I won’t attempt to summarize this critique of Donna Brazile’s claims about the 2016 campaign.
The part I can’t figure how is why she thinks the DNC “rigged” the election? I never knew or cared who was chair of the DNC. Hillary won New York State, where I live, by an overwhelming margin. She won the primaries by 3.7 million votes. How did the DNC “rig” the outcome? If Bernie’s choice controlled the DNC, highly unlikely since he was not then and is not now a member of the Democratic Party, what would have been different?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Clinton bailed out a bankrupt DNC. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was incompetent. Where is the scandal?
Expect Trump to seize on this as a pretext for putting Hillary in jail and reducing the status of our country to an authoritarian banana republic. He promised to “lock her up.” His base would love it.
We can collectively hang our heads in Shame.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
My dear, Hillary is NOT who you think she is.
I agree with you, Susan.
Me TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
That may be true, but Donna Brazile is showing her true nature — self-serving and self-indulgent. Typical lack of self-control and self-centeredness. Feeds into absurd notion of the Bernieites that they could have won the nomination.
Interesting that Donna Brazile dropped bombshell on the eve of crucial elections in Virginia and NJ.
She will do max damage to Northam, whose opponent is running a racist campaign.
Regardless of who Diane “thinks Hillary is”, this link counters the article’s premise & supports Brazile’s account:
Click to access DNCMemo%20(002).pdf
Seems unsurprising to me that a very wealthy candidate could/ would scoop up & run the DNC primary campaign when it was left in tatters/ debt by the previous DNC chair– & some blame to Obama for leaving it in arrears to start w/.
I don’t see how we can get exercised about a moneybags buying primary campaign ops when our whole election system is legally tied to dollar clout of candidate. Nothing ethical will ever come of that. Sooner or later gotta pay the piper.
I’m no fan of Donna Brazile, considering she’s neck-deep in the mess herself after she handed Hillary the debate questions in advance. But, that said, this is a pretty poor excuse for a take-down article. All it is is a litany of smears (H.A. Goodman is a “brogressive”? Really?) and it reads like sour grapes blame gaming. Read some of the comments in the linked article for a take down to this take down.
Anyway, Donna Brazile’s “revelations” are about as enlightening to those of us who have been paying attention as the recent study that proved that water is wet. There is ample evidence that the DNC had its finger heavily on the scale for Hillary in many, many ways. I find it odd that people who think that $100,000 in Russian Facebook ads turned the U.S. election are utterly unwilling to consider the possibility that massive sums spent by the DNC – as well as the other power and influence the DNC wielded – could have turned the election.
By the way, Diane, what exactly is “Deep State Nation”? I can’t find an “about” section on their website. What is their mission or their agenda? Who funds them? Who are the “Rogue Staffers…LOL?” Looking through a handful of articles, it looks like a badly written partisan hack job in support of the Establishment. They are now very belatedly trying to peddle the notion that the DNC emails on Wikileaks were “edited”, which would be (a) a first in Wikileaks history and (b) the first thing that just about everyone would have looked for at the time and somehow no one seemed to find anything back then, so it’s pretty odd that that’s being “revealed” now.
My dear friend NYCPSP likes to warn me about propaganda. I’d suggest you be careful as well.
I don’t know who the blogger is, but I also don’t know how the DNC “rigged” the primaries. Hillary got nearly 3.7 million votes more than Bernie. Did she rig the voting machines?
Apparently Donna Brazile gave Hillary the entire list of question for every single debate so that Hillary knew exactly how to answer each one.
Well, it was either what I described above or Brazile gave the campaign the shocking question that there’d be a question about how Hillary planned to help the people of Flint. Now that’s a question the campaign never expected could come up! Of course, that question is not come up. So Brazile’s “help” actually hurt her.
Luckily, Bernie was very well prepared to answer the question that was asked about Flint — a much more obscure one than the very obvious one that Brazile mentioned that no one needed a “heads up” from Brazile to expect. The actual question far more obscure, asking candidates if they would remove every single lead service line throughout the US. Bernie had a good answer to that unexpected (at least to Hillary) question.
I agree. I’m very skeptical of the source.
What matters here is not the source but the facts on their face. The DNC, as Brazile said in the excerpt from her book, was bankrupt. Hillary expected to be the candidate, and she bankrolled it. Debbie W. Schultz ran it into the ground. The DNC had no power to influence millions of voters. Did you know who the chair of the DNC was or is? I didn’t. If Bernie wanted to bankroll the DNC, he could have thrown in a few million too.
Oh come now, Diane. I was going to let you slide on this one, but I can’t now. You’re an historian for pity’s sake. You of all people know the importance of a reliable source. If you taught a class and a student used “Deep State Nation” as a source, would you accept it? Especially if that student said s/he “doesn’t know who the blogger is”? What if s/he claimed that facts were more important than sources? How can you know what the facts are if the source isn’t reliable?
I find your comments on this disappointing, Diane. Again, you’re better than this.
And, really, “the DNC had no power to influence millions of voters”? That’s laughable on its face. They had control of the whole campaign and all the party financing. Of course they had the power to influence millions of voters.
Yet at the same time you remain convinced that $100,000 in Russian Facebook ads influenced millions of voters. Well, lesson learned, I guess. Next election let’s just spend $100,000 on some Facebook ads and be done with it.
It’s sad how your loyalty to Clinton has blinded you to things that you usually find perfectly obvious. Money = influence. That’s why you usually fight so hard to keep money out of educational politics.
Nothing in that Blog Post is a secret. The scandal here is the pretense of a scandal. Hillary’s campaign balled out the DNC when it was bankrupt. Big deal.
Money matters in politics. Bernie did a sensational job of raising money from small donors, and his campaign crowds were large and enthusiastic. But he lost. And the DNC did not cause him to lose.
And money should not determine school board races.
The DNC didn’t have any money. That was the point of Brazile’s “revelation.” Obama bankrupted it and it was deep in debt. Hillary bailed it out. So you think the DNC favored Hillary with money? No, she funded the DNC.
They had hundreds of millions of dollars after Clinton bailed them out. You don’t think she gave them that money no strings attached, do you?
dienne77,
What strings were attached to that money?
So much innuendo with all the Hillary attacks.
check in with Daily Kos (in particular David Waldman and Greg Dworkin) on this. there were agreements as to how and when the money would be distributed; I have to head out in 10 minutes because I am helping set up a rally for Elizabeth Warren in my city and we will have 100 people in a space that normally holds 12. When I am home I will attempt to look up the Daily Kos info for you — today the election of Nov 7th is more important to me than last year’s… I can’t dwell on the past — have to summarize it within my own framework so that know what to do today and tomorrow.
Jean, if you have a chance now or in the future to speak to Warren, please explain that TFA has its own goals—to increase its power—and that she should find an education aide who is not part of the pro-privatization world.
I can certainly agree with that; even though the charter school initiative was debated 60 – 40% we have a republican governor and we have a board of ed and DESE that pushes “innovation ” schools as a euphemism for charters. I did speak with Suzanne Bump who is State Auditor and I asked her to audit that DESE/BESE from top to bottom including the monies from Arne Duncan that came through “inter/intra state grants” and “walking around money” or whatever else they call it… Jamie Eldridge , senator in our MA assembly say “the corporate influence is way too strong in MA politics” in Boston and governor’s office etc. That is a really tough battle. I have an opportunity today to write and thank E. Warren — if anyone wants to contribute to my letter to her asking about here “aide” and connections with TFA I will be glad to use your words
dianeravitch
It was abundantly clear to all who had political aspirations in the Democratic Party that the Clinton machine was in control of the DNC. To oppose her, had she won would be political suicide . Therefore before the first primary vote was cast, super delegates surveyed were committed to Clinton and this fact was used to portray any opposition to the throne as futile. But that does not explain your millions of votes .
What does explain them is how political machines turn out votes . There was a time that labor leaders in this country could be counted on to turn out upwards of 80 and even 90%of their members for the candidate they were supporting . Similar to that is the Democratic party in the South. The Majority of which is a Black church based Democratic party .Not much different than the White Evangelical Republican party . When those super delegates and local party leaders threw their support to Clinton because of her hold on the National Committee . Sanders was toast . All of the local surrogates who turn out votes for the party every election went to work for Clinton as if it were a General election, against a Republican enemy. . It was not because she she made trips to address them and build support or went knocking door to door . It was understood from the DNC down through the state parties , who the party was supporting.
Clinton won 85% and 90 % of the Black vote in every Southern state..Sanders won 70% of the smaller White vote . Hillary was not running against George Wallace . She was running against someone whose positions on civil rights on inequality were equal or perhaps better. The same dynamic applied to inner city voting patterns as well.Sanders wins the more Independent Democrats . Those not aligned with a local political club or Black Church.
Again compare it to the religious right where church based organizations churn out the vote . Remember that primaries are low voter turnout affairs to begin with.,In that situation the power of machine politics is magnified . But in a primary ,the National Party is at least supposed to appear neutral.
. .
While people are blaming Hillary Clinton, it seems that the MSM is treading pretty lightly on President Obama’s role in all this. He was elected in 2008 on a platform that was leaning more New Deal than Third Way. Obama’s disinterest in continuing (even as a figurehead) to strengthen the Democrat party came at an enormous cost:
Once in office, he shed his New Deal leanings and went full-speed Republican Lite: The ACA is modeled on a Heritage Foundation proposal; his enthusiastic support for austerity via the “Catfood Commission” would have begun decimating Social Security and Medicare. And how, as educators, can we forget his full-frontal assault on public schools, under Arne Duncan?
.
It seems that President Obama didn’t have much of a problem watching the erosion of policies that benefit most Americans. He had his eye on the long game, and did the bidding of his Wall Street donors. Now he and Michelle are $64 million richer.
He and his family came out well. Can’t say the same for the rest of us.
I don’t know about the media, but I have never let Obama off the hook for his role. He’s the one who left the DNC deeply in debt to begin with and he’s the one who made Trump possible in so many ways.
Hillary won by a huge margin in NJ in the primary. I voted in NJ for Bernie, I had no trouble voting, a minimal line in the voting station. Are the Hillary haters saying that the voting machines were rigged? How many people actually watched the debates between Hillary and Bernie? How many people even watched them for their full length? I would be as happy as a lark if Hillary were president instead of the horror clown from hell. Jimmy Dore, whom I respect, hates and despises Hillary to this day and is in ecstasy at this latest revelation from Donna B. I disagree with him, I think that Hillary would have been a conscientious, capable and sane president, even with all her supposed baggage. I do not believe that she had Vince Foster assassinated amongst many other wild conspiracy theories.
Joe I agree w/yr comment 100%, as a NJ Bernie voter I could have written it myself.
Agree with dienne77 ‘s points. Also, Brazile didn’t think that Hillary rigged the Dem Primary…she knew… because she helped. ICYMI How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties – by Margot Kidder – April 1, 2016 – Counterpunch.org
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/
“It’s worse than wicked, my dear, it’s vulgar” – Punch Almanac, 1876
[clip] “Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.
The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.
In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.
The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.
In other words, a single donor, by giving $10,000 a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund. For each donor, this raised their individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016. And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name.
From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.
The money was either transferred to the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs and spent directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, often paying the salaries and expenses within those groups, or it was moved into the DNC or another Clinton PAC. Some of it was spent towards managing the Hillary merchandise store, where you can buy Hillary T shirts and hats and buttons.
The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.
One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the Super Delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.
If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super Delegates respectable.” continues at the link…
And then there’s the investigative report on the Dem Primary rigging:
Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Dem Primary – Analysis of this bi-partisan Election Justice USA 2016 report here > https://www.inquisitr.com/3357374/democracy-lost-charges-of-election-corruption-being-made-by-election-justice-usa-and-trust-vote/
Lucinda Manning,
I am going to tell you how outrageously offensive your claim about all the superdelegates being corrupt truly is.
Imagine THIS scenario: Bernie Sanders wins 54% of the vote during the primary. He has won MORE delegates. And he also has the support of most of the superdelegates who have repeatedly said they planned to vote for Bernie Sanders, the candidate with MORE votes and MORE delegates.
But Hillary Clinton, who has won fewer votes, and won fewer delegates DEMANDS that the superdelegates vote for her! Even if they don’t want to. Even if they have said repeatedly they are voting for the candidate with MORE votes, Bernie Sanders.
Too bad, Hillary demands. Those delegates MUST shut up so I can pretend they will still vote for me and I can try to steal the primary from the rightful winner who won the popular vote and won more delegates.
And since Hillary Clinton doesn’t get her way, her supporters decide Bernie Sanders is the most corrupt candidate in history and punish this country by helping to elect the fascist that destroyed it. They try to pretend that Bernie Sanders bought off those superdelegates so they’d vote for the person who got the most votes instead of voting for the person who didn’t.
You Sanders people are truly a trip. Try putting the shoe on the other foot to see how outrageously biased you are.
Y’know, NYCPSP, why don’t you take some of your own medicine? Why don’t you stop and think how you would have reacted had the Sanders campaign pulled some of the stuff that the Clinton campaign did? What if the Sanders campaign had changed the rules in Nevada at the last moment? What if rightfully upset Clinton supporters had been accused of throwing chairs when they didn’t? What if thousands of voters mysteriously disappeared off the roles in Clinton stronghold areas? What if Sanders had been given debate questions in advance? What if Sanders had bankrolled the party in exchange for control of the party?
Thousands of votes mysteriously disappeared? Please clarify. I hope you aren’t talking about the debunked Brooklyn claim that they were Bernie votes when they were not. Did that happen somewhere else?
Supporters accused of throwing chairs? First of all, that is pretty rich given all the false accusations made against Hillary Clinton. I would have LOVED if the attackers kept their lies to “her supporters threw chairs”.
And if I was a Bernie supporter and his campaign computers had been hacked and the best the hackers could find was that he knew in advance there would be a debate question about how he’d help the people of Flint at a debate in Flint, I would be THRILLED to know that he obviously ran a clean campaign if his enemies were grasping at pre-knowledge of that question as the only dirt they could find.
dienne77, we saw the WORST actions of the Clinton campaign. And they were appalling! Telling Hillary that she’d have a question about helping the people in Flint at a debate in Flint! OMG talk about giving her a huge advantage over Bernie. I won’t insult the Bernie campaign the way you are by implying that it would NEVER occur to anyone in the campaign that such an idea might be brought up in Flint.
If Hillary had been given all the debate questions, you better believe we’d see those e-mails from wikileaks/Russia. The scoured through hundreds of thousands of e-mails and found Donna wanted to seem more important than she was by pretending her “inside information” was valuable. where is the reply Donna got? How come that wasn’t released?
NYC Parent: I don’t need to “imagine” the scenario you concocted. I live in NH. 60 % of the democratic voters in my state voted for Bernie, and yet HRC walked away with more delegates. hmmmmm Nothing to get upset about? That’s not how I see it.
Dienne this is a great point: ” I find it odd that people who think that $100,000 in Russian Facebook ads turned the U.S. election are utterly unwilling to consider the possibility that massive sums spent by the DNC – as well as the other power and influence the DNC wielded – could have turned the election.”
Perhaps you didn’t mean it this way, but I can’t help thinking “could have but didn’t”– what a ham-handed tone-deaf presidential campaign she ran. She could have turned things around w/some thoughtful [but not expensive] targeted campaigning in key rust-belt locales. Compare the efficiency of the no-doubt cheap Heart of Texas FB page, w/250k followers, loaded w/fake core-baiting news mfrd by St Petersburg trolls & targeted at a few key TX blue-leaning districts that might have muddied results.
The Russian troll campaign was directed against Hillary, to help Trump, during the general election.
hindsight is 20/20.
Kerry could have done something different. Gore could have done something different. George McGovern could have done something different.
So what? Nixon’s campaign committed crimes to help him win. That’s what happened in 1972.
And no one said “well since McGovern didn’t do this and this and this and this let’s stop focusing on Nixon’s crimes since McGovern’s loss is his own fault.”
What happened to Democrats? What happened to Progressives?
Cognitive bias is difficult to overcome.
Does the elementary classroom with Chrome Books or other devices help or hurt? Does Google classroom help or hurt? I say hurt. Google Classroom sanitizes all work.
Our youngest students should be using their hands – writing – drawing – sculpting – knitting – whittling – etc. Enough of the tech. It is not building a better student – not at all. One of the many PARCC flaws is the insistence it be taken on computer. Later, once there is a mastery of the hands, introduce computers. Students will be more creative and in general more effective with these powerful devices.
I so totally agree. I have to go around the classroom closing the Chromebooks when students refuse to do so.
What do we lose when the day arrives that no one can write with a pencil any
My personal ignorant understanding of how it was rigged against Bernie and for Hillary is when he would win a state and get, for instance/example, 3 delegates and she’d get 7 even though she lost. Now, I’m making up these figures, but there were examples where he won and got less than she did, which never made sense to me. Then, there are those Super Delegates who were all in for Bernie. Bernie never stood a chance as far as I’m concerned because the fix for Hillary was in. God forbid she should run again in 2020 like our incompetent Prez is daring her to do. I did not and could not vote for Clinton. I did not vote for Trump, but I guess I’m just as guilty as those who did.
Obama did grave harm to education. So, where do we go? Repubs are awful and the Dems were awful insofar as education is concerned. Now we have DeVoid. Where do we go? Where do we go? Where do we go now?
My 2 cents, though I admit I’m politically ignorant – but man oh man – those delegates that should not have gone to Clinton certainly did, and made no sense sometimes.
Trump is a disaster. He is deep in trouble and pulling at straws, but we know his tactics and no one but Fox News and his 30% approval rating base is listening to him.
Those are some good examples. Others are the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brooklyn voters mysteriously disappeared from the voter rolls on primary day, the sudden rule changes at the Nevada caucus (and then trying to paint rightfully upset Bernie supporters as “rioting”), electioneering at polling places by Clinton staffers, multiple fiascos in California, Hillary having access in advance to debate questions, coordinated media attacks on Bernie (16 articles in WaPo in one day) and glowing hagiography in favor of Clinton, the coordinated use of “Bernie Bros” and other slanders to smear Bernie’s supporters as sexist and racist, David Brock, Media Matters and “Correct (sic) the Record”, the “Pied Piper” strategy to drive the Republicans as far right as possible (which is at least in part responsible for Trump getting the nomination), and probably dozens of others I’m not thinking about right now.
But of course none of that had any influence. It was all due to those $100,000 Russian Facebook ads.
According to Facebook, 126 Million people saw the Russian troll ads, which were intended to sow discord among Democrats, create hatred among different groups, and disable our democracy. I’d say they got their money’s worth.
The Russian ads in FB and the troll accounts on Twitter and Google were not pro-Hillary. They were pro-Trump. Putin hates Hillary.
I am fascinated by the people who profess concern for the hundreds of thousands of Brooklyn voters who “mysteriously” disappeared from voter rolls on primary day.
Question for you: What makes you so certain those voters were Bernie voters? It was a primary! In fact, when I look at the neighborhoods with the highest % of purged votes, the demographics of them are certainly not particularly pro-Bernie.
The innuendo that the NYC Board of elections could somehow identify which registered Democrat voters were going to vote for Bernie and purge them ranks with some of the other outrageous anti-Hillary claims that got her defeated.
That badly managed purge did disenfranchise voters. But there is absolutely no evidence at all that they were Bernie voters. In fact, the neighborhoods where they lived were not the ones that went heavily for Sanders.
^^It stuns me to hear from non-Brooklyn residents who are so certain that the borough where Hillary had her campaign headquarters didn’t have a huge Hillary base. She did. Bernie Sanders was popular in certain neighborhoods but it was not the white liberal neighborhoods where most voters were disenfranchised. Sigh. Hillary haters see corruption everywhere and just know she is behind all of it.
dienne77
We agree on a lot . On Russia we disagree . Given, a better candidate should have wiped the floor with Trumps head . But to move a few hundred thousand votes in a National Election with targeted ads is very possible . The Russians did nothing wrong from their perspective . They acted in their national interest which happens to be the interest of Putin and his oligarchy. What Trump did is the highest form of Treason . Colluding with a hostile foreign power to subvert our electoral process is the vilest attack on Democracy .
How do we know this to be fact . Trump and those around him show their guilt with every lie exposed . With every lapse of memory . With every contact they had with Russians .
Adoptions, the meeting was about adoptions. had Hillary said that she would have been hung already. Donald Trump is loyal to no one . Yet he wont say a word about Putin . Why ? When Putin is done with Trump , he is toast.
Hillary won the delegate majority without the super delegates.
In New York, where I live, crossover voting is not permitted, by state law. To vote in the Democratic primary, you must have registered 30 days in advance as a Democrat. The DNC had nothing to do with Hillary’s vote total in NY.
Don’t get me wrong. Bernie was an amazing candidate. He came from nowhere, was unknown outside his small state, and drew crowds of tens of thousands and raised nearly $250 Million in small donations.
Maybe he would have beaten Trump. He certainly did not have the baggage that Hillary had after 25 years of being the target of rightwing conspiracy theorists.
But I do not believe the DNC “rigged” the election. She got millions more votes than Bernie, and won more delegates without the superdelegates.
Donna Brazile has opened a Pandora’s box that Trump will exploit and use.
Completely on point!!!
That happened in 2008 with Obama. She won the popular vote in Texas, but he left with more delegates. I’m really sick of this double standard. If a man appears to be cheated, it’s a crime. If a woman appears to be cheated, it’s “just the way it goes.”
Yep. Also general anti-Hillary hatred and the willingness of Bernie voters to embrace every false flag about how he was “robbed”.
Bernie voters believe the DNC should have changed the rules that had been in place for a long time specifically for Bernie. It might be a good time NOW to discuss rules changes, but you don’t change rules right before a campaign season because one candidate (who isn’t even in the party) demands it.
…all in AGAINST Bernie…not all in for Bernie. Oy. Its late, I need sleep.
One of the ways the DNC “rigged the primaries,” under control of Wasserman-Schultz, was to disallow independents to easily vote for Dems in the primaries. This was a party decision, not a state election system. The DNC could easily have let independents vote Dem – as Republicans did in CA. So many, many independents could not vote for Bernie, or could do so only with great difficulty, confusion and misinformation to the voters with complicated “crossover ballots” as what happened in the CA primary (where I live). That’s one example. I believe many in NY were simple taken off the voting rolls.
How much $ actually got to down ticket races is, I guess, arguable at this point. Brazile’s numbers align with other articles I read before the last couple of days that documented that very little of it got back to the state races – where the majority of Dems lost. She did not fund or build up the DNC any more than Obama did.
Also the debates were an attempt to favor Hillary.
The Bernie campaign sued the DNC that went to trial after the election. I read some of the reports about it. The DNC basically took the position that while their charter said they were supposed to be neutral, they argued they didn’t actually have to be neutral. I don’t have links but I suppose it could be googled.
Kim,
I live and vote in New York. Hillary beat Bernie by about 300,000 votes in the Democratic primary, out of almost 2 million votes cast. It was not a close race. .
I did not hear of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people being removed from the voting rolls.
Most people who think the DNC rigged the nomination process understand that Clinton “won”: by 300,000 votes in the primary, but that it was the DNC’s orchestrations prior to the primary votes that paved the way for Clinton’s win. I totally see it this way. One of the top examples… the DNC set the rules not allowing independents to vote for Bernie unless they registered as democrats (and this is just one example). They should have allowed independents to vote in the primaries. So how many independents were unable to vote for their designated candidate? And yes, giving Clinton the debate questions in advance and allowing her to help determine scheduling dates clearly shows the DNC acting in ways THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE. Why would they do this? Most answer, to effect the outcome for the democratic nominee.
Artseagal,
Clinton is a very smart woman. She didn’t need to see any debate questions in advance. Shame on Donna Brazile for offering the question about Flint, as if HRC knew nothing about the big issue of the moment. You haven’t explained why she got 3.7 million votes more than Bernie.
Look, it’s over. Bernie was inspirational. Although he is not a member of the Democratic Party, he shook the party to its roots.
The question now is how to stop fake progressives like Booker and Cuomo from becoming the nominee. We need a genuine party of progressive ideas, not one that defers to the financial community. A choice, not an echo.
NY state made the rules for voting in NY primaries. Not the DNC.
Kim Kaufman,
Are you claiming that the DNC, in order to help Hillary win, enacted a special ruling specifically for the 2016 primary in which they said no independent voters may easily vote for Dems in the primary?
Please confirm that this is what you are saying happened. Because if you are angry because the DNC didn’t change a rule long in place to help Bernie win, then it seems like you are angry that the DNC didn’t rig the primary for Bernie but simply left the same rules it had in place for either candidate to win.
And that wasn’t the case in every state. In Utah, those registered unaffiliated could still vote in the Democratic caucus. I know, because my son, who is registered unaffiliated, did just that. He voted for Bernie, who did win here, but the fact remains that the DNC “rule” Kim is talking about wasn’t really true for every state.
Independents should not be allowed to vote in a Democratic Primary, unless they change their affiliation to Democrat. I am a registered Democrat and don’t think I should be allowed to vote in a Republican primary. Once again, because Sanders is a man, the rules need to be changed for him. You Sanders people need to get over it already. The majority of us wanted Hillary Clinton.
Depends on the state, Beth. In Utah, there are a TINY number of Democrats, so they allow unaffiliated voters. Republicans don’t allow them. That actually really drives down the rate of participation in voting, as the majority of Utah voters are unaffiliated.
I do not understand your claim– nor artseagal’s below– that the DNC ‘set rules’ regarding independent primary voting– in any state. CA’s election law allows each party to decide before each election whether to allow independents to cast a vote for their party’s primary candidate. That must cause confusion on a regular basis, but that’s your law. In the 2016 CA primaries, both Repubs and Dems allowed independents to vote for their candidates. NY & NJ both have had closed primaries for as long as I can remember. The difference is, if NY independents want to declare a party affiliation so as to vote in the primary, they have to do it by 30 days prior to election; in NJ we can do that right up to & including the day of election — so easier for us, harder for NY– DNC not involved.
P.S., the politically aware yet doggedly independent of my 2 sons declared Dem affiliation to vote for Bernie. He is not big on details or pprwk so it must have been very easy indeed. He wised up his more laid-back younger brother, who not only registered to vote in time to vote HRC, but hastily rounded up & helped register a dozen friends online — from his iPhone the eve of NJ deadline while at the NJDevils game that night. Easy!
I am just sorry the vitriol continues; andW the divisiveness —
I know nothing about the funding of all of these campaigns; but I have observations.
When Elizabeth Warren was running (within state) we had resources such as signs and telephones were supplied for the phone banking.
When HRC was running my colleagues said that resources were diverted into NH because that was a “battleground” state; we were rationed in terms of signs; occasionally we could “sneak over into NH” and pick up a dozen signs or so. Also, we had to bring our own phones from home (loaded with “minutes”)… and bring a lap top computer with the phone to connect through Hub Dialer. All of this our local residents were doing to support the campaign.
We are doing this again as it is municipal office elections… but in a presidential election I would hope that some resources would be provided. — you have to “capitalize” yourself in equipment in order to volunteer now ….. yet there are huge sums being spent. The other observation I have is that the politicians with “big names” won’t come out of Greater Boston to speak with us because we are on the NH border and it is seen as a “red” territory. Again huge pots of money but how is it directed?
There are other thoughts I have such as : a person who claims he is of Bahai faith and won’t join a “party” yet we have a two party system…. and (in some ways) to me that is like a person who won’t join a union and yet benefits from the union representatives who work on the district and state level . (again this is my personal belief ; I don’t want to get into the big argument I had last year about teachers who bailed out and voted for Jill Stein– some claim that is voting their “conscience”. but they were convincing other teachers to leave HRC behind after they were so angry about Bernie and that is proselytizing one’s own beliefs .. — no one talks about the fact that it took forever for Bernie even to get name recognition outside of New England — yet HRC will be blamed forever and ever and ever.).
Clearly there were some stupid allocation-of-funds decisions in the HRC pres campaign, esp misjudging/ neglecting rust-belt states. The petty fund-restrictions must have been maddening to MA people in the trenches on the NH border, yet seem sensible in context: NH barely squeaked thro w/.03 for HRC (MA 60-33 HRC).
Diane, you are making excellent observations. Both candidates signed the same agreement. Hillary Clinton, as usual, gets gored whenever she does something decent like bailing out the DNC. Somehow Obama managed to defeat Hillary despite her evilness and control of the process that guaranteed she would win! How did that happen?
Here is the bottom line. Using the term “rigged” makes it sound as if there is something ILLEGAL about what the Clinton campaign did or even what the DNC did.
When Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russians, it was ILLEGAL. It’s called breaking the law. If the people who keep insisting that Clinton is just like Trump want to work to change that law and say that presidential campaigns should be allowed to conspire with any agents of foreign governments who agree to help them, then by all means fight to change the law. But right now that is a crime.
When hackers broke into computers to help the Trump campaign, it was ILLEGAL. When the foreign government directing the hackers went to the Trump campaign offering to release those stolen e-mails to help their campaign in exchange for a “friendlier” policy toward Russia, that is ILLEGAL. When the Trump campaign obliged by changing the platform during the RNC as a quid pro quo, that is ILLEGAL. When the Trump campaign decided to hide what they knew about the involvement of Russia plus publicly state it never happened, that is ILLEGAL.
Those actions by the Trump campaign remind me a lot of Watergate dirty tricks. Both Nixon and Trump even fired the guys investigating them! That’s called obstructing justice and is also illegal.
George McGovern was a lousy candidate. Some people even thought he was corrupt and EVERYONE knew that he ran the lousiest campaign in history (until Michael Dukakis beat him out for that dubious honor).
Thank goodness the Democrats in 1972 didn’t decide that it was more important to punish McGovern than to focus on Nixon’s crimes.
We have a corrupt President whose campaign very likely did illegal things to win and more illegal things to cover up what they had done. Just like Richard Nixon’s campaign did. That corrupt President wants to convince Bernie supporters that every illegal action his campaign took is exactly the same as what the DNC did to Bernie. It is not.
Can you imagine if the Dems had helped Nixon out by insisting that all the crimes his campaign committed were no different than what the Dems do all the time and let’s keep the focus on the Democrats faux “crimes” instead of Nixon’s?
Here is what the DNC did not do: They did not hack into Bernie’s campaign computers to illegally obtain dirt. They did not make Bernie’s wife’s financial doings with her college a campaign issue. They did not try to make Bernie out to be a left wing terrorist lover. Some low level staffer discussed some nasty characterization Hillary could make about Bernie’s religion but she did not do it. The DNC not suddenly change the rules of the game to benefit Bernie by eliminating superdelegates. Just like they did not suddenly change the rules of the game to benefit Obama by eliminating superdelegates.
They did have a debate on Saturday instead of Sunday.
“Thank goodness the Democrats in 1972 didn’t decide that it was more important to punish McGovern than to focus on Nixon’s crimes.” excellent point…. living in MA and voting for McGovern at that time I saw him as the anti-war candidate; it took the country a little bit longer to catch up with MA on that issue (anti-war)
If the Bernie bros were around in 1972, they would have kept saying “The Watergate burglars didn’t change any votes and Nixon won by a huge margin, so let’s stop talking about Nixon’s crimes and focus on what is important — how terrible and awful McGovern is and how corrupt the process that elected him was and how many “crimes “were involved in getting him the nomination.”
I’m never too swift at thinking or writing hypothetical counterfactuals — but I am certainly agreeing with your depiction here. Thanks
and I still believe that they will persecute (and by they I mean all of the people who are critically judgmental) persecute HRC — I also think we are in a mass psychosis as depicted in the play “Rhinoceros”. and the psychosis takes various forms — and it shifts.
The issue today is not Hillary but 1) the future of the Democratic Party; 2) surviving Trump’s assault on the environment, public schools, etc.
Donna B may sell books, but she has p,urged us back into arguing about the past instead of dealing with the present and future.
I can certainly agree with this; that is why I went to the Elizabeth Warren rally today and she actually thanked ME when I should be thanking her. I am not going to force her to run for the Oval Office however; I want her exactly where she is — in the Senate — and I want another dozen or so with her… right now , about the future, today all I can do is work on the municipal elections and that means school committee and city council; I have spent the last 6 or 7 weeks on that (6 days a week) and we will start on Wednesday to remove the governor (Baker) even though he has 80% favorability — I am in the 20% who doNOT favor him; and we have to start right away about the replacement of Niki Tongas and there are 8 who want her seat; there is a Caucus in Feb. but we are starting today…. That is why I pointed out the “absurd” psychosis that we find ourselves in today. — and what can we do about it? well it I get the turnout for Tuesday Nov. 7th.
Donna B may sell books, but she has p,urged us back into arguing about the past instead of dealing with the present and future.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Thanks, Jean. The future of the nation begins with state and local elections. Democrats ignored them the past decade and are paying a price.
If the Democrats squabble endlessly about who did what in 2016, the only beneficiary is Trump.
amen to that; my friend from Malden just said the same thing about “squabbles”; her husband was assistant superintendent here before he retired and she is well aware of the “dark money” and the “Kipp” people trying to take over their local elections for school board. My City is ok as far as “dark money” not being the problem but people who are running on the board get smitten by terms like “innovation” school and they don’t know that the state means by that : “get rid of all local school board” and replace the school board with CEO types who are appointed and who don’t even live in your district. We have a huge education issue to get people acquainted with these euphemisms for “charter” or privatization. At least my conversation told me with Suzanne Bump the state auditor that she knows what is happening. Our state auditor called them to account that they have no definition of “innovative” , they have no operational measures for innovative and I sent that along to Bill Phillis because that is what he has been saying about OH as well.
Diane, are you noting NYCPSP’s use of “Bernie bros”? I hope that you and she remember that next time she’s feeling “attacked”.
Dienne,
I don’t read every word everyone writes, especially if they are regulars. I suggest you ignore annoying comments. I do so with great frequency.
dienne77,
Are you kidding me? I am not even referring to you when I say Bernie bros and you whine that I’m using a term you don’t like?
Did you even read my post about keeping the focus on Trump?
Every time someone uses the general term “Hillary bot” anywhere in a post should I assume it is personal attack on me and ask Diane Ravitch to ban that person?
Or do you have a double standard?
First of all, I’ve never asked Diane to ban you, just that it would be nice if she could point out when you are being hypocritical by attacking others while whining about being attacked, which Diane would do in a heartbeat if she disagreed with you, but not since she agrees with you.
Second, “Bernie Bro” is far more offensive than “Hillary Bot”. The latter implies someone who is robotically programmed to always defend Hillary no matter whether a charge against her is true or no matter how heinous the charge is. That is simply an accurate description. “Bernie Bro” is more in line with the Hillary equivalent of “vagina voter”, the implication being that people who support Bernie only do so because he’s a man and we’re bigoted against women. I’m quite certain that Diane wouldn’t allow “vagina voter” to be slung around, so it seems to me that “Bernie Bro” shouldn’t be either.
But then, it’s not my blog.
” “Bernie Bro” is far more offensive than “Hillary Bot”. ”
Truly, dienne77, I believe you have jumped the shark.
Can you please post a list of terms that are acceptable to you and not acceptable?
I can’t say Bernie bro but when you and your pals use the term Hillary bot it is perfectly fine.
I truly never realized there was that distinction. mea culpa.
Please do continue to use the term Hillary bot all you want because it does demonstrate everything I believe about your double standard.
NYCPSP, while I agree w/many of your points, your narrative of Dem Party history does not wash:
“George McGovern was a lousy candidate. Some people even thought he was corrupt and EVERYONE knew that he ran the lousiest campaign in history (until Michael Dukakis beat him out for that dubious honor). Thank goodness the Democrats in 1972 didn’t decide that it was more important to punish McGovern than to focus on Nixon’s crimes… by insisting… the crimes his campaign committed were no different than what the Dems do all the time…”
In fact no one thought McG corrupt; the consensus was he was too honest, decent, & starry-eyed idealistic for national politics. But the party did indeed punish him– or more accurately themselves, continuing the pre-nomination circular firing squad by centrists like Humphrey & Carter. Subsequently Dems went opposite every McGovern policy, fathering the third way death of the party.
McGovern was the prophetic Goldwater of our party, everything he stood for based on trends that were obvious to him– radical at the time, in full evidence now. Diff Rep/Dem? Reps saw Goldwater’s platform as the future of their party, & worked to normalize those ideas into the mainstream party. Meanwhile Dems ignored the demographic & economic trends that McGovern identified, la-la-la’ing their way into today’s hollow echo of obsolescent centrist-Rep platform.
Sure McGovern made a couple of large campaign bloopers but that’s a moot point, FDR himself couldn’t have beat an incumbent in a booming [pre-oil embargo] economy. The dope Dems should have known that and planned for the future of the DEM party laid out by McGovern [as Reps did post-Goldwater]. Instead they ran one neolib after another (incl Dukakis), & if you don’t think Carter was one, remind yourself about huge capital gains cut, deregulation, fiscal austerity, monetary restraint: gatway torickle-down Reagan-style.
The nature of current Dem intra-backbiting is ironic to me: just like post-McGovern it’s all about winning & nothing else. How could DNC know to actually listen & respond to voters needed to fill in their already super-narrow majority– inner-city & rural poor alienated by unfulfilled promises, underemployed youth & out-of-work blue-collars? Dem Party abandoned the New Deal in 1972.
The DNC’s “rigging” may or may not have affected the outcome, but it’s clear from leaked emails that the DNC did violate their charter by favoring Hillary, secretly coordinating with the campaign. This was why Tulsi Gabbard resigned in protest and the DNC fired top staff.
The DNC internally discussed anti-Bernie narratives, like saying he was an atheist in the Bible belt while they told the public they were staying neutral in the race. Tom Perez himself pushed the narrative that Bernie supporters were more male and white than was the case.
The DNC also enlisted “friendly” media to push untrue narratives, such as a Nevada “thrown chairs” incident that never actually happened. Rachel Maddow ran with the story, but it was revealed in wikileaks that her bosses at MSNBC secretly met with top DNC brass about two weeks before.
The details of the 33-state “Victory Fund” are also coming out now in mainstream media. This was a legal loophole that allowed Hillary to collect billionaire donations way over the allowable limit by first routing them through dozens of DNC state funds.
The Bernie campaign cried foul on the eve of the NY election, but the media sat on the story. Leaks later showed Hillary’s lawyer Marc Elias relieved when he convinced Nick Confessore of the NY Times not to write about the story.
The scandal as I see it was that the leaks showed proof positive this was going on, but Hillary, Brazile and the media refused to acknowledge it, which alienated a key voting bloc in all-important swing states. Bernie himself forgave everything and implored his supporters to vote for Hillary, but some did not. Trump maximized the impact of the leaks at his rallies, luring some Bernie and Obama voters away from Hillary.
Post-election, Hillary would blame her loss on the leaks, but Brazile’s admissions today suggest a decision to distance herself and the DNC from the Clintons, seeking to regain the trust of the independents who boycotted Hillary and the DNC.
Some low level staffers discussed anti-Bernie narratives that were NOT used. Instead of realizing that demonstrates the attempt to be neutral, the Bernie bots grabbed it as proof of bias.
If the DNC had “favored Hillary”, why didn’t they actually act on all the things that some lower level staffers talked about in emails. The Russians didn’t release any exonorating e-mails, of course. Only innuendo and smears.
The higher ups at the DNC always have a preferred candidate. No doubt they ALSO preferred Hillary in 2008. You have to be pretty gullible to believe that 2016 was the first year ever that any DNC employee had an opinion about a candidate. for gosh sakes, there was plenty of insults thrown on Hillary, too. It didn’t mean they were anti-Hillary.
Don’t forget, you saw NONE of the e-mails in which the higher ups said “we don’t do that kind of thing”. You saw only the e-mails trying to show a “rigged” process. And they found almost nothing! People throwing out ideas that were obviously shut down.
I suspect someone also gave heads up about debate question ideas to the Bernie campaign. Do you know why? Because Donna told the Clinton campaign that there would be a question asking what Hillary would do to help the people of Flint. It’s almost laughable because even my kid knew that there was going to be a question about Flint’s water supply. But the question Donna told Hillary was NOT asked. Instead, the question was whether each candidate would “make it a requirement that all public water systems must remove all lead service lines throughout the entire United States.”
Bernie seemed to know all about lead service lines. I’m sure that was just luck since the Russians didn’t release selected emails from his campaign to make him look bad.
They absolutely did act on the anti-Bernie narratives, manufacturing the “Bernie bro” attack and pushing it off as news. We can see which media outlets colluded but there were also multi-million dollar social media campaigns paying everyday people to go out on blogs and push a ” Bernie is a sexist” narrative through a billionaire funded astroturf PAC called Correct the Record run by David Brock. Not illegal but a major turn off of swing state independent voters she would later need badly.
It was also a conflict that DNC lawyer Marc Elias told DNC staff to call Bernie a liar for pointing out the 33-state “Joint Victory Fund” loophole to voters. You would think he would be disbarred for this type of cheating, but it turns out Elias was the same guy that secretly slipped 11th hour legislation into the infamous “Cromnibus” bill vastly increasing the amounts billionaires (on both sides) could donate to campaigns.
It’s also painful to admit because it was uncovered by James O’Keefe, a deceptive partisan hitman who I despise, but a subcontractor working for the DNC named Robert Creamer was caught on video saying they hired people to instigate violence at Trump rallies, taking credit for Chicago’s cancelled event.
I object to superdelegates any year, on any side, that let party loyalists cancel out the votes of 10,000 real people. What was new this cycle was that the superdelegates were never before “secured” so early, putting any challenger – Bernie, O’Malley or anyone else – at a 20% disadvantage before the first vote was cast. The 33-state fund enabled the campaign to use money to reward down-ballot candidates to persuade (or threaten) superdelegates and that’s pay-for-play of the worst order. This is not fair or acceptable and must not be normalized or apologized for.
^^^I also love your rabid insult of the “corrupt” Rachel Maddow.
Her bosses at MSNBC told her to report this invented story about made up chairs in Nevada in order to help the Clinton campaign, with whom they had met 2 weeks before.
And Maddow said “of course, I’ll be happy to report on anything that makes Bernie look bad and helps Clinton because whatever my bosses tell me to do, I happily do, even if it means I am lying.”
Sometimes I think these are Russian trolls who want to convince us that Rachel Maddow is a liar who will report made up stuff just to please her bosses who are rabid pro-Hillary supporters who told her to do so.
Here’s what jake jacobs actually said: “The DNC also enlisted “friendly” media to push untrue narratives, such as a Nevada “thrown chairs” incident that never actually happened. Rachel Maddow ran with the story, but it was revealed in wikileaks that her bosses at MSNBC secretly met with top DNC brass about two weeks before.
Here’s hoe NYCPSP distorts what jake said: “^^^I also love your rabid insult of the “corrupt” Rachel Maddow.”
Seriously, Diane, at this point I can’t even blame NYCPSP – she clearly can’t help herself. But for you to allow it does not look good on you.
dienne77,
Seriously, what exactly is implied when someone says
Rachel Maddow” ran with the story….her bosses at MSNBC secretly met with top DNC brass about two weeks before…” ??
Please correct my interpretation of what I’m supposed to understand from that remark.
You think it’s fine to use the nastiest of innuendo and attack someone and then deny that’s what you were doing.
Please, tell me what jake jacobs INTENDED me to think by that comment about Rachel Maddow. Because I believe I read the comment exactly as it was intended.
So instead of doing your usual and attacking and attacking, I challenge you to tell me YOUR interpretation of what that comment was supposed to mean.
Or your silence will speak volumes.
There’s nothing at all “implied”. It’s a fact that Rachel Maddow ran with a false story about chair throwing “Bernie Bros” in Nevada. It’s a fact that her bosses at MSNBC secretly met with top DNC brass about two weeks later. Those are documented events. What you draw from that is up to you. Apparently what you draw from it is corruption, something only you have said.
Incidentally, had there been a false story about Hillary supporters throwing chairs, and had the journalist and/or his/her bosses be found to have met with Bernie’s campaign before that, what would you call that? Would that be “corruption”? Would pointing out such facts be considered “innuendo”?
Bottom line…Donna Brazile has a book to sell. The fact that she is resurrecting something that’s already been well-explained — no, there was no “rigging” of the Democratic primary — suggests strongly that her character is rather one-dimensional.
We can debate the past forever. We should focus on the future. The DNC still has not learned its lesson. They are talking unity while they the purge the left leaning members from key roles in the DNC. They are still fighting each other rather than the Republicans and ALEC.http://inthesetimes.com/article/20627/dnc-purge-ellison-perez-bernie-sanders-left-center
retired teacher,
You are smart. THANK YOU!
Retired teacher, I’m w/you. I get the dispiriting sense that DNC is not fighting the good fight, just a self-defeating struggle by now-old-timer neolibs to hang onto their power w/n the group despite multiple losses [to Repubs & ALEC]. Any corporate leader would have been fired after losses parallel to the hundreds of lost Dem elections since 2010! I see this reflected in House & Senate: lukewarm political will to move up likely contenders for Pelosi & Schumer leadership. Tho I have affection for both of them– & they are probably fine in terms of maximizing minority votes against Rep proposals– it worries me that there seems to be nobody lined up to lead Dems in a different direction. I fear that reflects the party’s continuing refusal to correct the course, to give up the Third Way nonsense once & for all, & figure out how to embrace the alienated/ underemployed young & old middle/ working class voters– & the sick &/or aging under-insured/ insecure re: safety net. They’ve already got the upper-class coastal social liberals. Get moving already!
Sorry Retired, but an article by an intern is hardly evidence of some cosmic scheme to “purge” all Sanders supporters form the DNC.
It’s important to remember that Sanders was never a Democrat until just before he decided to run and “hijack” the Democratic party. Prior to that, how much money did Sanders raise for the DNC? How deep was his commitment to the Democratic party?
Clinton was never my favorite politician, but this Donna Brazile nonsense needs to stop.
Like I said, she has a book to sell. And she’ll hype it any way she can.
Sad.
Going forward, it’s important to realize money is not the fuel that should drive a party because it comes from billionaires with strings attached, like charter schools or tax cuts for Wall Street. Who cares about money if it is going to consultants? And if it’s all going to giant media to pay for ads, will that guarantee a win on Election Day?
Finally, if a party does not welcome new blood, how will they ever grow in numbers and win?
In terms of supporting public education, where does the DNC stand? Where do the state Democratic party leaders stand? From what I can see, neither the DNC nor state leaders are apologizing for the eight years of RTTT imposed by our former President or implicitly supported by the 2016 nominee. Clearly Ms. DeVos is a disaster… but would John King have been an improvement? Was their any indication that HRC was going to nominate a Secretary of Education who would change course? Looking backward is not going to help public schools push back against the “reform” movement… and if neither the DNC nor the state Democratic party leaders are willing to do so public education advocates might need to look elsewhere. From what I can see it is not just the children who are being left behind by our current political parties… it is the private sector and public sector employees as well. As Paul Simon wrote a long time ago:
“Laugh about it
Shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Any way you look at it you lose”
Too bad Joe DiMaggio can’t run for office….
Two of our National Treasures: Public Schools & Public School Teachers have been slammed and used by both parties.
Right you are. I suppose I’m starting to sound like a broken record on this thread. But it seems to me the time is now for Dem voters to start pushing for non-Third Way representatives. The party’s abandonment of the New Deal & pushing of Rep-lite strategies have bought us nothing, nada, zip, culminating in all 3 branches of govt dominated by Goldwater-style conservatives.
Out w/ the New Deal bathwater went appreciation/ support for public goods including public education. In w/Third Way came anti-union measures in every labor-intensive endeavor– a byproduct of automation/ digitization in part (uncompensated by publically-supported re-training/ jobs pgms), but exacerbated by whole-hearted 3rd-way Dem support for global trading deals & fin dereg. Currently in ed we suffer zero regard for public-goods compounded by Third-Way buy-in to automation/ digitalization/ privatization of that which is not automatable/ digitalizational/ off-shoreable, resulting in dumbing-down/ worsening of ed results.
Can we convert the Dem party? Maybe not, while politics/ policy is dictated by big $. The place to start, IMHO, is pushing for campaign reform/ legislating around Cit-United decision.
Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) just sent out this petition:
……………………..
Did you see yesterday’s news about the DNC? Tulsi resigned as vice-chair of the DNC when she endorsed Bernie Sanders because it was the right, ethical thing to do. She was attacked by the establishment for doing so, and for calling for reforms. Now revelations that the primary was rigged as far back as 2015 make Tulsi’s call for DNC reform all the more urgent, but she cannot make this change alone. We need your voice too.
Sign Tulsi’s petition calling for real DNC reform: open primaries or same-day registration, and an end to the undemocratic system of superdelegates.
Together we can make the changes needed to return the Democratic Party back to the people.
Mahalo,
Team Tulsi
Subject: The primary was rigged
We just heard from Donna Brazile today about how the DNC had already chosen its nominee over a year before the primary election had even occurred. After my call for more primary debates was summarily dismissed, I was disinvited from the first debate. I resigned as DNC Vice Chair shortly after in order to endorse Bernie Sanders. I stepped down because, unlike some, I believed in upholding the integrity and unbiased approach that is supposed to exist within the DNC. Clearly, some in the DNC thought otherwise.
[Add your name to our petition calling for DNC reform. It is essential that we fight back against the corrupting influence of special interests in the DNC.]
Our campaign finance laws are broken and have only served to weaken individual candidates while empowering political parties and special interests. These laws essentially allowed the Clinton campaign to bypass individual campaign contribution limits by funneling millions of dollars through the DNC and State parties, taking control of the DNC in the process.
Along with the recent purge of Sanders and Ellison supporters from the DNC’s Executive Committee, today’s news is further evidence of a party and a campaign finance system that needs to be completely overhauled and reformed. The only way this happens is if we, the people, bring this change about. There is nothing more important to making this change than your voice. The DNC needs real reforms that empower the people, and take our party back from the special interests of a powerful few.
We must ensure open primaries or same-day registration to encourage more involvement in our democracy. The DNC must get rid of the undemocratic system of superdelegates, who have the power to swing an election, making up one-third of the votes any candidate needs to secure the nomination. In short, we need to break the influence and control that a few special interests and party insiders have consolidated, and instead empower the voices of the people.
[Sign our petition to reform the DNC. All of us must take action together to return our politics to serving people, not profits for the few.]
No more games. No more retaliation. No more picking winners and losers. We must act now to take back our party—a party that belongs to the people—and fight for a new path forward that is open, transparent, accountable, inclusive, and that actually strengthens our democracy.
Aloha,
Tulsi
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/25455469/hawaii-senator-honored-by-charter-school-group
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/hawaii-senator-honored-by-charter-school-group/
“The chairwoman of Hawaii’s Senate Education Committee is among seven lawmakers honored nationally for championing public charter schools.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools named Sen. Jill Tokuda as one the elected officials nationwide who have worked to advance the growth and success of charter schools.
Tokuda and the others were honored at a reception Tuesday in Washington, D.C.”
Rhinoceros — Ionesco — we can’t always make sense out of absurdity
“It has been compared to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, but Animal Farm is about power corrupting Russian communists. Rhinoceros is allegedly a parable about French collaboration with the Nazis. A comparison to Albert Camus’ The Plague is perhaps more appropriate. Both The Plague and Rhinoceros evoke the French response to the Nazis, but more interestingly today, they describe a human response to creeping transmogrification. Both seem rooted in an existentialist tradition, which is as much about the futility and absurdity of the human condition as it is about our historical capacity for cruelty.”
The theater of the absurd describes Trump’s administration perfectly.
AMEN, retired teacher. Well put. Thank you.
C’mon, now. One of the biggest theme of this blog is how money can literally buy influence, but it’s downplaying or outright ignoring how the DNC rigged the primaries.
There were already hints with the small number of debates scheduled at times likely to have less viewers, then there were the superdelegates that pledged support before caucuses and primaries, and finally there were issues with polls being closed or not enough polling places in Rhode Island and Arizona. Now there’s evidence on hand on how the money was used as leverage against the DNC (because, as many would argue, they cannibalized Obama’s funding structure while dropping the grassroots organizing aspect and it blew up in their faces).
The biggest piece of evidence is the party’s influence in Clinton’s 2000 New York senate run. There was a lot of speculation that some big names were considering a run and then were convinced otherwise to pave the way for Clinton. Cuomo is one who then got the full backing for his gubernatorial run. But there is also state rep. Lowey who verifiably stepped aside for a Clinton run.
I got a lot of respect for the people here and this blog, but it’s obtuse to think votes, even millions, can’t be influenced with strategic action and planning given all that is known about money in education.
I suggest watching this TYT – who broke the Brazile debate story – explanation.
Great video. Well worth watching. Thanks.
“One of the biggest theme of this blog is how money can literally buy influence…..”
Exactly. Yet somehow now (and when Hillary gets $250,000 per secret Wall Street speech) it’s a horrible, nasty innuendo to suggest that money buys influence.
If someone pays for something, they own it. To voted for Hillary in NY but I would have voted for Bernie. Bernie couldn’t afford to bailout the DNC, because Bernie didn’t made loads of money speaking on Wall Street. If the DNC was rigged, that IS a problem, and bringing it out to the open is a first step toward change.
Bernie is a great spokesperson. But he does not really care to help folks do the hard to make the party effective. I have had personal experience of that in campaigning on limiting interest charges on credit cards and payday loans.
Donna Brazile is looking for a way to get back into main stream media. She should assume responsibility for her incompetence and stop looking to the DNC as a scapegoat. She was as much a part of Bernie’s demise as Debbie Wasserman Schultz. What I find curious is that both woman sacrificed their careers for a woman who didn’t have their back.
Do others agree that Donna Brazile’s purpose in writing this is to get back into main stream media? Is she trying to position herself for the upcoming elections as being in the anti-Clinton camp? Does she think people will forget she gave Clinton’s campaign questions that were going to be asked during the debates?
It was very apparent to me that the local Democratic party machine was in it for Hillary. I got emails from local party leadership asking us to come out for HRC fundraisers, etc but never got anything from the Bernie groups. When I asked why, I got a bumbling response saying of course they were remaining neutral during the primaries.
What got me was despite the fact that Bernie kept winning primaries, Hillary’s lead would get bigger because of the super delegates. Those super delegates were made up of DNC people. Let’s face it; he never had a chance. And Brazile is just as crooked as the whole lot of them.
Sanders was an Independent for many years. I don’t see how anyone could expect that the DNC would offer him the same support as the former First Lady of a Democratic President.
Especially after HRC’s campaign took over the DNC…a full year before voters could vote in a primary.
Yeah, Bernie wants it both ways. Spew out progressive policies that won’t fly right now and be a candidate of a traditional party that believes in incremental change. If Bernie wants to be considered seriously, become a demo. As for Warren, she’s a novice compared to Clinton she will Learn too.
Thank you for your honesty! So you’re admitting that the DNC was not an honest broker. Whew, finally some common sense!
Hace un año que terminaron las elecciones. Basta con esta locura.
Es necesario discutir estas cuestiones para que exista una mayor información.
I just saw the title of an article in the Washington Post that began, “A Year After the Election…”. It’s been a whole year since the election. I can’t believe how time flies.
Great back and forth above. Full disclosure: I voted for Bernie and think Hillary has been a phony in service of her political ambitions for decades. And Brazile should hide herself forever in shame. I ask readers of this blog to speculate on the following questions:
1- Has Hillary been positioning herself for a third run in 2020? (Is she orchestrating a draft Hillary campaign?) BTW: Where is Huma Abedin these days?
2- What will Bernie do, especially given the credible view that the machinery leading to the Democratic party’s nomination was rigged against him?
3- How will Elizabeth Warren’s run for the 2020 gold play out in terms of her relationship with Hillary? There can only be one woman to break the ceiling.
Warren has a higher level of credibility than Hillary, and she does not have Hillary’s baggage.
Warren’s education Assistant is TFA. They are strategically placed on the staff of almost every member of the education committees in House and Senate.
“she does not have Hillary’s baggage”
Sure, and neither did Al Gore or John Kerry. That didn’t stop them from being characterized — like Hillary — as two of the worlds’ biggest liars.
And of course, Kerry was a traitor. And of course, like Hillary, his career was because he was corruptly given advantages like a medal of honor he didn’t deserve. Scandalous how much the US Army was corrupted to make sure Kerry got an award he didn’t deserve.
By this time in 3 years you will have many American voters who are certain that Elizabeth Warren is the devil. Or that whoever is the Dem candidate is.
Bernie Sanders didn’t get that treatment because he wasn’t the candidate and the right wing attack machine was focused on Hillary. If he had been, you would have half the country believing HE was corrupt.
Do you have any idea how many people believed John Kerry was a lying and dishonest traitor and coward? Enough to defeat him so an unpopular, failed President could be re-elected. And everyone thought he would be immune from those attacks.
Hillary is not running in 2020.
Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are, probably Biden.
Does any of them have a clue about education issues?
Well, I hope Hillary has enough sense not to run in 2020. After being defeated by a half-term junior senator from Illinois and then by Donald Freaking Trump, one really should get the message. Not entirely convinced that’s true though…. We shall see.
In any case, the most frequently mentioned candidate possibility I’ve heard is Cory Booker, whom I believe is currently the Establishment-approved favorite. I’ve also heard Kamala Harris mentioned a fair amount, along with occasional hints at Maggie Hassan or Claire McCaskil. Can’t imagine the DNC would let bumbling Joe Biden attempt another run, plus he’s a white man, so that doesn’t do anything for the diversity aspect.
Seriously doubting, though, that Bernie would run. He’ll be about 80 by then. Honestly, I don’t think he really wanted to run this time. I’m guessing his successor might be Keith Ellison or Tulsi Gabbard.
Warren may try to position herself as the “compromise” candidate between the Hillary wing and the Bernie wing.
“Clinton bailed out a bankrupt DNC. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was incompetent. Where is the scandal?”
Controlling the money is controlling the direction.
For progressives, the scandal has always been the Clintons’ neoliberal (“Third Way”) takeover of the Democrat Party since 1992, making it a more Wall Street/Corporate party than ever, while decreasing its policies (but not its lying rhetoric!) which helped the working class since FDR.
See these:
Clintonites Still Denying The Primary Was Rigged Proves They’ve Never Cared About Facts
View at Medium.com
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC | Portside
http://portside.org/2017-11-03/inside-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-secret-takeover-dnc
DNC Rigged the Primary, Can Progressives Fix the Party?
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20375
Elizabeth Warren: The Democratic Party Needs to Be Held Accountable http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20374
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on Donna Brazile’s DNC Bombshell http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20366
Calling for Real Reform, Ellison Says DNC ‘Rigging’ of Primary ‘Cannot Be Dismissed’ | Common Dreams
Article: Brazile Revelations Make it Clear. Obama, Hillary & DNC Cost Dems Senate, White House, SCOTUS | OpEdNews
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Brazile-Revelations-Make-i-by-Rob-Kall-Crooked-Hillary-Clinton_Democrats-DNC_Donna-Brazile_Hillary-Clinton-171103-271.html
Very interesting. Would like to see Brazile’s reply, but I won’t hold my breath.
I agree, there was no reason for Brazile to charge Hillary with co opting the party. Seems that everything is Hillary’s fault or Pelosi’s fault with the demos being unable to appeal to their base. Brazile probably wanted to spike her book sales and she did for a minute but at what cost? It’s time to work for that vote we lost last election instead of pointing fingers like trump and whenever trump is quoting you as correct, you know you’re wrong
We need to unite centrist democrats with progressives. Part of that means having a democratic party we the people trust, not one that feels like it is working for Wall Street and big contributors. Like they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Donna Brazile brought the sunshine. Now let’s start again, with the truth, and build a winning team.
It amazes me how supposedly intelligent people can read the same article and come up with diametrically opposed opinions. Now we have Trump.
Thank you for not adding your words to those of this petulant and sarcastic little rant. Your decision to end rehashing 2016 should extend to this type of stuff as well. When politicians and their scibes serve people before themselves, party and donors we will be better for it and this whiner will get a job at Kinkos.
Which rant were you referring to? There are so many, I can’t keep track.
Cripes sake y’all. The forecast is for a rapid descent into authoritarianism with a significant probability of nuclear war. Keep on rearranging those deckchairs.