda that would gut the federal government’s powers to guarantee benefits, establish parity between workers and basses, and protect individual rights. And they’re on the verge of achieving the power necessary to do all of that and more. That the party is still on the verge of a crackup given the enormous spoils of a convincing win in November is a tribute to the unique threat Trump presents.
Here are five ways the GOP will achieve almost unprecedented political domination of the United States of America.
Exclusive: Suspected Russian hack of DNC widens — includes personal email of staffer researching Manafort
Michael Isikoff
Chief Investigative Correspondent
Just weeks after she started preparing opposition research files on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort last spring, Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa got an alarming message when she logged into her personal Yahoo email account.
“Important action required,” read a pop-up box from a Yahoo security team that is informally known as “the Paranoids.” “We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors.”
Chalupa — who had been drafting memos and writing emails about Manafort’s connection to pro-Russian political leaders in Ukraine — quickly alerted top DNC officials. “Since I started digging into Manafort, these messages have been a daily occurrence on my Yahoo account despite changing my password often,” she wrote in a May 3 email to Luis Miranda, the DNC’s communications director, which included an attached screengrab of the image of the Yahoo security warning.
“I was freaked out,” Chalupa, who serves as director of “ethnic engagement” for the DNC, told Yahoo News in an interview, noting that she had been in close touch with sources in Kiev, Ukraine, including a number of investigative journalists, who had been providing her with information about Manafort’s political and business dealings in that country and Russia.
“This is really scary,” she said.
Chalupa’s message is among nearly 20,000 hacked internal DNC emails that were posted over the weekend by WikiLeaks as the Democratic Party gathered for its national convention in Philadelphia. Those emails have already provoked a convulsion in Democratic Party ranks, leading to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the wake of posted messages in which she and other top DNC officials privately derided Bernie Sanders and plotted to undercut his insurgent campaign against Hillary Clinton.
Messages from Kiev?
The Kiev coup regime is very anti-Putin. As reported in the international press, right after the coup in 2014 the US embassy building in Kiev filled up with a rather large CIA team. Intelligence information coming out of Kiev undoubtedly passed through the CIA if it didn’t originate there.
One intelligence technique is known as “the dangle.” You put out false information and see who comes up with it to find your leaks. At best, the sorry DNC email leaks could have been a dangle, but you don’t dangle actual good information.
I guess that all the Clinton business arrangements, and all that money flowing in and out of the Clinton Foundation, is off-limits. Pointing out Manafort’s business in Russia and not expecting a reaction from Republicans or Putin or the average joe on the street regarding the CF is stupid.
I don’t mind politicians being hypocrites, but I hate them asking their audience to collaborate with them when they get caught.
It is particularly amazing that DWS, who is Jewish, was complicit in a consideration of smearing Sanders on religious grounds, and he is Jewish also.
I thought she was not part of that email discussion?
I’m amazed that you’re amazed since she obviously had nothing to do with that email.
Irrelevant, Boo. At this point, DWS is to righteous progressives as Nancy Pelosi is to right wingers: A symbol of all that is evil in their world, for whom no calumny is too over the top; an object of reflexive bile and hate.
And no, I am no fan or supporter of her, but I can recognize a lynch mob when I see one.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, as I used to opine in grade school (might as well regress, since – cough cough – I cannot progress).
DWS sucks. Glad to see the back of her.
Sadly, now, under what rock will they find the next “leader”?
They kicked Howard Dean to the curb for being both successful with the constituents and too populist. Can’t have that!!
DWS showed her true bona fides for shilling for all of those payday lender scams. POS.
Er, Obama (and our host) has endorsed the man who co-authored that same House payday loan bill back when he was a Republican. He is running in the Dem primary for Fla Senator. Against the bomb thrower Grayson.
So that’s not the problem with Debbie.
Well, assuming I’m reading your update correctly, looks like that’s no longer operative.
Good!
But, after hearing the jeers, boos, and overall raucousness at the FL delegates meeting this a.m., plus DWS’ utterly clueless and arrogant attempt to both shout it down and shout over it . . .
. . . then hearing it was apparently still the plan to allow her within 100 miles of the gavel, microphone, or convention stage . . .
. . . after my immediate spontaneous outburst along the line of “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me!” . . .
. . . I concluded that allowing that would be political malpractice on an arguably unprecedented scale.
Glad to see cooler heads apparently prevailed.
Apparrently, there were DNC emails discussing how big donors were going to be given federal appointments:
http://caucus99percent.com/content/it-keeps-getting-worse-email-shows-dnc-planning-give-federal-appo
intments-big-time-donors
I hope those pictures of DWS and Hillary drunk and drinking blood don’t show up any time soon.
This is actually the biggest revelation of all.
SOP, I’m sure. But demerits for getting caught.
Does DNC even have a small donor base any longer? The left long ago moved to direct support of candidates. How well does the conservative portion support the party itself? I have no idea.
Do they live or die on corporate/big donors?
Do they live or die on corporate/big donors?
Yes!! Even Boo, I think, admitted this himself. Kaine spent 3 days a week on the road fundraising, while he was Governor no less!! What’s sad, though no one seems to mention it, is that the DNC spends all that time worrying about Sanders and not worrying about how to unfuck(excuse my French!) the states.
To quote Sweet Smell of Success: Here’s your head. What’s your hurry?
Anyone see this:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Well, that’s a relief. Was the other poll a fake?
538 has a “now” model and an “in November” model. It’s all a little too “special saucey” for me – I prefer the stability of Princeton Election Consortium.
All I did was “push” a different one (i.e., model based on polls alone).
I saw no obvious methodology explanation beyond that of what the models do differently (there’s also a 3rd button/model I didn’t look at). But I didn’t go looking for one either.
Basically,
that neither shows results of “a poll”, as far as I can tell.
Both show (I presume) results spit out by models fed data (from a buncha polls, presumably, plus other stuff for two of the 3 modeling results shown).
“Convention bounce”. I believe Nate Silver has written about it and suggests that it will be mid-August before a reasonably coherent picture emerges.
That’s how I’ve always understood convention bounces.
I went over to Balloon Juice a minute ago to see their comments on DWS, the DNC, the emails et al.
Guess what? It’s Bernie Sanders fault! It’s still Bernie Sanders fault.
I guess it was time to retire Ralph Nader as the scapegoat and promote Sanders to full-time scapegoat. Bernie and Putin, and the International Jewish Conspiracy.
You mean the loyalists have given up on “it’s Putin’s fault” already?
You guys are getting very close to outright derpitude. How about reading up on the evidence that Russian security services were involved in the hack before you go for the snark?
I believe derpitude is a word used over at Balloon Juice. Maybe they speak your language.
Why don’t you link to all your evidence of this? So far I’ve seen “unnamed officials” which isn’t terribly convincing.
Do you remember when Kerry, days after the downing of the airplane over Ukraine, claimed he had absolute proof of the exact location of the launch of the BUK missile and who was responsible? Maybe you don’t remember, or maybe you forgot. It’s over two years ago now.
Guess who hasn’t shared this information with the Dutch investigation on MH 17? But you trust him, right?
So if you trust Kerry on that you should have no trouble on the CIA source that says Putin is behind this.
I was never a big fan of nose rings.
So, please, you need to catch up. You’re fifty years behind us.
Links:
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/how-putin-weaponized-wikileaks-influence-election-ameri
can-president/130163/
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-sto
le-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack
There’s also the fact that the woman preparing oppo research on Paul Manafort received notice that her email account was being targeted by “state-sponsored actors.”
https:
/www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-hacked-emails-of-dnc-oppo-researcher-point-to-russians-and-wide
r-penetration-154121061.html
I want to make it clear that this is not absolute proof. But we know the Russian security services employ hackers, and we know that Putin clearly supports Trump, and that Trump and his advisors have close connections with Russian oligarchs and government officials. So there’s no way at this point you can dismiss these allegations.
I think that they may be the same person. Maybe a reincarnation of Saddam.
Booman writes:
This is a perfect example of the basic failure of the Clinton/DNC campaign to understand the forces at work in this election.
They’ve already lost.
AG