You know, there’s a part of me that admires this woman, but she’s just so wrapped up in a false narrative that her self-righteousness and alarm come off as sad rather than principled.
She’s far from alone, so it should be an interesting four days.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
133 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
I suspect this will not be the last time that Clinton machinations come back to bite her in the ass.
You know what’s hilarious? The DK crew silencing dissent on behalf of someone they once fought against. After all, the Clinton Machine has controlled the party power centers for the past 24 years or so. How has that worked out, exactly?
To be accurate, they lost some of that control between 2004 and 2009. They weren’t about to let that happen again.
Only some.
That “some” was just enough alter the dynamics of the ’08 race from the “inevitable” nominee to Obama.
There’s something elegant in the process by which establishment condescension generates passionate activist nutpicking, which generates establishment condescension.
I’m pretty sure that I’ll end up phone-banking for Clinton because–as I’ve been repeatedly informed–I’m for her, even if she’s not particularly for me. Still, I suspect that my easy willingness to fall in line is a large part of the problem.
I find nothing remotely admirable about that. She could be the same woman issuing the spittle-flecked diatribe against “an inadequate black man” back in 2008. I find it enraging: white entitlement at its worst.
She’s entitled because she doesn’t care about Trump, who may pose no direct threat to her.
I’m going to work to elect a candidate who will continue a drone strategy that’s killed hundred of children, but who poses no threat to me.
I’ve made my calculations, I did my sums. On balance, I’ve decided that the deaths of the–was it 50? 100? The number didn’t even make an impact on me–civilians in Syria last week, and the hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced due to a US foreign policy my candidate supports is better than the alternative.
I have a hard time imagining anyone more entitled than myself.
Is your late name al-Awlaki? If so, you shouldn’t feel too safe.
Or, perhaps, more ill-informed.
I didn’t say she wasn’t entitled to say it. Of course she is. If the reason you’re making this point is because I said this was white entitlement at its worst, that was an entirely different use of the word and one not in conflict with what you’re saying.
IOW — this raving lunatic is “entitled” to say what she wants, and what she is saying here constitutes, IMO, white “entitlement” at its worst.
No, I meant entitlement, like you. It’s just that, in voting for Clinton, I think I’m acting with arguably equal entitlement. Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
Okay fine. We understand each other.
I’m coming in a little late here, but I’d like to break up the mass pileon here by pointing out that none of us has any idea whether she’s entitled or not. She may be, or she may be somebody that has suffered a lot over the last 2 decades of neoliberal economics and is so angry that she’s just off her nut.
I don’t know, but what bothers me is that nobody here seems to even consider the possibility, to realize that there ARE millions of such people.
I was at a Bernie rally (one of the last ones) and was actually interviewed by a reporter. He asked me something about what I thought of Trump supporters. Somewhat to my own surprise, I said, “I don’t want to say anything about his supporters except that they have poor judgment.”
Trump is an evil asshole, but for every evil asshole among his supporters, there are probably 100 that are nothing but suckers, and mostly suckers that had been fucked over six ways to Sunday long before Trump came along. Exactly the kind of people that would shell out $35,000 and more for a course at “Trump University”.
People, if you don’t understand that, maybe you are coming from a “place of entitlement.” Or maybe you’re just angry. In either case, I think you’re showing poor judgment.
We’re apparently not using “entitled” in the same way. When I said she’s entitled to voice her opinion, I meant simply that. She’s in a public forum (either on the DNC floor or somewhere immediately outside it), and, with certain exceptions not relevant here, the First Amendment protects her right to voice her opinion. It pretty much absolutely protects her right to express her political opinion. That is all I meant.
Do I think her opinion is well-founded in some way? No, I do not. IMO, she’s not only lost sight of the forest for the trees, she’s lost sight of the trees for the leaves. But, also IMO, she clearly needs to have her tantrum. (Okay, that was unnecessary. These flashes of annoyance do slip out.) And it is my First Amendment right (lesser known fact!) to walk away and not listen to it. She’ll either come around or she won’t. The pitch will be made, and those who can, will take it in and hopefully do something constructive with it.
Frankly, though, I’d be surprised if disgruntled Bernie supporters tipped the election one way or the other. But then, I’m not a political prognosticator, so what do I know? (Someone should do a study: Does being from a reliably blue state so that you’re more likely to be surrounded by your own kind increase your level of disgruntlement if you happen also to be a Bernie supporter? Or actually, being from anywhere but a swing state? Do people at some level know if they can afford to throw their vote away? Maybe!)
Never mind that a lot of this rant is demonstrably false and seems to be alcohol fueled. There’s really only one sentence that matters: “I don’t give a fuck about Trump.”
That says it all. She doesn’t care if a racist, misogynist lunatic with no grasp of policy takes the White House. She doesn’t care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, if LGBT rights are rolled back, if abortion is outlawed, if millions of Latinos are rounded up, if the Supreme Court has a conservative majority for the next decade or more.
Yeah, the Democratic Party is deeply corrupt. You know what you can do to change that at the convention. NOT A GODDAMN THING. But that doesn’t matter, because she has her narcissism and rage.
She might look like a senior citizen, but really she’s a child. And she’s really not that different from a Trump supporter.
Give her a few more minutes minutes and she would be body shaming Clinton like some posters here like to do.
.
Insult of other commenters uncalled for and unnecessary.
Telling the truth about their body shaming Clinton is an insult now?
The actual body shaming is fine, but call them out…that’s over the line.
Another poster who only wants civility from political opponents.
Unbelievable.
.
hope you’re not referring to my comment which was intended to call out unacceptable comment about Clinton – bizarre to me that anyone thought it was anything but a criticism of lookism
I would give her some credit for supporting Sanders rather than Trump.
I don’t think she meant it the way you do. More likely she meant, don’t scare me with the bugaboo of Trump — that’s not an answer to my doubts about Clinton.
She doesn’t give a FUCK about Trump.
That’s a problem. A rather big one.
We need to give a fuck about Trump. We sure do.
And with those spouting rhetoric like this, and those hating on Clinton here at the Pond and elsewhere, I’d like to ask a question.
There’s been discussion about the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party failing to do the things necessary to bring Sanders supporters on board, despite the high degree of cooperation on the Party platform and the joint education plank Hillary took on.
Now this Delegate and many others will be demanding that the superdelegates take away the win Clinton achieved by gaining the majority of primary voters and pledged delegates and demand of the superdelegates that they give the nomination to Sanders.
What are Sanders supporters doing to bring Clinton supporters, including the superdelegates, on board? Because without that being accomplished extremely successfully, Bernie would have no chance of defeating Trump.
Some of these Sanders delegates don’t want to persuade Clinton delegates. They want to crush Clinton delegates. That’s a problem for the Sanders movement.
These people are acting like they can rant and rave about Clinton and her supporters, and that Clinton supporters would acquiesce, hand Bernie the nomination and work hard to get Sanders elected. Delusional.
I’m a Sanders supporter, and I’ve been warning for months that some of this factually questionable, hateful rhetoric would ensure that we would never flip the voters we needed to gain the nomination for Sanders.
This all seems to me to reflect incredibly poor understanding of interpersonal relationships. Campaigns are run primarily on interpersonal relationships. So is governance.
It’s a bubble just as surely as the Fox News viewers live in a bubble.
Get 5,000 Sanders supporters together, add in insulting emails from the DNC, make sure it’s seeded with vote-stealing conspiracies from NY, to KY, to CA, and pretty soon you’ve got a bunch of self-righteously indignant people who care about nothing more than how they’ve been wronged.
And the most amazing thing is how they think it could have turned out any differently. They are not only delusional, they are unbelievably naive.
As a Californian, I find the persistent interest by many of our Sanders Delegates to believe that the State’s primary election was won by Sanders and “stolen” by (name your enemies of the Republic here) to be almost incredible in its thickheadedness. It was very disappointing to hear that claim made at this morning’s State Delegate breakfast.
It’s incredible. California took its time to get the count right, and THAT is an example of vote stealing.
So;
Rush out the tally, ‘your stealing votes and hiding something’
Take your time, ‘your stealing votes and hiding something’
Incredible stupidity.
.
I know 3 Sanders supporters who were denied the vote in California, including an immediate family member. This person has voted in every election since coming of age and not changed residence in nearly a decade but was told her residence was 100 miles away where she hasn’t lived for over 9 years. Residency hasn’t been questioned in the intervening years. Just this year.
As I understand it, 10’s of thousands of votes still haven’t been verified in California. Who knows what the outcome of the primaries of both parties would have been with completely fair elections, but the US of A sure doesn’t have them. And to use Boo’s terminology, we need to get off our high horse and address the problem rather than berate people who have, for good reason, lost faith in the process.
ah, no
.
OK, this is getting me angry now.
Was there some magic ability by the 58 Registrars of Voters up and down the State to ascertain the preference of voters in their Counties and purge just the Sanders supporters?
Did your family member, and the other Sanders supporters you claim, complete a provisional ballot? If not, why not?
Can you concede that, if there were disenfranchised voters, it is mathematically more likely that the majority of those voters would have voted for Clinton, given the fact that she got 53% of the vote and beat Sanders by over 350,000 votes?
What is this “…as I understand it…” stuff? Show us any evidence you got.
I mean, just make your case clear. Quit messing around. You’re inferring intentional fraud, and it infuriates me. This is serious stuff you’re messing with; it’s not to be used casually.
Plus, if they had filled out a provisional ballot….its been counted if they are on the rolls.
PLUS, the reason the tabulation took so long is to make sure all those provisional ballots (there were a LOT of them) were counted correctly.
PLUS, Sanders gained votes all throughout the count, which shows they WERE being counted.
.
Brooklyn?
The majority of voters in Brooklyn voted for Clinton. There were definitely voters in Brooklyn who were disenfranchised but, again, it is very mathematically likely that more Clinton voters were disenfranchised than Sanders voters.
Again, unless the Registrar had a magical machine which helped them divine what voters planned to do.
There’s a lot of magical thinking in the Bernie or Bust camp.
BROOKLYN
Clinton 60% 174,236
Sanders 40% 116,327
link
Yabbut every one of those excluded votes would have been for Bernie! Every one, I tells ya! Every one! Just like all those long lines in Arizona frustrated all the Sanders supporters, while every Clinton voter got whisked ahead of them somehow! And Puerto Rico was rigged to make it so difficult to vote, Hillary’s 61/39 victory there is hopelessly tainted too, because only Bernie’s peeps were discouraged! It’s all that evil DNC and its machinations that stole it from him!
How big a bunch, Booman?
I think this pretty much nails the correct response to this woman:
There is a left-wing response to neoliberalism out there but it’s shallow, disorganized, and under-resourced. I don’t see how you get around that and it means that not giving a fuck about Donald Trump is just not an option. And wishing isn’t going to change anything in the next three months.
All of that said, for Clinton to in essence give DWS a promotion — during the convention no less — seems like a huge unforced error. It’s a finger right in the eyes of the Sanders supporters.
Somebody around here posted a link to why Obama did not deal with DWS months ago, and it had to do with not wanting to deal with the fallout of a disgruntled complainer who felt wronged. Booman just posted a diary about the obtuseness of DWS. A logical inference is that the ‘promotion’ was a tactic to get her out of the way. Do you really think she will have any say as ‘co-campaign chairwoman’?
Read what center said about politics being interpersonal relationships. You don’t create an angry complainer if you can avoid it. What you do is manage the situation so a person can save face. Clinton will get no credit for handling this, she will be accused by people like this woman in the video of ‘promoting’ DWS.
Not even boiling DWS in oil will make those types happy. So like I have said before, why bother? Just handle it as you see fit, and move on.
.
Seems to me that her choice was creating one pissed-off person in DWS or creating thousands of pissed-off Bernie supporters like this one. And they’ll cast a lot more votes than she will.
But it’s bad for the organization if you don’t reward a loyal bagman.
Shit, I don’t know. If she thinks she has to throw a bone to DWS why not wait until a week or two after the convention furor has died down and then do it?
If the choice is between 1 whiny and petulant DWS and uncounted self-righteous Sanders supporters pissing and moaning raising hell for the next 4 days of the convention it seems like a no-brainer to me.
My guess: because she didn’t want to have to fight DWS and whatever supporters she has, and because she figured the BernieBabies were going to have a shit fit over something no matter what.
Great, so Hillary flips off 45% of the Democratic Party again.
That’s the way to bring unity.
If it wasn’t this, it’d be something else.
The 45% you so cavalierly assign exclusively to Bernie is actually probably closer to 10%. I have to figures to back this up, but just because you voted for Bernie, or caucused for Bernie doesn’t mean that you associate solely with Bernie.
sorry, misspelled “to”, I meant that I have no figures to back this up, but I read somewhere that 85-90% of Bernie people have shown a willingness to support HRC.
Heard tonight the number is 76%.
Forty-five percent of the delegates. And a majority of independent voters.
But remember, she’s only the second-least trusted candidate in the history of polling, although she’s the least trusted among Democrats.
So write off whatever percentage you want to whittle it down to.
Enjoy.
Good job DerFarm. You got it right.
Let’s hope others see it, because we are wasting time on Portland.
.
GDI, you said it better, with fewer words.
.
6 of one and a half dozen of the other? Except the half dozen are never going to be satisfied, will always be self righteous, and will be forever weeping over the unicorn their father refused to buy them when they were 10.
The 6 can be satisfied with a title (we can only hope only a title).
Like many decisions, you never know which is the correct one until time passes. In our case, three months.
.
The only thing positive I find in this is that 45% of the Democratic Party aren’t satisfied and won’t be satisfied by the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party. That would actually be a large enough group to work for change with.
Normally I will not respond to you because there is nothing sincere in your posts, but you posted this twice, so,
You are being purposely obtuse and deceptive…it is not 45% of the Democratic Party. 45% voted for Sanders but that does NOT mean 45% of the Democratic Party are either mad or will not vote for Clinton. Polls show that 90% of those whom voted for Sanders intend to vote for Clinton.
So 10% of Sanders voters are ‘mad’. That’s 10% of 45%. Less than 5% of democratic voters.
I’m not surprised you equate the feelings of 5% with everyone. It’s what you do.
So if you count the delegates as one vote each, we can get it down to less than one percent.
I don’t think it’s a terrible reach to consider that the percentage of voters for Sanders represents approximately the same percentage Democratic voters. No one, including you and your imbued vote, can say exactly what the vote totals will be in November.
So some percentage of Democratic voters, I’m guessing around 45% wanted Sanders. And a smaller amount won’t vote for Clinton. You feel better?
“That’s 10% of 45%. Less than 5% of democratic voters”
A lot of these lovely progressives (or “Operation Chaos” types) aren’t Democrats. This is why every state should have a closed primary.
Yes, I agree.
And have never voted. Hence why they needed to register, and did not know how.
.
They’re not protesting DWS getting a desk job in HRC’s campaign backoffice. Like nailbar says, boiling DWS in oil wouldn’t fix this.
They’ve been fed nonsense about stolen elections and corruption and dishonesty by Clinton (when she’s passed vetting almost nobody else could) for six months. Sanders lied to them for months about what was happening and his chances for winning, and this is the result.
That story about the hundreds of thousands of voters in New York and California who could not vote, that’s nonsense? Okay. Duly noted, Curt.
What story?
If you’re referencing California and the need for non-Party voters to request a ballot if they wanted to vote in the Democratic Presidential primary, that was a rule had been established by the State Party for all Decline To State voters.
Those who did not read and act on the clear instructions they received from their Registrars of Voters were both Clinton and Sanders voters, and there is no voter model which can accurately inform us how many wanted to vote in the Dem primary but did not, and what their balance was.
Even if voters did not get the word before Election Day, they could have gone to the polls on Election Day and gotten a ballot. And those who were delayed or frustrated by rare misinformed poll workers when seeking to do that were both Clinton and Sanders voters.
Both campaigns knew the Party rules for DTS voters for the entire year. It was up to the campaigns to organize their voters, get them the info and turn them out. Where they lost votes, the campaigns and the voters were responsible.
There’s also something to be said about joining the Party if you want to have the best opportunity to influence the Party. The California Republican Party does not allow anyone but Party members to vote in their primary. The CDP is actually much more open to DTS voters.
Conspiracies around every corner, even when the case isn’t there, at all.
well, a friend in NY, registered dem the last 10 yrs was told was registered I; provisional ballot said to be invalid’ at least 1 vote for Sanders not counted.
Has he/she ever voted in a primary before? That should have been caught earlier. Did he/she have their voter registration card with them to show the poll worker?
voted for 20 years in NY. reregistered R to D 10 years ago. I assume that includes all primaries but I didn’t ask, it was just a passing topic of conversation
issue was that had voted D for 10 years
it was a discussion at a social event, will eventually run into the same crowd and can ask more.
Well said.
Look, I can relate to this woman’s anger. I really can. I’m not a fan of Clinton, although the Benghazi thing is a total waste of time & money (more importantly). And although I’m not thrilled about the other email “scandal,” I also don’t care that much about that either, esp as Colin Powell & Condi Rice get a big old pass on similar behavior. But I forgot: IOKIYAR.
The Clintons have been hounded for years and years, so it creates the desired impression.
I have my own issues with Clinton, mainly having to do with her Neoliberal positions and her war hawkishness – neither of which the GOP touches bc those are issues dear to THEIR hearts.
I wasn’t going to vote for Clinton this year, and I didn’t vote for her in the primary.
But not giving a fuck about Trump?
Please! I can’t even.
Why repeat this falsehood?
The similar precedent was Bush White House email controversy. iirc there was widespread anger among democrats/liberals when this was exposed. Rove resigned shortly thereafter and the email destruction presumably figured into his resignation.
As I was one of those that didn’t give Rove or the other Bush WH staff a pass on this, what a hypocrite I’d be to give HRC a pass for doing the same (enhanced because it was her personal server and not the DNC server) thing beginning a year and a half after the Bush WH was busted on this? She doesn’t even have the possible excuse that Rove et. al had that they didn’t know that it wasn’t prohibited and/or that they were trying to avoid Hatch Act violations on political campaign matters.
Reminder the Zoe Baird and Kimbra Wood nominations? That set off some panic among people that directly employed a housekeeper and/or a nanny because they legitimately didn’t know that under IRS rules they couldn’t be classified as independent contractors. The IRS and CA tax board were very reasonable towards the people I assisted in revising the status from IC to employee. They essentially forgave the back employer taxes, a one time (unwritten) amnesty for violators. (Once everything was set up, the quarterly filings weren’t too difficult or onerous, but still required some time and effort.) No subsequent “I didn’t know.”
Clinton did not give DWS a promotion. Debbie has far, far less power in her new position.
That said, the quick decision by Clinton to complement Wasserman-Schultz and bring her on board her campaign was fucking tin-eared and certain to engender further hatred and mistrust. Hillary has a bubble problem as well.
My impression was that what DWS got was the equivalent of a participation trophy.
She got put out to pasture. I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about this.
What promotion? An uncompensated honorary title that doesn’t mean shit, after she’s been thrown out of the leadership?
Just how the fuck is that a promotion?
It’s also a huge breach through which Trump can drive his vehicles of wrath.
Watch.
AG
She’s like one of those people I used to see on the El every day, ranting and raving because of the voices in her head. She needs about 10 cats to really get the look right.
Well, if that’s true, there’s really not much to talk about, other than improving mental health access. (Which is important.)
I didn’t listen to the whole thing. What part of the narrative is false? That Clinton is corrupt? No, the richest of the rich of the world gave her charity over a billion. Now many of those people have been identified as corrupt or worse, but that doesn’t mean that Hillary’s corrupt. Clinton has earned over a hundred million spinning yarns for the movers and shakers of Wall Street. That doesn’t mean she’s corrupt. She just appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz to her campaign staff. That doesn’t mean that Hillary’s corrupt.
So aside from the woman’s claim that Hillary is corrupt, what is she saying that’s a false narrative? That she won’t look out for the bottom 80% of Americans? Aside from the last twenty-five years of America’s middle class sliding into the toilet, there’s no proof that she won’t help us.
Maybe I should go back and watch the video on an unknown person pissed off at Clinton. That’s the ultimate straw man that should quiet the snarling rabble.
“I didn’t listen to the whole thing. What part of the narrative is false?”
Well, listen to the whole thing.
I listened to the whole thing. What part of the narrative is false?
All of it.
Okay. When you say “All of it” it means you won’t defend your comment. It means you can’t point out one thing. So when I read you writing “All of it” should I take it as a concession that you can’t defend your statement?
I’ve listed any number of things the woman said. But you can’t find one thing she said that isn’t true?
That’s good. Being so totally enthralled that you don’t care being caught up in a mistruth is beautiful. You really are a true believer.
When the next war starts be sure to stand up straight and salute.
Not seeing the false narrative either. Doesn’t mean that it’s true, but at least it doesn’t omit uncomfortable facts that partisan Democrats are furiously trying to white out of the public record.
There was possibly some exaggeration wrt to voter disenfranchisement (never enough data in real time to determine the extent of the reported problems which could range from isolated and limited to such a small number that it wouldn’t change the outcome of the results), but she didn’t specifically lay that one at the feet of HRC. Only that as such reports came in primary after primary, Obama has been silent.
Let me see. She thinks that Clinton won’t stop the fracking. Do you think that Clinton will stop fracking?
She thinks that appointing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to her campaign is corrupt. What do you think about this kick upstairs? Do you think the DNC was run corruptly by DWS? How about money-laundering using state democratic parties. Corrupt or just a clever and new way to avoid obeying the law?
She thinks that Clinton will put more soldiers on the ground in the Middle East. Do you think Clinton will put more boots on the ground? I mean, besides the expanded air war that she announced.
The woman is full of passion. She’s a Sanders supporter at the National Convention.
So I’ll ask again: Where’s the false narrative? Clinton has given an asterisk-speckled explanation of fracking in this campaign. Maybe I missed it. Has she recently said she’ll oppose all fracking? So that’s not part of the false narrative.
I know that she’s gung-ho regarding military upticks in the Middle East and the former Ukraine, so that’s not a false narrative.
No mention of her pants suits.
In another thread today someone linked to a Vice article as “proof” that Putin is responsible for hacking the DNC computers. I suggested going back, reading the article carefully, and circling all the absolute proof in that article. There isn’t any.
I’d say that news outlets have a greater responsibility to stick to facts than a disgruntled delegate at a national convention, but it looks to me like her narrative isn’t false and from the proof published so far, Vice’s story on Putin’s listening in on the Venus Line hasn’t been proven true.
“False narrative.” Booman, where’s the false narrative?
NY Times article on this business stated specific reasons for suspecting a Russian role in hacking. Your choice whether to give that report any credence.
“Donald, meet Julian.”
“Julian, so nice to meet you. Vlad speaks so highly of you!”
NYTimes — ha ha. Seem to recall Dick Cheney on TV citing the NYTimes as a reliable source for the existence of WMD in Iraq.
The NYTimes has never been a reliable source for reporting on Russia/Putin/USSR or any country not deemed sufficiently capitalist. Carl Bernstein
Since then, less need to use the CIA to plant PR.
Good thing absolutely nothing has changed at the Times since 1966, otherwise your point might be ridiculous.
Yeah, because in 2002-03 the NYTimes wasn’t peddling fake WMD; so very different from what it did in 1966. I so totally relied on the paper of record to get that one right. Not.
iirc only a few weeks ago the NYTimes was cheering the impeachment of Rousseff as so deserved and necessary. Now maybe not so much.
Core cultures change very slowly. Good thing most people only look at the superficial and meaningless gloss to convince themselves that big changes have taken place and attack those that suggest a degree of caution is warranted. No wonder all the MSM pundit flunked on the Trump phenomenon.
Actually, I’m the revivified corpse of a CIA agent by the name of James Jesus Angleton. I’ve just learned to use a computer and goddamn it’s fun! So see, some things have changed.
I believe that at this juncture, Marie3 will again denounce me as a troll and psychologically abusive because I’ve had the infernal gall to use sarcasm. Her own frequent use of sarcasm is ok, however.
I’ll file it with the WMDs in Iraq. In my Judith Miller file. Thanks.
By the way, did the TImes actually offer proof or said that there was proof? Got a link? Did they refer to someone in the CIA? Because the CIA didn’t see anyone looking at Americans’ computers.
I think you get 10 free NYT articles per month online. You could easily search for the item. It does exist.
I don’t quite know how to deal with corrosive mistrust. “It’s bullshit because Judith Miller 13 or 14 years ago CIA CIA.” Yet I’m supposed to give absolute credence to–from your comments elsewhere–grainy photos of alleged Lee Harvey Oswald impersonators? And your claims of US soldiers dying in Ukraine? You want me to believe that stuff; you don’t try to convince me, but rather sneer when I express skepticism.
Hillary is not running on placing more ground troops anywhere- Middle East, Ukraine, anywhere. You’re just wrong on that. So that’s a false narrative.
Hillary is not running in support of fracking, by your own admission. Sanders’ Delegates went for a flat ban in the Party platform, but were extremely proud of the agreement they were able to work out with Clinton’s Delegates. Here’s the transcript of Josh Fox’s post-platform meeting interview with Democracy Now, where he underlines that their win “…cuts the legs out of the future of the entire fracking industry.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/12/filmmaker_josh_fox_sanders_pushed_party
Please consider this challenge to the claimed narrative. Maintaining this position will require eternal diligence, but we’re positioning ourselves to win here.
I’m not going to defend the Wasserman-Schultz appointment. Total tin ear on Clinton’s part. It’s not a promotion, though. Debbie lost lots of power yesterday, and Hillary has had her bubble pricked rather sharply in the last 24 hours.
These people aren’t interested in pricking bubbles. These people want to run the party even though they lost. These people want everything, all at once, and if they don’t get it, they’ll burn the place down.
These people don’t even want Bernie.
These people are a mob.
If only that were true.
These people want to run the Democratic party without being a part of it.
Sanders has shown that the Democratic party is ripe for being dragged left. Yet, they await a person to top-down save them, rather than taking it as a cue to take over the Democratic party themselves.
They have, in essence, missed the entire point of Sanders’ campaign. They got so caught up in Sanders the saviour coming to save them that they missed that they can very well save themselves by taking over the Democratic party…if they choose to get their hands dirty rootin’ around in the muck and impurity of politics.
Hilarious and tragic, just like Strongman Trump.
The vast majority of them have already come along, despite the dissenters who found cameras and mics today. It’s totally understandable that Sanders Delegates need time. Hell, we haven’t even had the floor vote yet. They’ll get their chance to be on the permanent record; I totally understand that closure and coming to terms with the general election can’t start with many of them until then.
Being in the same hall with fellow Delegates, seeing them vote for both Clinton and Sanders, becoming familiar with the concept that Clinton Delegates want almost all of the same policies they do, and at the very least they are perfectly nice people…these things will make a difference, I’m confident.
Hillary is running on establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. She said it in a debate. What do you think happens when the US shoots down the first Russian plane. And how does she expect to liberate Crimea? So she’s either running on war or she’s running on war and lying.
There are already reports of French and British forces on the ground in Libya. You think she won’t send anyone in there?
Dead Americans were turning up in combat when the war in Ukraine was hot, so already you’re wrong there.
Yes, Clinton has changed her talk on fracking, like she changed her name on fifteen an hour and same-sex marriage. Even on Iraq, but not so much that she’s ready to pull back.
But there’s a little sleight of hand you did there. I didn’t say that Clinton was running on starting a war with Russia. Some things are said and true believers don’t notice. When Clinton said she’d enforce a no-fly zone over Syria Russian bombers were hitting al Qaeda positions. You know, the good guys (heh heh).
So do you accept her word that she will shoot down planes of the other major nuclear power?
Do you think she’ll ban fracking? Can you give me a sentence that explains her position on fracking?
Do you think she’ll have broad infrastructure programs and lift up the bottom 80%?
If we are arguing what I wrote then I’m satisfied with this answer. If we’re talking about what the woman said, then you are way off. Go back and watch it again.
Good Lord…
You write:
It is “false” because it goes against Booman’s interests.
Just like the way the media…and Booman is now part of that media, that is where his real interests lie…has treated every other every other truth teller.
And the line of Booman agreers above?
Shame on all of them.
With Booman right at the head of the line.
Like dat!!!
What goes around comes around.
The concept of karma…no matter how it is expressed…handed down to us by the wisest of the wise over millennia.
Ignore it at your own…and everyone else’s…risk.
AG
The gall to quote MLK here.
Support voter ID laws and claim the right to King’s legacy? No sale.
And, that problematic concept of karma crops up again. Karma is not the punishment earned by those disliked by Arthur. Sorry.
How many dead in useless, failed wars? On all sides?
That is “karma,” fool!!! That is the kind of thing that produces negative karma.
And you know what?
If MLK Jr. could be reincarnated in full possession of his faculties and see what has happened to race relations and the problem of minority poverty in this immensely wealthy country over 45 years after he was assassinated, he too would declare the Civil Rights movement that he spearheaded a failure.
So far.
Bet on it.
AG
It’s delegates like this that make clear the need for superdelegates.
Yeah, this supports the Republican policy in many states of having the delegates bound to the primary vote, but the actual delegates are party officials.
Oh yeah, that’s the Democratic spirit.
Do you owe a payday lending business? Are you fracking? Are you happy with all the people dropped from voter rolls?
What part of the woman’s rant do you disagree with and think justifies taking the nomination process out of the hands of voters?
You want a war with Russia? That must be it.
Or maybe you admire the money-laundering and think that Schultz and her team are super cool for doing that.
Or maybe you just like the way sultans and Wall Streeters litter her bank accounts with money. And you can’t see any quid pro quo from (between the Clinton Foundation, her and Bill’s speeches, the Clinton Global Initiative, campaign donations received and expected for the rest of this campaign cycle) the estimated three billion dollars of money going her way.
Maybe only Wall Streeters or sultans should have a say. Why maybe B of A and Wells Fargo should be given a percentage of delegates. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Superdelegates are so that the people in power stay in power. Glad to see you’re onboard.
Please expand on remark about voter rolls.
I’ll give you an easy one. People who’d registered as Democrat were told when they got to the polls that they were registered as independent. It happened in states where there were lots of new registrants.
Validation, please, that this happened in great numbers in multiple States, and that there is any damn evidence at all that it was done with malicious intent to alter the outcome of the election, and that it can be shown to have likely altered an outcome.
As I said elsewhere on this thread: don’t pussyfoot around. You’re leveling a serious charge; it’s dangerous to level it trivially. The Sanders campaign isn’t leveling the charge; what makes you smarter than them??
News reports that quote four people does not comprise solid evidence, or really any evidence at all other than evidence of this: when Clinton supporters had a problem at the polls they were frustrated but rational, while Sanders supporters who had voting challenges incorporated a pre-presented narrative that the process was “rigged” which they quickly used to justify any wild claims they wished to forward.
Yeah, one thing, you won’t get any war with Russia if Trump’s in charge. Europe may be occupied and lost, but at least we won’t get a war.
Oh, we’ll get a war, but it’ll be with some country with oil Trump wants to steal. He promised!
Actually, you have more confidence in Trump than I have. Whatever he says on the campaign trail if by some ill fortune he lands in the White House he will do exactly what he’s told to do. Presidents haven’t been in charge of our foreign policy since JFK was offed.
So actually my complaint isn’t that our foreign policy would be measurably different between the two, just that Clinton will embrace it with such joy de morte. And no, I don’t speak French.
Why stop with excluding voters from the primary process?
Why not get rid of the democracy thingy entirely? Including the name. Make it the Clinton Party. They can choose the “correct” nominee as well as the gaggle of super-delegates (some of whom aren’t elected officials and some of whom are corporate lobbyists).
Voters make ruling so much more difficult for our betters.
Sarah Silverman said it well. “Bernie or busters — you’re being ridiculous!”
Sarah was great. She was giving Bernie and his movement a big shining shout-out in the middle of the program in the first night, and Bernie Delegates started giving her shit the moment she said she’ll vote proudly for Hillary. Sarah was very explicit and clear that she would do so in part because the Sanders campaign had accomplished so much. And some Bernie Delegates booed her and started chanting.
I cringed when she first did it. But it was the right thing to do. And the behavior in the convention hall is better now, so it worked well enough.
… and for those keeping score at home, members of our own Frog Pond progressive wing is now defending Trump and Putin.
Fascist-curious?
Something’s happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.
Is that a man with a gun over there?
Telling me I got to beware.
You bet your ass he did. Last Thursday night, over and over again.
Careful, calling them out on it is now insulting them.
.
I notice that Mr. Perspective is moving in the same direction over at LGM. So that makes at least three of them.
Do they know that Russia is no longer a socialist paradise?
Bernie is no one’s idea of a great orator, but his speech is pretty damned good. Touches all the critical themes and the zero-sum reality of this election.
Well, Sanders just wrapped up a barnburner of a speech endorsing Clinton and outlining all the reasons why his people should back her as passionately as he did tonight.
If that doesn’t defuse the bitter-enders, then they were never for him, they were for themselves all along.
Or they were for progressive stances that they believed Sanders was committed to and Clinton was just paying lip service to. And they are capable of disagreeing with him when he now claims she is sincere, because they are capable of independent judgment and not the Cult of Personality followers you dismissed them as.
I mean, if Bernie actually thinks that Hillary is going to break up too-big-to-fail banks, he’s a fool.
I’m sorry. I’ve never voted for anyone because I was was “for him” or her. I vote for people who I expect to represent my interests, which include a more just society. Which means I vote for myself and the hundreds of millions of other people in the bottom 80% because my interests include social justice, as well as opposing destroying the livability of the planet.
Quite honestly, I figured that Sanders would have been shot by now, or found in bed with a dead woman on The Monkey Business.
Do you vote for perceived personalities as opposed to what you think they’ll do in office?
A lot of good speeches tonight, Booker/Obama/Warren/Sanders especially. I think this will be a good convention.
I’ve got to say, though – the rando BoBers that MSNBC is speaking to are not the sharpest tools in the shed. The VT delegate was angry that Bernie “wasn’t represented” on stage tonight (whatever that means) and that he got the “late” speech (i.e., the very best time slot). Pathetic.
Old and white and full of shit.
The condescending attitude on this thread towards this woman, beginning with BooMan who set the tone, is appalling. This childish crap is one of Donald Trump’s biggest assets: mockery of people who might be seen as unpolished, unglamorous, emotional, well, crude. If no one can find a better reason to actively support Hillary Clinton, she obviously doesn’t give much positive material to work with. She may well squeak through in November. So be it. Justice will not be served. In my book, she does not deserve to win the election, which not to say that Donald Trump does. And please spare me the self-righteous reprimands about how horrible he is. She’s a real gem.
thank you for your comment about this video and the woman on the video. I am appalled, posting the video, setting this woman up for mockery and the piling on. thank you for your comment.
Yeah well, that condescension cuts both ways and it always has.
Would you please explain that instead of being cryptically flippant.
Was it condescending for Barney Frank to describe that Lyndon LaRouche supporter as a “dining room table” when she held up a sign depicting Obama as Hitler and compared Obamacare to the effort of Nazis during a Mass. townhall in the summer of 2009?
I mean, here’s the thing: There comes a point when it becomes apparent someone has been marinating in some form of unreality for so long there is simply no point in talking to them. This Bernie supporter’s marinade appears to have fermented to the point it’s nearly flammable. If that sounds like condescension, I don’t know what to do about that.
It sure does seem like Clinton is ill suited to the times we live in today. I’m not really sure any democrat can inspire confidence from this angry electorate. The party seriously underestimated the nature of the rejection of Clinton in 2008 and figured all would roll over for the idea that it’s her turn in 2016. It was an unfortunate miscalculation and misreading of the mood of the country in the social media age.
I don’t know how anyone could have concluded that America was content with the political status quo given the hatred and contempt being spread on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook these last 8 years.
More than a year ago the political system proposed another choice between a Clinton and a Bush thinking America would be happy with either one.
Oops.
At the end of the day, you can’t stop anyone from pissing into the wind.
The question is whether YOU are sad or principled.
BECOME one or the other.
When Bernie said Hillary would fix the incarceration rates, I wondered, “But what we will do with all the super-predators?”
Needs more Vincent Foster.
Also: Benghazi.
You’re not allowed to use sarcasm unless you’re bashing Clinton.
IOKIYBC?
This comment on Naked Capitalism perfectly sums up my reaction to Michelle Obama’s breathtaking hagiography of Hillary Clinton:
timotheus, July 26, 7:24 am
Antidote #1 = perfect metaphor for the political conventions: “See how much I love my cute children? I’ll still eat you for breakfast.”
My take on the kids: instead of obsessing about seeing their darling daughters being driven from the White House in big, black SUVs under the protection of weaponed men, why didn’t one of them hop in and accompany the kids on their way to their first day at the new school. The image is of course startling: children potentially in threat of danger. I would bet she or at least one of the family or staff did indeed go with them. So what was the point: fear of the boogey man Trump.
Children not discussed:
Not American, not Christian, not Caucasian… sorry. You don’t compute in the calculus of American hegemony.