Glenn _Greenwald

Photo: Elizabeth Flores/Star Tribune/AP

Members of the Democratic National Committee will meet on Saturday to choose their new chair, replacing the disgraced interim chair Donna Brazile, who replaced the disgraced five-year chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Even though the outcome is extremely unlikely to change the (failed) fundamentals of the party, the race has become something of an impassioned proxy war replicating the 2016 primary fight: between the Clinton/Obama establishment wing (which largely backs Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who vehemently supported Clinton) and the insurgent Sanders wing (which backs Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Congress, who was an early Sanders supporter).

The New Republic’s Clio Chang has a great, detailed analysis of the contest. She asks the key question about Perez’s candidacy that has long hovered and yet has never been answered. As Chang correctly notes, supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that he is materially indistinguishable from Ellison in terms of ideology (despite his support for TPP, seemingly grounded in loyalty to Obama). This, she argues, is “why the case for Tom Perez makes no sense”: After all, “if Perez is like Ellison — in both his politics and ideology — why bother fielding him in the first place?”

The timeline here is critical. Ellison announced his candidacy on November 15, armed with endorsements that spanned the range of the party: Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raúl Grijalva, and various unions on the left, along with establishment stalwarts such as Chuck Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Harry Reid. He looked to be the clear frontrunner.

But as Ellison’s momentum built, the Obama White House worked to recruit Perez to run against Ellison. They succeeded, and Perez announced his candidacy on December 15 — a full month after Ellison announced. Why did the White House work to recruit someone to sink Ellison? If Perez and Ellison are so ideologically indistinguishable, why was it so important to the Obama circle — and the Clinton circle — to find someone capable of preventing Ellison’s election? What’s the rationale? None has ever been provided.

I can’t recommend Chang’s analysis highly enough on one key aspect of what motivated the recruitment of Perez: to ensure that the Democratic establishment maintains its fatal grip on the party and, in particular, to prevent Sanders followers from having any say in the party’s direction and identity:

There is one real difference between the two: Ellison has captured the support of the left wing. … It appears that the underlying reason some Democrats prefer Perez over Ellison has nothing to do with ideology, but rather his loyalty to the Obama wing. As the head of the DNC, Perez would allow that wing to retain more control, even if Obama-ites are loath to admit it. …

And it’s not just Obama- and Clinton-ites that could see some power slip away with an Ellison-headed DNC. Paid DNC consultants also have a vested interest in maintaining the DNC status quo. Nomiki Konst, who has extensively covered the nuts and bolts of the DNC race, asked Perez how he felt about conflicts of interest within the committee — specifically, DNC members who also have contracts with the committee. Perez dodged the issue, advocating for a “big tent.” In contrast, in a forum last month, Ellison firmly stated, “We are battling the consultant-ocracy.”

In other words, Perez, despite his progressive credentials, is viewed — with good reason — as a reliable functionary and trustworthy loyalist by those who have controlled the party and run it into the ground, whereas Ellison is viewed as an outsider who may not be as controllable and, worse, may lead the Sanders contingent to perceive that they have been integrated into and empowered within the party.

 

But there’s an uglier and tawdrier aspect to this. Just over two weeks after Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign — the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban — launched an incredibly toxic attack on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. “He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” pronounced Saban about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”

Saban has a long history not only of fanatical support for Israel — “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel,” he told the New York Times in 2004 about himself — but also an ugly track record of animus toward Muslims. As The Forward gently put it, he is prone to “a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry,” including when he said Muslims deserve “more scrutiny” and “also called for profiling and broader surveillance.” In 2014, he teamed up with right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson to push a pro-Israel agenda. In that notorious NYT profile, he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and said: “On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.”

There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.

The DNC headquarters was built with Saban’s largesse: He donated $7 million to build that building, and he previously served as chairman of the party’s capital-expenditure campaign. Here’s how Mother Jones’s Andy Kroll, in a November profile, described the influence Saban wields within elite Democratic circles:

No single political patron has done more for the Clintons over the span of their careers. In the past 20 years, Saban and his wife have donated $2.4 million to the Clintons’ various campaigns and at least $15 million to the Clinton Foundation, where Cheryl Saban serves as a board member. Haim Saban prides himself on his top-giver status: “If I’m not No. 1, I’m going to cut my balls off,” he once remarked on the eve of a Hillary fundraiser. The Sabans have given more than $10 million to Priorities USA, making them among the largest funders of the pro-Hillary super-PAC. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential campaign, he vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to elect her. …

The ties go beyond money. The Clintons have flown on the Sabans’ private jet, stayed at their LA home, and vacationed at their Acapulco estate. The two families watched the 2004 election results together at the Clintons’ home, and Bill Clinton gave the final toast at one of Cheryl Saban’s birthday parties. Haim Saban is chummy enough with Hillary that he felt comfortable telling her that she sounded too shrill on the stump. “Why are you shouting all the time?” he says he told her. “It’s drilling a hole in my head.” Clinton campaign emails released by WikiLeaks in October contain dozens of messages to, from, and referencing Saban. And they show that he has no qualms about pressing Clinton and her aides on her position toward Israel. “She needs to differentiate herself from Obama on Israel,” he wrote in June 2015 to Clinton’s top aides.

When Clinton, during the campaign, denounced the boycott movement devoted to defeating Israeli occupation, she did it in the form of public letter to Saban. To believe that Democrats assign no weight to Saban’s adamantly stated veto of Ellison is to believe in the tooth fairy.

Saban’s attack predictably spawned media reports that Jewish groups had grown “uncomfortable” with Ellison’s candidacy (the ADL pronounced his past criticisms of Israel “disqualifying”), while whispers arose that the last thing the Democratic Party needed to win back Rust Belt voters was a black Muslim as the face of the party (even though the Detroit-born Ellison himself is from the Rust Belt).

As both Chang and Vox’s Jeff Stein have argued, the fact that DNC chair is a largely functionary position, with little real power over party policy or messaging, is all the more reason to throw Sanders supporters a symbolic bone. If Democrats were smart, this would be the perfect opportunity to capture that energized left-wing movement without having to make any real concessions on what matters most to them: loyalty to their corporate donor base.

But it’s hard to conclude that a party that has navigated itself into such collapse, which deliberately and knowingly chose the weakest candidate, who managed to lose to Donald J. Trump, is one that is thinking wisely and strategically. As Chang persuasively argues, it seems Democratic leaders prioritize ensuring that the left has no influence in their party over strengthening itself to beat the Trump-led Republicans:

The same could be said of today’s battle over the DNC and the push to install a loyal technocrat like Perez. This reluctance to cede control comes despite the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 state legislature seats since 2009. There is no case for Perez that cannot be made for Ellison, while Ellison is able to energize progressives in ways that Perez cannot. The question that will be answered on Saturday is whether Democrats have more urgent priorities than denying power to the left.

That view, one must grant, is deeply cynical of Democratic leaders. But — besides fearing the wrath of Saban — what else can explain why they were so eager to recruit someone to block Keith Ellison?

If the plan to sink Ellison succeeds, the message that will be heard — fairly or not — is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing influence is a critical goal. In other words, the message will be that the party — which to date has refused to engage in any form of self-reckoning — is steadfastly committed to following exactly the same course, led by the same factions, that has ushered in such disaster.

Top photo: U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison during a press conference at the Farview Recreation Center in Minneapolis, Minn., Nov. 30, 2015.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us 

Contact the author:

Glenn Greenwaldglenn.greenwald@​theintercept.com@ggreenwald

Leave a comment

After this election of Perez, even more people are leaving the Democratic Party. And there you go!
I became unaffiliated with the democratic party after it stuck a knife in Bernie’s back, slipped questions to Hillary, and after Hillary tried everything to get people to look at “RUSSIA” instead of her incriminating emails. I can’t believe they were so shocked that Hillary lost. Hello?!?

Handing over leadership of the party is “throwing a bone” to Sanders supporters? Really? Just a little, tiny thing that doesn’t matter much, yet a bunch of you are ready to leave the party over it? Disingenuous and hypocritical. If Bernie hadn’t made this a proxy war and insisted that Ellison was the only possible guy for the job, Ellison would have won. People had an issue with the loser of the primary trying to take over the party. Ellison was really good about communicating the need for unity. He emphasized how he had campaigned for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general, he stressed many of the social justice issues that are near and dear to Hillary supporters’ hearts, in addition to the economic issues that are Bernie’s territory . If the far left had backed off and let Ellison present himself as a unity candidate, he would have won. But no – they had to present it as the Sanders wing gaining control, issue threats about leaving the party if their guy didn’t win and attack the purity of the other candidates and their supporters. It was a losing strategy in the primary and a losing strategy here. I know the folks who love Bernie love him so much that they believe being tied to him can only be a good thing, but huge parts of the party ( and country) don’t love him. Many blame him for the loss in November. You can’t argue that belief away. Just know that you have to win some of those people over to get the numbers you need and stop being jerks. Ellison did a really good job of doing that. He was hamstrung by his supporters.

Heather, did you not just read the article? I noticed you didn’t respond to anything Glen wrote…

I wonder if you ever took into account the latino vote. Maybe its time we have more representation and have more voters than blacks. I wouldnt have been to eager to vote for Ellison.

Mitch, we WERE paying attention but by that time it was too late. Obama will be seen by historians as a left’ish Republican. Completely owned by Wall Street banksters. For me, the lesson of my party since 1980 is dig deeper than the establishment talking points. Pelosi says “There’s no reason to change” (paraphrasing) and that’s the end of that. How completely blind and deaf is she? Smears of Ellison by the enormously wealthy Jewish donor-class aren’t surprising in the context of where the Democratic Elites are. Sad, but true. I’ll change my affiliation to Independent straight away. btw, Republican Lite loses. every. single. time. Democrats win every time because they act and speak like Democrats. get a clue, Democrats?

A failed political party that is continuing down that path of being controlled by corporations and picking people to lead the party who cant gain the support of PROGRESSIVES. Trump did not win. The Dems lost because PROGRESSIVES like me would not turnout for the same corporate status quo slop and corporate dems still theink they can win without us. Eventually after they lose more elections they will figure it out. In the meantime there is no organized and effective opposition with alternative policies. Dems cant win by demonizing Trump.

Gotta love the Democratic party. They never pass up a chance to shoot themselves in the dick!

I just printed out the voter registration forms for my state (Cali).

My family and I (all 4 of us) are registering as independents today.

Goodbye Democratic party.

Consider the platform and infrastructure of the existing people’s party… GREEN.
we just initiated our new chapter of the Greens… relatively easy to do– and many Bernie (and Occupy) and recovering Democrats are in it!!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDu7jw04NPkUng2tT2Tictw?

We really were NOT paying attention when Obama named Eric Holder to be Attorney General after the tax-avoiding Wall Street Too Big to Fail\Jail execs went begging the Cheney-Bush-Treasurer Hank Paulson administration in 2008 for a tax-payer bail out. Former Goldman Sachs co-worker of Steve Bannon and the current U.S. Treasurer Steve Mnuchin, namely W. Bush’s Treasurer Hank Paulson gave Wall Street and the Too Big to Fail\Jail corporations our tax-payer money to cover their DE-REGULATED BUSINESS LOSSES and called it TARP.

Bush-Cheney-Paulson’s TARP didn’t cover U.S. the small business owners and wage slaves. So reform candidate and Chicago Community Organizer Obama’s choice for AG was Eric Holder. Slick Mr. Holder came from and soon returned to the prestigious law firm that represents the biggest PREDATORS on WALL STREET (look it up on Wikipedia).

AG Holder found no grounds for any criminal prosecutions of the fraudulent business modelers or the legally liable corporate officers. I tuned out the Tea Party and Koch Industries Propaganda for the next 7 years as they kept shouting “OBAMA’S A COMMIE!”

The only socialism allowed in U.S. is the ruling CORPORATE CALIPHATE’s SUBSIDIES FOR EXXON, CON AGRA, MONSANTO, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, PFIZER, NOVARTIS, GLAXO-SMITH-KLINE and of course all those DADDY WARBUCKS HIGH TECH WEAPONS SELLERS where the costs\risks of doing bid-net are shifted to the Public and SOCIALIZED while the PROFITS are PRIVATIZED!

To restrict your criticisms to one political party or another or one billionaire or another, to even play the LABEL game of Lib\Con, Right\Left, Holy Roller\Ayn Rand Secular is to play into the DIVIDE & CONQUER strategy of the 1/10th of 1% who substitute their PRIVATE INTERESTS for our PUBLIC INTEREST and swear loyalty to Neo-Liberal E-CON even if they are CONswervative!

That small group of 1/10th of 1%ers and the larger 9% that ENABLE them through corporate-captured broadcast media, cyberspace and as SOCIAL CONTRACT SHREDDING INDEPENDENT CON TRACTORS has returned U.S. to FEUDAL SERFDOM like we were before FDR was pushed by the GREAT DEPRESSION into a Working Class-building program called THE NEW DEAL. Back during the days of Robber Barons and Mass Peonage called Wage Slavery or just old-fashioned FREE LABOR VIA SLAVERY!

Look it up or keep following Trump’s Friends of the Working Class (White or otherwise) filling his swampy cabinet!

Like the non-profit REAL NEWS NETWORK that posts to You Tube reported last week after investigating the mysterious billionaire Trump campaign donor that didn’t get a cabinet appointment, namely Robert Mercer and his Hedge Fund CEO daughter Rebekah Mercer after 2 years of ALT WHITE RIGHT WORKERS LEFT BEHIND campaigning and platform-building by hustling Goldman Sachs\Harvard MBA CON-sultan Steve Bannon first at BREITBART now in the White House:

“In the end, there are no workers, or little guys on the Trump team. Only the allies of rainmakers Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the billionaires whose political hedge pushed Donald Trump into the White House.”

http://therealnews.com/t2/inde

{Creative Commons Copyright}
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion List

Black and Muslim that does not make a good kosher moment in many venues of America

BLM

Tell me why less than 2 percent of the US population should be the only voices that matter in political (or any other) considerations.

William,

Follow the money.

Forget democracy….the old ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ format is clearly in charge…and that’s a shame.

Perez is in because he’s a Dominican Republican.

Peonage System…. The predominantly Spanish Slave System that the DNC wants to perpetuate…. Just like in every Spanish-descending country.

Gotta pay 19,000,000,000,000 in national debt … or ~64,000 per capita. If you own a house and actually pay it off, the government will take it from you peons so you can pay for it all over again.

Because they’re scared of Muslims and AIPAC. That’s why.

Dems will lose again in 2018 because of this. Mark my words. Perez is a corporatist.

Why not let the Bernie’s run the next election? A reality strike would be good for them.

Either Sanders or Warren would have walked away with that election by at least 10 points.

The Democratic party chose the weakest candidate it has EVER fielded (McGovern included) just to keep the party firmly in establishment hands, and they got beat.

This party is taking it’s last breaths, and I for one am happy to watch it go.

Ellison is a fan of Farrakahn. That’s enough for me, although maybe not a disqualifier for the anti-Israel crowd.

Electing Perez was a BIG MISTAKE….Guess I’ll stay Independent

You know who is out there energized and organizing the major protests? Hillary-lovers. As far as being the weakest candidate, she is the most admired woman in the world with more experience than Sanders. Sanders voted for the Iraq war too. Kurt Eichenwald’s list of what was in the Trump team oppo files – which was very thick – indicate what the Repuglicans were going to highlight, and it wasn’t pretty. However, even with all of that, it’s time to move on. Hillary is gone. Bernie’s doing his thing. Get past the DNC’s mistakes from last year, we have these two leaders now who won’t make them. Infighting will do nothing to help fighting the real Monster, Trumputin. Please stop dividing a house against itself.

“Sanders voted for the Iraq war too.”

No, he did not support it nor vote for it. The rest of your comment is historical revisionism and wishful thinking, as well.

This is why we don’t trust Hillary and her blinkered followers – the lying and deceit is pathological.

Um, no. You can stop pushing the lie about Bernie Sanders and Iraq. There were two distinct AUMFs, one in 2001 (shortly after September 11) which passed almost unanimously, which both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton voted for, which was for “the use of military force against terrorism”. The AUMF which authorized the invasion of Iraq was in 2003, and Clinton voted for it while Sanders voted against it. (If Clinton had been actually representing the people of the state of New York, which was her job as Senator, she would also have voted against it — by 2003, over 60% of New York residents had come down from the 9/11 shock and realized that they didn’t actually want war. Clinton wanted war, though, as she always has — a few weeks ago I ran across an article in which people who knew Clinton in college came forward and said that she was even against anti-war protests during the Vietnam war. She really is scum.)

It’s amazing how you “journalists” with the intercept are still not getting it. Or atleast your not making me think you do, with the exception of Glenn Greenwald. He seems to have some greater perspective.

Everyone is so concerned with Russian influence on our elections but nobody bats an eye at Israel’s vastly disproportionate influence on our political processes…..

In analyzing the fanatic and immoral fight against Bernie Sanders by the Democratic Party establishment during the primaries, I said that the Democratic Party establishment might rather have Trump for president than Sanders (better a fascist than a socialist as far as those people are concerned). The latest developments on this show that they would.

Bernie was in on it! Clear as Day unless your asleep!

That’s a tin hat nutcase comment. Sanders is more conservative than I like — he’s definitely no Dennis Kucinich — but I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that Sanders was a part of the Democratic Party establishment’s work to keep him from getting nominated.

If the most important issue for the DNC really is Israel, then they couldn’t be happier with the present situation. In losing the election, it’s so much easier now for them to look like they are fighting the good fight (vs. Trump) while they act in their own self interest in relation to their benefactors. This must be what Hillary meant by her public vs. private face.

i think the most important issue for the DNC is their grip on their traditional power-base. like the RNC, their sense that the ground is shifting under their feet makes them freeze rather than take a step forward.

While some of the concerns are valid (Saban influence, etc), the general worldview expressed about “establishment democrats” continues the Sanders campaign based on puritanical intolerance, and absolutism. Greenwald continues the current “progressive purity tests” and the demonization of anyone who doesn’t meet these ideological purity tests. It’s “us vs them”, the “true progressives”, the “pure progressives” versus the corporate whores like Obama, Clinton, Barney Frank, Boxer, etc. They are the establishment, they are evil. Understatement of the year award goes to Greenwald here, saying: “That view, one must grant, is deeply cynical of Democratic leaders”. “Cynical” doesn’t come close Glenn, HATE might be more accurate. It’s puritanical ideology that is utterly devoid of the realities of governing or the realities of cultural evolution clearly portrayed throughout history. Obama, the Clintons, and the rest of the “corporate democrats” Glenn and the “pure left” demonize don’t have the luxury of such willful ignorance. They actually have responsibilities!

While I largely agree with ‘leftist’ policies, the worldview embodied by Sanders, Greenwald, etc is far more invested in their own self-righteous catharsis than embracing the reality that revolution is not an event, it is a process. It’s a slow process, that requires compromise and choosing one’s battles. A messy process that includes frequently taking a few steps backwards before going forward again. I’m deeply saddened to say I will be supporting candidates to the right of my ideology, due to the fact, I cannot support the puritanical intolerance(hate) and narcissism currently forming the basis for the “progressive movement”. It’s the same mentality as the far right, tea party, etc…just a different ideology. No thank you.

You are not alone in that – hear, hear! That mentality more than any interference by the DNC derailed Bernie and any alternative to Hillary. Extremists drowned out more reasoned voices in the Bernie camp with their singular obsession with all things HRC – facts and fiction in equal measure.

They forgot what they were for being so drunk on Hillary hate. It became difficult at times to distinguish the vitriol of the radicalized right and extremist left on that score. Appearing to be more against things than for anything in particular – save for being against things – is anarchy not activism.

I hope they’ll grow up before they hand Debauched Donald another election. 3 states and 100,000 votes — hope it was worth it.

While I largely agree with ‘leftist’ policies

Which policies are those? Name a few, please. Here’s the list, just point out which ‘Leftist’ policies do you support?

1. Indefinite detention
2. US Citizen kill lists
3. Drone strikes on civillians
4. No Prosecution of Wall St. banks that caused 2008 collapse.
5. NSA/CIA evesdropping on US citizens
6. Endless War (bombing 7 Muslim countries)
7. Supporting dictators and anti-democratic governments with Military support.

Please, do point out which of these policies are Leftist?

The Democratic Party tried “pragmatic” politics the last 8 years — an approach where you demand nothing, and only request watered-down, half-hearted approximations of what you might kinda sorta almost be willing to settle for if nothing better was forthcoming, and the result was what any sane person would expect: the Democrats got nothing, and their voters decided it wasn’t worth showing up to the polls.

The Democratic Party needs leadership who makes real demands, who starts negotiations from hard-line positions and demands sacrifice from the opposition, rather than the base. To people who are incredibly stupid — like, apparently, you — this looks like “purity tests”, because you seriously think it’s a good idea to ask for nothing and be satisfied when you only get kicked in the ribs a few times, instead of many (which is what happened with Obama, and what Clinton wanted to do, too). So much ground has been lost thanks to an unwillingness on the part of Democratic candidates to at least act like they have a spine that it is now very difficult to answer the question “what has the Democratic Party actually done for the country?” On nearly every front the answer is “nothing, they rolled over and let the Republicans do what they wanted”, and the only positive answer is “they got mediocre health insurance for some, but not all, uninsured people, by letting the parasitic industry make a guaranteed and vastly overinflated profit off of those who already had insurance”.

That’s the kind of leadership you’re championing, there. The fact that the Democratic base stays home in ever-greater numbers every election is somehow an inexplicable mystery to you — presumably, when you spill a glass of water, you are also unable to explain why the table is suddenly wet, because that connection is just as obvious.

SHIT HER I SAY’t it.
You can’t beat iron into the the wanted shape after nincompats had ther hands at it. The dnc needs to be added to the pile of corruption and some one with uncompromising skill helped to guide a progressive new era

Not to worry. American politics is so polarized that, depending on Trump actions in the next several months, some kind of civil war, not necessarily country-wide but nevertheless widespread at the onset, is likely. That would certainly result in a Wall Street collapse that impacts pension and investment funds your mortgage and seniors depend upon, but also put critical infrastructure spending on the back burner even as it is dramatically weaken by the conflict.
So what has this got to do with Perez? Simple, it accelerates the polarization that will result in the revolution nobody will win — not in our lifetimes. Russia and the Middle East oil monarchies will, nob doubt, be blamed for the ruin, meaning the chance of global war speeds up unless China intervenes and gives the President the ammunition needed to, opposite of what most think, prevent outright total war. That’s my instant unedited version and not deliberately thought out reaction; sort of like the Hippies were right after all in warning major political and social and economic changes were absolutely necessary but, unfortunately, they quickly forgot their roots in order to buy more of the useless stuff they initially rejected. So it is will politics, especially Democrat politics, in the US of A. The GOP never considered surrendering the need for more stuff and that’s what makes them winners in American eyes.

If you are still debating or arguing who, what , when or whatever about the past election , nothing is going to change , we will have a right wing fascist running the country . We need to create a coalition that includes everyone even thou we don’t think exactly the same . We will have to share with others the power , for the common good of the ordinary Americans . We need to agree to elect someone as our candidate that will represent all of us , we need to form a coalition against the one that the ultra right wing formed for the one percent . Stop the stupidity of my guy is better than yours and let’s get on with the coalition of the 99 percent.

Why can’t democrats shut up and sit down the way they tell Republicans to?

Obama fails the party again, good riddance wall Street Dems, never a vote for you at any level ever again

If Hillary is running again in 2020 then it would be stupid to have Ellison as DNC chairman. Wolf Blitzer and Fake Tapper would have to hand-carry the questions without alerting Wikilikipedia.

That’s Wolf Shitzer, General Hercules. Come on, get it right! ;)

If Hillary is running again in 2020, and doesn’t get laughed out of the room the minute she declares, then the Democratic Party will lose so many members that they’ll be able to hold their convention in a broom closet.

There goes 2018.

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/05/democrats_51/

Glenn Greenwald did a piece at Salon. Com titled The Impotence Of The Loyal Partisan Voter.

I invite those persons who think splitting the Democratic Party is the wrong solution to read it.

Greenwald does not advocate splitting the party. Or at least, hasn’t historically. But blind obedience to party ensures one thing: Impotence.

Destruction/Rebirth is a natural cycle, even in politics.

Considering the hate, intolerance and narcissism displayed by the “pure left” in this article’s comments section, I plead with you…please, please split from the democratic party and start your own cult, I mean, party. I’m sure Susan Sarandon is available as your first nominee for President.

I’d love to split the party. No prob. Dems are poised to lose in 2018 anyways.

However, if it’s cults your looking for, then Clinton’s got the monopoly on that. She’s not well like around here.

The author forgot to mention that the major donors for Hillary
Is actually Goerge Soros
and Saudi

How is that come together in this “plot”?
Or maybe, just maybe
The DNC is saving it self from becoming the voice of radical Islam?
Yes, Brother Muslim movement IS radical islam

If at first you fall, fall fail again. Insanity is defined as doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.

Here we go….let the drama begin..
“Third party”!
“Bernie and Eliison” should “break” away…”
“Clinton” same as Trump.
Cause ya know, Bernie has not been in the establishment ( whatever’s the fuck that is ), he’s just been in government is entire adult life, longer than Hillary.
News flash, thrird parties mean nothing,zero….
The DNC and the Democratic Party will not change overnight,deal with it… it takes slow and deliberate steps.
Bernie lost. Get over it

Devin, your few facts seem to be wrong; and I think your entire comment is reminscent of paid establishment shill.

Impact of the introduction of a third party into American politics:
Obviously, this fundamental change to the American electoral framework would result in very significant to seismic changes in the politics of the country.

It looks like it is going to happen.
But not before an avalanche of comments on public forums, a very significant proportion of them will come from ‘manipulating special interests’, who very much like the way it is now, with them and their kind having 90%+ of the money, even though they are less than 1% of the population.

The outcome of the Democratic presidential nomination process:
Either:
1. the nomination process is blatently non-democratic (where the unmanipulated will of the people does NOT determine who the candidate will be,
or,
2. the nomination process was ‘fixed'; i.e. subverted by ‘manipulating special interests’, who, however you define then, are likely to have a very significant difference of preference for government policy than what would be best for 99% of the population.
Bernie has a much, much better challenge to the outcome of the Democrats nomination than Hillary does for the electoral outcome.
So as long as the entire ‘Democrat’ … community, will “Get over it”, that being the loss of the election, then I guess there is no point in not getting over the (now sustained) corruption of the entire Democratic party apparatus.
Huh?

Spot on, Dean! I find myself digging my heels in even further whenever I encounter someone with a smugly dismissive “get over it” attitude. Please keep telling me/us that we’ve no chance for success–PLEASE! We need naysayers to push aside as we head off to accomplish that which they say we can’t.

i imagine the DNC voters are the same political gene makeup as the electoral college voters…not very courageous or responsible.

Bernie would have won. We’re not going to shut up. Deal with it. Get over it.

Did the DNC appoint Ellison said to help the party or to contain him? Stay tuned.

I can’t believe you all think this is hard to see through. Of COURSE this is all about excluding the Bernie Sanders supporters and keeping everything same ol, same ol. More than anything, it’s about making Obama emperor. Not sure why they are all so infatuated with Obama, an idiot with a failed presidency. But whatever, they seem to think he is the savior of the Democratic party.

Good luck with that. It’s all over but for the burying.

There is one reason to choose Perez, cynical as it may be. He’s Latino, which the Washington Post was happy to emphasize in their headline about the DNC chair election today. Given that Latinos are a larger and therefore more desirable constituency than Muslims, that’s all the more reason for establishment Dems to use the same kind of identity politics to pander.
In fact, it’s the same race-oriented strategy Perez recommended to Hillary himself in the Wikileaks emails. Coincidence that he won?

And let’s be honest, some Dems are even squeamish about defending Muslims at all because of people like Saban.

Donormaster of Clinton Dems is also mastermind of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Steve Bannon made a fortune from Seinfeld. Who gave Saban the idea for Power Rangers? Who taught Seinfeld everything he knows? You guessed it: Vladimir Putin.

Dems are Dead- TIME for MASS EXODUS now, finally….Corporate Dem Leadership pick Establishment candidate Perez for DNC! Surprise?#DemExit DEM ADIOS join in the DEM EXODUS and GreenEnter… http://www.GP.org
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDu7jw04NPkUng2tT2Tictw

If the ‘establishment’ is a progressive Latino who worked as a garbage collector to put himself through an Ivy League college, maybe the establishment has been transformed from within.

Great article; very brave to state the facts in these times.
I saw one post suggesting that this, yet another ‘fixing’, following a consistent patterm, is a blessing in disguise.
The Democratic party is not redeemable.
Maybe a new party will be corrupted quickly, but one can hope that real democracy can still work in the U.S.A., even for a short period of time.

Looks like the only real democrat is in the White House already.

I’m struggling to imagine who that is; the WH cook?

Anyway CIA,corporations & global elite run this place…..

Ellison & Perez are both establishment….much ado bout nothing…. Both parties suck….. With trump & clinton pedo parties w/ Epstein & George H Bush voting Clinton…. They all truly suck….and are aligned…..

Bingo! How people still don’t see the dance is amazing.

With Perez at the helm of the DNC, the only viable option for progressives/liberals is to leave the Democratic party.

Ellison and Sanders should split off now.

The New Liberal Party; Deep Blue.

Yeah, let’s splinter the party in two so Republicans can win even easier!!

Some of TI’s political hypochondriacs need to chill, I didn’t think you were one of them.

Why not splinter the party? The Clinton cabal, which now has consumed the entire party infrastructure, doesn’t like us, doesn’t respect us, even said explicitly, in the last election, that they didn’t even want our votes, not if it would prevent them from picking up “moderate Republican votes”. That didn’t turn out so well for them, but they’re doubling down on it.

What do you think we’re going to get out of the Democrats now that they have officially confirmed that they really want to be Republicans? A coalition forms when there’s a sense of quid pro quo, and the left has been giving a heck of a lot of quid without getting much quo in return, for the last three decades, and now that’s official policy. We might as well try to influence the Republicans as the Democrats — and turning the Greens into a competitive party, impossible though that seems, is probably easier than either one.

And how many third parties have succeeded in having significant, sustained electoral success in the past 200 years? Exactly one, the Republican Party, whose ascent to power was followed immediately by the Civil War. There are fundamental reasons why our Constitution virtually mandates that only two parties will compete for power. When you start dreaming of breakaway parties, you are dreaming of defeat and dissolution. In pains me to say this, because the Democratic Party leadership sickens me. It will be up to the Party’s rank and file members to drag them kicking and screaming into the future.

We’re. Already. Losing.

There is no longer a carrot to dangle in front of the left’s nose. Your idiot party broke it in two and threw it away over a decade ago.

Let me give you a metaphor: imagine a nation which has nuclear weapons which is facing mass starvation, and which has no viable cropland for whatever reason (rising sea levels, poor soil management, whatever). They can either let the country collapse with most people dying horribly of starvation, or they can attempt nuclear blackmail — “feed us or we will preemptively nuke you” on the rest of the world. They have nothing to lose.

The Democrats already decided that, even if they win, they aren’t going to listen to the left. Clinton resisted even putting climate change into the platform, and fought tooth and nail to try and stop a minimum wage increase (and succeeded in getting it capped to $12 instead of $15, which is the minimum required for a living wage in any substantial urban area). We’re screwed if they lose, and we’re screwed if they win. Why should we care whether or not they win? They’re not our friends, they actively hate us, the leadership at best sees no difference between left and right (otherwise they wouldn’t have formulated a strategy to alienate the base in hopes of picking up Republican votes — which was quite explicitly a thing, as Schumer explained during the runup to the election) and more likely actively wants to be right-wing. What do we get out of supporting them? And if we get nothing, what sort of idiot does that make someone like you for suggesting that we should support them anyway?

You won’t get me to defend the Clintons and their tools.

See my response to Deschutes below.

No, you’re wrong. You’re still stuck in ‘lesser of two evils’ thinking, which guarantees that nothing will ever change. It is abundantly clear that we are now at a breaking point with a dysfunctional 2-party system that can no longer function properly and is in crisis. Now more than ever before is the time for a new 3rd party to be built which is more in line with progressive thought and values, by and for the people instead of the oligarch controlled dem/repub duopoly.

The “lesser of two evils” thinking recognizes a fact that you do not. In a two party system, refusing to vote for the lesser is tantamount to voting for the greater of two evils. That is how we ended up with the disaster known as President Donald Trump. Thanks for that. Future generations will curse you for your ideological purity.

My view is that the Democratic Party will have to be changed from within. We can already see it happening. Progressives are gaining in numbers and strength. I expect that there will be primary challenges from the left to establishment Dems in coming elections. This is how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party.

LoTE thinking on the part of voters leads to parties deliberately planning to be just slightly less evil than the opposition. The Democrats have spent the last 50 years first moving the party to the right by a mile at a time, then a yard at a time, then a foot at a time, then an inch. Clinton and her moronic cohorts were out there with micrometers for the last few years, searching for ways to move the party further to the right, even just the tiniest little fraction, knowing that the foolishness which is LoTE thinking would keep idiots like you voting for them. They screwed up — a lot of people who they assumed would turn out to support the Lesser of Two Evils came to their senses and realized that the Lesser of Two Evils is still Evil, and didn’t bother to show up at the polls.

LoTE theory just doesn’t hold up in the real world; the idea is that everyone will vote for what is ideologically “closest” to them, but they don’t: in the real world, an overwhelming majority of people vote for the party they’ve always voted for, no matter how compelling the other party may be — the only change which happens in large numbers is that people may decide not to vote. Polls suggest very, very strongly that that’s what has happened in the U.S.: most people would probably vote Democratic if they turned out, based on policy positions, but the Democrats have, at this point, three decades of history of struggling as hard as possible to alienate anyone who theoretically agrees with them in order to chase “moderate Republicans” who, according to polls, don’t really even exist. Result: people who agree with the Democrats may show up once or twice, but they very quickly realize that it’s a waste of time and stop bothering.

Chuckle…I’m not. But I do hate the Democratic Party. But as we were just shown, their problem cannot and will not be solved internally.

They’re going to lose anyway in 2018. Splitting now will hasten the reform and most likely will rejoin later minus the Clinton Effect.

It’s either that or get a Tea Party Left going and primary every Clinonite still in office.

It’s time to Purge The New Democrats and the Clintons once and for all.

I’m open to any ideas.

I think that’s a very good idea.
They should split and have they own party. If you sincerely believe the party doesn’t represent your interest even when an election is between Clinton and Trump, that means your beliefs and principles are not debatable and your interests are more important than having a Republican administration.

At the same time Clinton supporters do not have to soften their beliefs because of you neither. So, a split is a fair solution.

Trump is not a Republican (traditionally). He’s a destroyer or nationalist. He’s never had the backing of Republican leadership. I do prefer him over Clinton because he is a destructive force.

Too many years have gone by with Congress and the courts walking in lock-step to create an Executive branch that is authoritarian curtailing civil liberties. Obama has institutionalized all of GW Bush’s shifty policies.

At least with Trump in the Whitehouse, he will force Congress and the Courts to challenge the Executive branch on its authority.

My principles are that the Executive branch is too dominant and civil liberties have been curtailed too much from 9/11. And it’s been the Obama administration and the Democrats who are to blame for the institutionalization of those bad policies.

Trump is going to pick at least one and probably more judges to the SCOTUS that makes it even less likely that the courts will change course on civil liberties or the power of the executive branch. Your analysis is faulty.

Uh huh, so, there’s also Congress. The courts have already killed the Muslim ban and Congress is already talking about investigations. This includes Republicans. These sort of things tend to slow down government, don’t ya think?

So, you might want to wait a little bit before you unilaterally declare victory on the future for everyone. Let’s see what Congress does.

…”My principles are that the Executive branch is too dominant and civil liberties have been curtailed too much from 9/11. And it’s been the Obama administration and the Democrats who are to blame for the institutionalization of those bad policies..”

This is true.

In fact, before Dick Cheney left, he told Obama, you’re going to enjoy the expanded powers of the presidency. And he did.

Are you poor or barely able to pay your bills? Do you depend on Obamacare or Medicaid for health insurance? Do you receive Social Security or Medicare benefits, and if not now, do you hope to receive them at some time in your life? Do you have children who attend a public school? If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then why would you speak so positively about Trump as a “destructive force.” The whole notion that things have to get worse before they can get better is mostly bullshit. Usually, things just keep on getting worse, and real people suffer as a result.

I like Trump being a destructive force so Congress and the courts will have to consider and hopefully rescind or restrict some of the executive branch’s authority.

The courts have already struck down the Muslim ban.

With any luck, he’ll take out some of his anger on the CIA and reduce their domestic surveillance activities.

Newsflash. This party splintering has already taken place (see Trump) and will likely accelerate. What the results will be remains the unanswered question.

I think you’re underestimating how equally divided the Republican Party is. You’ve got Republican congressmen actively calling for Trump to be investigated for ties to Russia. John Kasich was so disgusted with Trump that he wrote in John McCain on his ballot.

I think that a third political party could rally a lot of support from both camps.

Why is it a bad idea?

If a democrat stayed home when choosing between Trump and Clinton because Sanders lost, then her beliefs and principles are more important than having a Republican administration (even one run by Trump!)

Clinton supporters do not have to negotiate with that unyielding democrat neither. So, a split is a good solution.

If the Democratic Party lost because leftists stayed home, then it only goes to show that the Democratic Party needs to stop kicking leftists in the teeth and start listening to them.

The whole Clinton campaign, from start to finish, was a race to push as far to the right as possible. She chose an anti-choice, pro-fossil-fuels, pro-banks-and-Wall-Street creep for her VP. She put a fracking industry rep in charge of staffing. She constantly gave speeches hinting that she wanted an outright war with Russia (which would screw us all immediately) and fought tooth and nail against putting any economic or foreign policy planks in the platform which were even slightly left of being right of center. (She admits that climate change is happening, but didn’t want to have that in the platform!)

This has now been revealed as a losing strategy. Do you really think it’s a good idea to stick with it?

Clinton presented her plan, Trump presented his. The lefties said they would not accept her plan even if that meant Trump would become the President of the US. That means lefties’ do not believe their principles are opened to negotiations.

The same way lefties refuse to listen to Clinton supporters, then Clinton supporters do not have to listen to the lefties.

So, a split is a good idea.

“That means lefties’ do not believe their principles are opened to negotiations.”

If we did, then our principles wouldn’t be principles.

Principles are fundamental truths and foundational propositions, not negotiable instruments, tactics, or strategies.

“The same way lefties refuse to listen to Clinton supporters. . .”

That’s a very broad generalization.

Many of us have listened very carefully to them and her – and more importantly, have seen what she did – and are revulsed by the hypocrisy, war-mongering, and obsequious service to power in violation of our principles.

Listening to and subsequently rejecting an opinion or suggested course of behavior that violates one’s principles is not “refusing to listen;” it is living-up to one’s principles.

“. . .then Clinton supporters do not have to listen to the lefties”

Of course they don’t, but they can, and they can decide whether to accept or reject or even listen to our opinions guided by their own principles.

“So, a split is a good idea.”

Maybe, or it may be a bad one.

The dems are still peddling neoliberalism, and it is quite fair to deduce that Obama would never push Perez unless he advocated TPP and hence world investor governance.

I am NOT an undercover cop

Minnesota is a virtual hive of all the nastiest, inbred and cliquish breed of progressive maggots in the country. I would suggest it was this state alone that destroyed the Democrat party.

It is literally full of white Rachel Dolezal type ‘feminists’ and ‘activists’ who play dress up with all the new immigrants and say “see, I am ethnic like you!” and whose main function is to cockblock any actual progress, and maintain their lockup on the narrative, and the positions of power that support their narrative.

The university system, the media stream, and the institutions are crawling with these types, and their version of alternative diversity. They are very dependent on federal diversity dollars, and of course, the Jewish Federation overseas all of the diversity initiatives, ensuring tat AIPAC and zionism are alive and well anywhere they are.

And the true definition of insanity is….oh, and speaking of insanity, how about those constant new settlement plans?

45 years about people! THIS lady said give me a chance to work within the DNC. How long must we wait? 2000 years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AsUOKYByBc

This was easy, as I thoight about it this morning: the Dems care more about party than the country.

Rep Ellison was empassioned, while Perez felt forced.

Alexandra Pelosi shot, in my opinion, her worst ever documentary, about why certain donors cotribute. Mr Saban said the same thing as Glenn Greenwald wrote – that Israel was his only concern, and of course, he wasn’t buying influence and expected nothing in return.

The corruption of the Democratic Party is another consequence of Citizens United and the unfettered influence of large, monied interests on elections.

Campaign finance reform is the ONLY issue that matters because absolutely nothing will change without it benefitting large, monied interests.

That really explains why Netanyahu was against Clinton.

The Dem’s corruption started way before Citizen’s United. We can thank Bill Clinton and the DLCC for that. Bill’s love affair with the Bilderbergers, and the shift to neo-liberalism is when it began in earnest. Clearly the Clinton wing and the DNC establishment types LOVE that big money. HRC’s call to “get money out of politics” was tarnished by her run with the aid of how much super-PAC money? The Dems seem intent on suicide as a party. Choosing Perez may be the razor that opens their veins once and for all. The two-party system is a failed experiment, since the two parties are virtually indistinguishable.

Well they’ve made it clear. Blocking the left is more important than winning. Not even removing a fascist is more important than spooning with Goldman Sachs.

I’m only an outsider, but believe me, you folks don’t need those idiots. It’s time to get busy, form a new Party, and get down to the business of making sure you hold the new President to 4 years, since he’s pretty much put the lie to everything he campaigned on. Forget about silly nonsense like impeachment and re-elections, and spend the time in solid resistance and building up a good, strong contender, from anywhere but inside that useless Democratic party (the small “p” was intentional).

It’s always easy for an outsider to say things like that…..

With all that’s been said about the Democratic Party nothing equals Trump’s first 36 days! Does anyone think that a “thinned-skinned” ?????grabber can lead this country to prosperity? The only people getting rich are Mr. Trump, his friends and family.

the democratic elites don’t give an inch. they’re partying on the deck of the titanic.

Perfectly stated. Every time over the past decade or so, when a Green Party presidential candidate comes to town, they bring in some young Black-American dudes nobody has ever heard of, and they then invariably want to argue (distract, redirect, etc.) the candidate with useless drivel as to who has the worst seat on the Titanic, or trivial dialogue to that extent!

Time to put on fork in the party formerly known as the Democratic Party — it might have lumbered on had Ellison prevailed — but now it’s doubling down on identity politics and their anti-worker/anti-middle class agenda!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/women-s-rights-campaigners-on-board-the-titanic-1-2199133

The same scum that have dragged the Dem party into the dirt thrive in Minnesota. Victorian era feminism, combined with unhealthy portions of international bankster agenda’s, and heaping plates of Machiavellian treachery and confabulation:

“five prominent feminists were on board the Titanic, and all of them survived bar one – William Thomas Stead, the only male feminist amongst them. A noted women’s rights campaigner, Stead was most famous for his ‘tabloid’ style expose of child prostitution in late Victorian London” http://theantifeminist.com/tag/women-and-children-first-titanic/

Great analogy, the Titanic. The women of Minnesota are swayed by the rhetoric of equality, as long as it means ‘more equality for me.’

They are the remnants of the female entitlement and privilege that built this mess-whores of opportunity, while persecuting and prosecuting actual whores, and pimping the new white slavery via the ‘progressive’ institutions; and not a soul amongst them with soul.

Okay, for those of you who stuck around in the Democrat Party until the selection of DNC chair, and are now leaving the party, consider joining the Green Party and working to build it into an effective vehicle for change, or one of the other third parties. Here are the links to their web sites:

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.gp.org/

Most well known of the third parties in the U.S., and arguably the most despised by Democrat elites for daring to run candidates for the office of president. Lots of baggage, and suffers from intense personality conflicts and bickering, but still arguably the biggest, most organized vehicle the left has for electoral politics. Be prepared to have your work cut out for you, but don’t be afraid to give it a try.

PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF VERMONT, WASHINGTON, AND OREGON

http://progressiveparty.org/

https://waprogressives.org/

http://www.progparty.org/

Perhaps the most successful in terms of running effective, winning campaigns at local and state levels. Well organized and has a long history going back to 1912.

WORKING FAMILIES PARTY

http://workingfamilies.org/

Not many results, and slow to take off, but has gotten some results.

SOCIALIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

http://socialistparty-usa.net/

May be more despised by political elites than even the Green Party for being unapologetically socialist. But good platform and ideas.

The left cannot continue to remain in the far right, corporatist Democrat Party. It is beyond salvaging. The DNC chair election and the party’s stubbornly sticking by such right-wing douches as Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and Clinton prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. They’d rather lose in perpetuity to the GOPhers and disappear as an organized political party—rule over the ashes, so to speak—than allow the left any influence at all, even if only as pretense. Humanity is almost out of time to avoid extinction. It may already be too late. But if we don’t break away now, we are done for as a species.

There is no way not to blame hc because all benefited her except for Jill Stein’s exclusion perhaps. She is a fucking vampire that doesn’t know she’s dead. Meanwhile she is sucking the lifeblood from the democratic party using favors owed her, blackmale or who knows what while trying to remain relevant. Please someone, kidnapp her which will keep her mouth shut to the public. It is a suicide mission because you will be the only one to have to hear her. You will be a silent hero.

Hello Fred, I predict that the hc will be the 2020 nominee once more, amazingly, having the same end result. This reminds me of Charlie Brown and Lucie with Lucie holding the football and at the last instant taking it away as Charlie Brown just kicks dead air. I hope that the Dumbo-k-ratic party dies a horrible death as it is another dead person walking just like hc!

Thank you, Glenn.
These political elites of all stripes are dug in like ticks. Will walk right over the middle class and poor without hesitation and without even looking sideways at the carnage they create as if it does not exist. This is what you see in third world colonies. The elite just drive through the destroyed cities and pretend they don’t even see. That’s how bad it is. Win / loose, it’s unimportant to them. They have many different streams and proxies of theft and criminality to choose from. I’ve had my fill of professional bureaucrats and politicians. Luv yas!

Good Riddance with the DNC. This is just the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for me(in terms of my patience for the Democrats) to get their act together.

Now to look for a new, independent, or even side with Trump over this. #DoesNotMatterAnymore

“But it’s hard to conclude that a party that has navigated itself into such collapse, which deliberately and knowingly chose the weakest candidate…”

Even IF high level Democrats and/or the DNC didn’t want Hillary Clinton to run, there was nothing they could have done, except maybe have a private meeting with her in which they beg her not to run and to give her the reasons why.

Does anyone honestly think that Trump won the nomination because high level Republicans “let” him?

Hillary bought her ability to run….pay for play helped as well.

And although it isn’t talked about, Rahm Emmanuel, her faithful supporter and fellow base-hating wannabe-Republican, effectively bought the mayoral contest of Chicago: there was a field of candidates who had real connections to the city in the Democratic Party, which has a lock on the mayoral contest more or less automatically. Emmanuel waltzed in with a war chest over 20 times what any of the rest could raise, and most of them just withdrew immediately. He has been a really lousy mayor, nearly got ousted by a no-name challenger, and although so far there has been no outright criminal scandal there have been plenty of obvious points of mismanagement and it wouldn’t be surprising if something criminal popped up.

(After all, right now there have been two high-profile Republicans in Illinois sent to prison recently to only one Democrat: George Ryan and Dennis Hastert versus Rod Blagojevich. I have faith that the Democrats will even the score up soon.)

Even if you don’t want to blame Hillary, wouldn’t you rather that the DNC had
1. Held more debates?
2. Pushed for all members, such as Jill Stein to be on the debates?
3. Not frozen Bernie campaign out of the DNC database?
4. Not lied about violent, sexist BernieBros?
5. Not treated Bernie supporters like shit at the convention and taken away their credentials?
6. Not spent all their money on campaign ads, and spent it on grass roots activism instead?
7. Etc.?
8. Etc.?
9. friggin etc.?

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© tman418

GOP didn’t have the number of super-delegates the Dems had, almost all for HRC.

The media did not support Trump, they supported HRC (as did Wall St.).

Trump won the GOP nomination anyways. And HRC managed to lose to him, despite his record disapproval rating.

In summary: Saying that Trump won, therefore the Dems couldn’t stop HRC is disingenuous. The DNC WAS Team Hillary, from 2008 HRC for Pres. co-chair DWS on down.
~

I am a progressive member of the democratic party and I am leaving it. So is my husband. The latest charade electing Perez is enough. And enough is enough.

Tom Perez is the new DNC head.

And with that, the Democrats are finished as a political party. They’ve decided that opposing the left is their sole priority now.

You’d better hope you are wrong, as what you are left with, than, is the Republican party, and the (politically) impotent Greens.

You DO know there are more than two political parties in the U.S., don’t you?

Not in federal politics. Or anything beyond municipal representation. (independent is not a party).

Yeah, the DNC chair is going to be the final straw /s

Give me a break…

Charlene Avis Richards Nate

Between Perez being in charge and the continuous idiotic “Women’s Marches” with the vagina hats and the MSM coming unglued with Chris Cuomo saying there’s something wrong with a 12 year old if she is offended by seeing a man’s penis dangling here and there in a locker room and the DNC’s Trump War Room head saying a person’s sex is whatever the person THINKS they are….

Well, all this spells the final nail in the DNC coffin.

Add to all this “Hollywood” coming completely unglued tomorrow night at the Oscars and ANY hope of outreach to middle America will be completely destroyed.

Good riddance.

Charlene-
“Perez being in charge and the continuous idiotic “Women’s Marches” with the vagina hats ”

Reminds me of the other white female/Zwi Migdahl Society collusion from the 20’s, the women’s Christian Temperance Associations, and all those privvy white women from the baby farming industrial sector “Onward Christian SoOOOldiers….”

And this, just after the banksters slipped the federal reserve in them, while their husbands were toiling away for pennies a day, and recovering from “shell shock.”

Reason #5 why I will not be voting for any democrats in 2018 or 2020.

Time for the Democratic Party left wing to walk away. Put the Democratic Party out of its misery; let the fucking thing die once and for all.

With the giant void between where elites are…and where the rest are, it would seem as though the time is ripe for a “new” New World Order. Are we brave enough to embrace the void and own it – or are we ignorant enough to keep quibbling and accepting the crumbs? The more conversations deviate, the more the masses are muted. It’s what they like…up there (you know).

LOL with the myth of American Democracu

LOL with the myth of American Democracy !

What a horrible position the Democrats are in.

If they nominate Perez, they prove that they intend to die on their neoliberal, globalist, elitiest hill, and force the left to form a new party since they’ll neither ever have power nor will they ever be electable since they not only lost over a 1,000 seats with it but the biggest one to Trump of all people.

If they nominate Ellison, their idenity politics base will eat each other alive. Jewish voters will be the first to leave a party chaired by an anti-Semite. Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which the Trump Administration is likely to succeed in getting labeled a terrorist organization will really torpedo the party. LGBT voters won’t be too far behind Jewish voters in walking out. The white, privileged, non-SJW, women’s marchers like the ones that drove in from the suburbs in their mini-vans and parked at Starbucks for a $10 latte before putting on their pink pussyhat and walking to the protest site will also walk from the party. Good luck getting independent voters from a candidate with ties to an Islamic terrorist organization.

Keep up the ‘Ellison is a secret jew-hating, throw gay folks from buildings muslim!’ BS. What the hell are you selling today, sister?

Jewish voters will be the first to leave a party chaired by an anti-Semite.

Keith Ellison is not an anti-Semite, so that’s a lie.

Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which the Trump Administration is likely to succeed in getting labeled a terrorist organization will really torpedo the party.

Keith Ellison has no “ties” to the Muslim Brotherhood, so another lie.

LGBT voters won’t be too far behind Jewish voters in walking out.

Wait, when Sanders’ supporters threaten to withhold votes or spurn party affiliation with the Democratic party (or hell even be critical of it on the merits of its policies, strategy and tactics) we are labeled hideous moral monsters who care only about ourselves, and generally described as white upper class male purity pony seeking unrealistic assholes–so what would that make LGBT voters and Jewish voters who abandon the Democratic party because Keith Ellison is a Muslim? Are they going to become Republicans? You going to start the Jewish LGBT Independence Freedom and Liberty party?

You keep telling yourself that Ellison isn’t an anti-Semite and tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. I’ll hook you up with equally delusional alt-right folks that believe that Milo Yiannopoulos promoting the NAMBLA agenda was a lie and that he doesn’t have ties to white nationalists. The sane folk will vote otherwise.

False equivalency comparing Sanders to Ellison. Sanders doesn’t have the socio-political baggage that Ellison has. It would have been wise to have supported a like candidate for DNC chair.

Sanders only has a credibility problem now that he campaigned for the cheating against him and all the politics he intially campaigned against. Not to mention that nearly all of his upper staff to his PAC (Our Revolution) walked out when they discovered it was funded with dark money.

You keep telling yourself that Ellison isn’t an anti-Semite and tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Prove it. Prove Ellison is an anti-Semite and prove he is “tied” to the Muslim Brotherhood.

I’ll wait. Here’s your chance. Show what you got or shove your unfounded slurs up you know where.

Nobody can prove he is an anti -Semite because nobody is inside his head. We can only judge his words and his actions. He said he is not an anti -Semite, many people who know him including Jews say he is not. But you also have to understand other Jews ‘ perspective when they look at his support for Nation of Islam in the past.

He has been associated with the Muslim American Society. According to the US government that group is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal No. 07-4778.) Maybe that’s not enough to state that he is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, but that should raise some serious questions.

I won’t have to. Breitbart will be happy to carry the message to white, blue collar, rust belt voters that voted for Sanders in the Primary but switched to Trump in the general including 53% of white women (45% of college educated white women). Watch that demographic reinforce the Republican Party in far higher numbers if Ellison is selected.

Most voters including left wing ones aren’t SJWs, dear. Not nearly enough SJWs to win a presidential general election. I hope you accept that before 2020 but preferably before 2018.

Most voters including left wing ones aren’t SJWs, dear.

and most Americans aren’t paranoid racists.

but only one of these groups has major Party representation at the moment.

Find yourself a multi-billioniare with top notch, media exploitation skills to run for president and you to can have a major political party.

Until then, you’ll just have to be outvoted by non-reactionaries horrified by both right wing and SJW reactionaries.

In the meantime, please stop conflating economic nationalism with racism. It is why the party of globalist elitists lost in the first place to Trump of all people.

Amazing – you keep saying the same BS over and over again but never offer any evidence to support your position. Perhaps it is time for you to put up ore shut up.

Your evidence will be presented on election night 2020.

out-primarying the primary queens isn’t actually that impressive of a feat. the trick was always a matter of who could be the most shrill. in that regard (and oh so, so many others) Trump ain’t nothing new for Republicans.

it isn’t necessary to conflate economic nationalism with the cultural and racial varieties when even a good Venn diagram shows so much overlap.

You keep embracing globalism along with Tom Perez and see who wins elections in 2018 and 2020.

Trump just publicly celebrated the choice of Perez on Twitter for a reason.

and you keep swinging wildly in the dark and missing.

Not nearly enough SJWs to win a presidential general election.

Ah showing your true colors. I’d be willing to wager dollars to donuts you’ve never voted for a Democratic party candidate in your life if you use terminology like “SJW” (i.e. social justice warriors) which is simply shorthand for right-wingers who see anybody who fights to see that all folks are treated equally before the law, you know consistent with the US Constitution, is some sort of commie Jihadi sympathizer.

hope you accept that before 2020 but preferably before 2018.

They are toast because they will lose the SJWs as you refer to them, also known as progressives or Bernie Sanders voters. And they’ll lose because they are signaling quite clearly that they have no desire to rein in their pay-for-play neoliberal agenda.

So good luck to all of us while the US is transformed by Trumpism with no unified opposition to slow it down.

Your comment that SJW is a right winger’s shorthand is not completely true. Many independents, centrists and Libertarians use that as well to describe the radical Left. We don’t see your identity politics as high-minded ideals nor do we approve of your disruptive tactics.
I was a lifelong (Classical) Liberal Democrats until 2012. I still voted for Obama, but as an Independent. The SJWs were the reason I voted for Jill Stein in 2016.
Don’t overestimate your strength or numbers because of the current fervor. My niece in the D.C. area and at least 4 of her friends are Libertarians who abandoned Johnson and voted for Trump. They were at Virginia townhalls posing as ‘concerned constituents’, complete with provided signs and talking points. They spread the joke on Facebook to ‘close’ friends and family.

….”I was a lifelong (Classical) Liberal Democrats until 2012. I still voted for Obama, but as an Independent. The SJWs were the reason I voted for Jill Stein in 2016.
Don’t overestimate your strength or numbers because of the current fervor. My niece in the D.C. area and at least 4 of her friends are Libertarians who abandoned Johnson and voted for Trump….”

My experience echos yours. I have a nephew in high school and surprisingly he said the kids in his class all want to vote for Trump. It’s the opposite information than we’re spoon-fed on a daily basis, which is that all the kids are voting democratic.

I too am a classical liberal, and like you am horrified by the identity politics and violence. But more than that I was perturbed by the lies and constant propaganda. We were the party of light, the party of truth, who made fun of the opposing parties problem with reality, of living in a fantasy-land, and we even invented a new word – “truthiness.” Now the situation is reversed and our party seems to be the one with the truthiness problem.

And I think that political trend is continuing. The SJW’s are creating a whole new generations of conservative kids, who feel alienated and attacked and not included. I’m sure it’s not what they intended. But cause and effect is a curious thing.

see, we don’t want to APPEAR as being disloyal to our corporate donors; we actually want to BE disloyal to our corporate donors. that’s why we’re Democrats. we know that hundreds of millions of average folks have a lot more sway than a few rich Wall Streeters. the times they are a’changin.

Get Out While the Gettin’s Good !

Simple analysis with the facts:
1. Democratic party has been loosing membership for a decade or so and these are mostly young independent voters.
2. The young independent group is what the party needs because the core group of democrats have nowhere to go.

so 1+2 = 3 –> Democratic party needs someone that attracts the young independent group, and that person, using Democratic party’s own polling, is Ellison.

But then, we have 4: Saban may take his money and walk, which puts a lot of consultants making huge sums out of work, and lots of politicians making huge sums of money through backdoor deals, out in the cold.

So, the core says: who cares about the Party? The consultants and politicians will build their nest egg for another 8-10 years and whatever happens to the labor, and middle class, etc. is their problem!

Obama obliges and here comes Perez – and, the smear campaign begins.

We would be much more aware of what exactly is going on, especially in our dirty, money driven politics, by doing what you suggest- FOLLOW THE MONEY. The stupid rich are often also low character shits- they got their wealth in part by not being so great at the ‘sharing’ deal. They think they never have enough- their lives are laser focused on making another million on top of their billions. And they will readily f-over thousands of people to get that next pile of cash. You can look at our sick political system as largely an epic failure of character- run by the rich, for the rich, with their only concerns being how to get out of the way of the rich getting richer (which, of course, they hope includes themselves). The disgusting fund-raising from plutocrats required of any viable candidate ensures that only people who tolerate, if not love, this plutocratic cluster have any chance at getting elected. The two party corporate lovefest locks it in.

Charlene Avis Richards Jayz

The DNC spent MILLIONS paying “consultants” to tell them how to win and we can all see how well that worked out.

It was all these “consultants” who wanted Perez (naturally). Gotta keep their gravy train running on time! Screw all the state organizers who have been begging for $$ to organize on the ground! The “consultants” are Gods!!!

Fine. Now they have Perez and they can continue to play their elitist games of “choosing” their candidate from inside their ranks (I predict Booker will be the next charlatan they try to shove down our throats).

Watching the Democrat Party implode will be fun! Couldn’t happen to a sleazier bunch of Americans.

Now when the DNC sends me a questionnaire on my rating of the Obama Presidency, I shall select “it sucked”. On Hillary: “it sucked”. On the future of the Democratic Party: “It’s finished”. Because of $Hillery we now have this monster in the WH who with the help of the S. Baptists will bring about the Sixth Extinction.
“Jesus Christ! Come on down! You’re the next contestant on the Price Is Right!”

Glenn, don’t waste your time and talent writing about how to heal the Democratic Party of Racism and War. Let it perish, along with the Republican Party of Racism and War!

Cancer does not go away by letting it perish .

Cancer does not perish . It must be cut out . Left to its own it devours the living cells until its food supply runs out . Then it evolves into a Veggie !!

Key Question :
Why did Obama White House Recruit Perez to run against Ellison ?

[ ] a ———-$$
[ ] b ———- A consulting job in private industry upon leaving
[ ] c- ———-CIA made an offer they could not refuse
[ ] d ———-All of the above

Letter c is interesting, what’s up with the CIA? You know, what I’d like to read more about is the wider view. Instead of starting with Obama and working up from there to see the connections and figure out policy, same with Ellison,…or Trump, or Pelosi, or any of them…….start at the top and work your way down. Start with the people, families, organizations, entities, corporations, who swirl the water and watch everything move. Start with money and power and work your way down. Then who gets elected and who doesn’t, and what policy gets implemented by politicians and which gets lost on the cutting room floor, would make a whole lot more sense.

There’s an old saying in Washington after an election, here comes the “summer help.” That means the government is already in place, and has been in place for decades, and these small changes we make with elections rarely have deep or lasting effect.

That’s not to say elections don’t have effect, they do, but at the very least to be a more informed voters I have to look for the person pulling the strings of the politician I’m voting for, or who is whispering in who’s ear.

I don’t understand this mantra about rust belt. Anyone who continually repeats that doesn’t understand the outcome of the election, much less the electorate. Democrats lost my state, Florida. And yes, that’s a “popular vote”, – one person one vote, all tallied up and pulled out of one hat, and DJT won. He went on to win lots of other states after that, including, yes, the rust belt states.

When you figure out how THAT happened, you’ll get closer to assessing the political situation. But I suppose an even more difficult task for you, is to crack the rubic cube of why a lifelong, gay, female, Obama-voting and Clinton-donating democrat like myself cast her vote for Trump this election cycle, instead of Hillary or Bernie. And try to do it without using blame words like Racism, Russians, Islamophobia, FakeNews, Fox, or Comey. Can you?

You know, it seems like yesterday when we were underdogs. The GOP was loud, obnoxious, warmongering, bigoted, corrupt, sexist, and most of all, powerful. We endured 8 years of George Jr, and the fawning corporate media. Liberal voices were absent from radio and tv. It took very subtle, non-threatening content to even crack open a window, so Jon Stewart was our go-to man. For a less comedic challenge to the Right, we had folks like you. Our online presence grew, our voices grew, and I yearned for power, as the powerless always do. (Sigh). Finally it bore fruit. We elected Hope and Change. Shortly thereafter, with our newfound muscle and bravado, we beat back Sarah Palin, and the evangelical base that once propelled George Bush to power. And very little was off limits in those days, we were as nasty as we wanted to be, because of you know, righteousness and all. When you wear the white hat, how can you go wrong, ..or be wrong?

Well, things did go wrong, imo. And as they say, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we got powerful. But we became something I didn’t recognize, or like very much. And that monster we built certainly didn’t like me, either. But I have to say, it took me a while to see it. After all, I enthusiastically re-cast my vote for Obama for another 4 years. But eventually, I came out of the coma. What all my revelations were, would take 10 pages, and as I said, it’s your job to figure that out, not mine. I simply just cast my vote, one more time, in 2016, and that vote was more different than it had ever been.

But I do have some opinions on my old party. I disagree with your assessment that Hillary was a weak candidate. She’s not. She’s a very strong candidate. She just doesn’t have great oratory skills like her husband. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t strong. Donna? She’s a long term party strategist, and Debbie has done a decent job. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of them. But keep in mind, she didn’t run as herself, she ran as Obama’s third term.

In regards to Keith Ellison, I think it’s a laughable choice by the party that used to embrace guys like Jim Webb one upon a time, and many of the centrist policies of Bill Clinton. The Democratic party is galloping toward leftism, not liberalism. Ellison is symbolic of that, in some ways. However, after watching an interview on cspan, where they had Ellison and three other candidates take questions from the room, I noticed he was sometimes halting, carefully editing everything in his mind before replying. In other words, a politician who has been around, shaken all the hands, made all the deals, and working toward a financial political future. For example, while he had plenty of offensively radical things to say, he often softened his tone and triangulated, in one instance I can recall where a native american protestor from standing rock demanded Ellison acknowledge that the issue was “simple” and one-sided, he shyly said it wasn’t, and that there were jobs at stake also, and other factors. This is a man who knows he has unions in the party, and corporate donors and other constituents, not just the passionate one shouting at him while wearing the white hat. So I have a sneaking suspicion some of you may be disappointed if he does get appointed.

In any case, I think the real story is not Dem or Repub, or the horse race, or the parties, but private organizations here and around the world who try to shape global politics, economics and culture.

I’m already disappointed in Ellison (he’s been very silent on key issues that matter) but I’m even more disappointed in HRC and the existing power structure.

“I’m already disappointed in Ellison (he’s been very silent on key issues that matter) but I’m even more disappointed in HRC and the existing power structure.”

I found Ellison to be fairly brilliant in that one cspan meeting they had. It’s the only bit of seen of him and it was fairly sustained enough for me to get an impression. He’s really smart. Certainly smarter than the others to his left and his right. One of the candidates with him actually said he was hiring one time and wanted more diversity and realized he didn’t have any lesbians working for the organizations so he kept tossing out applications until he got to a lesbian. I swear to god that’s what he said, I’m not making this up. You have to be a special kind of stupid to say that on national television. And frankly, it’s a perfect example of what I didn’t fight for. I wanted equal opportunity and respect for lesbians, I didn’t want special privilege or hiring. I’m no better or worse, no more or less enlightened than anyone else. If someone can look at you and whisper that you are better than someone else, one day, can the next day tell you that you are not as good as someone else. Because that’s how fast the rules can change, when your rules are based on bias instead of the constitution. But in any event, the appointment of Ellison would be a head-shaking thing. In regards to your comment on HRC, she’s been a disappointment to me as well. It’s a crushing disappointment. But you know, politics is politics. Nobody is their own person. And her, less than most, I think, because she was crushed by the DNC in 2008. None of us know what she would have done as President, I would have liked to have seen, frankly. After that, she didn’t seem like the same person. She should have never been Secty of State, never been part of this administration. If she hadn’t, I have to tell you, she might have had more credibility in 2016 and more leeway to determine her own policies. The Obama supporters won’t like this, but if she had said the last 8 years has been a disaster and it’s not working and this is what I will do to make things work, A, B, C and D, I think she would have had more of a chance. Personally, I don’t think she should have run at all last year, the nation needed to move on from Bush/Clinton…..and someone else should have run for the Democrats, but I’m just saying she might have won because she wouldn’t have lost voters like me.

“… it’s your job to figure that out, not mine.”

Then:

“… I think the real story is… private organizations here and around the world who try to shape global politics, economics and culture.”

So, globalism/neoliberalism and a lack of meaningful democratic participation. It seems you’ve done our job for us. Thanks for sharing.

Think Smokey and the Bandit, Deliverance, Walking Tall, for the panhandle. South of Daytona, its a lot of pissed off Cubans who national progressives think vote pro-communist.

You’re a person whose world is shaped by TV, aren’t you?

Webb was a Dem senator representing Virginia. He had lots of party support during his campaign, so your notion that Dems “used to embrace” him is amusing. In his single term Webb got pretty much nothing done. But I know that, as a “man of the people” he loves to show up in places like “Meet The Press” (where ALL the **real** common folk go!), and complain about how nobody treats him right. For a self-described tough guy, he likes to feel sorry for himself a lot.

By 2016 Clinton had a lengthy record of occupying various offices. In those she never seems to have accomplished very much. But she manage to consistently endorse or encourage a series of military disasters, and seems to have never learned a thing from any of them. With a billion dollars in her campaign fund, she managed to lose an election to a carnival act. Clinton can yammer on about “experience” all she wants, but she’s plainly deeply incompetent.

Your heroines Brazile and Wasserman-Schultz did absolutely nothing while Dems lost hundreds of state-level offices. But I know that they’re regulars on TV, so I guess that makes up for it.

You should watch more TV, and leave voting to others.

“Watch more TV and leave the voting to others.” whoo hoo! I’m scared….you showed ME. I’m never going to vote again! You know it all. You’re all-seeing. Too bad you didn’t see that train wreck coming in November. The question I have for you is not why you thought they could actually win, but why you thought they deserved to win. Insulting voters is not a winning strategy, for them anymore than it is for you. Status quo is not a strategy, either. And what else did you have to offer, the socialist Bernie Sanders and the BLM/Free Palestine movements? I didn’t just leave my party, I ran from it. When the Democratic Party starts thinking about helping the middle class and lower middle class again, being humble and not egotistic, and respecting each and every democratic voter, I may come back. Based on what I’ve seen so far, that won’t be for a long, long time.

It’s hilarious that you want the Democratic Party to start “helping the middle class and lower middle class again” but you insult Sanders for being a socialist. Sanders actually stood for a return to what you say you want, but you’re so addled that you fixate on that label and think it’s a bad thing. People like you really should stay home and leave the voting to others, because you pretty obviously have no grasp on even basic, recent history.

Time for “tuff love” for the Democratic Party. Not a dime nor vote more until there is a return and embrace of its New Deal, “people-centric democracy” roots.
That will not come from Mr. Perez, as wedded as he is to the party’s mega donor “owners.”
This is perhaps the last opportunity for the Democratic Party to move in the right direction. Otherwise, it will spend the rest of its perhaps not long life in a schizophrenic defense of its non-people priorities.
Should this fundamental shift in direction not occur now, many will not be coming back. Better to know that sooner than later.

LOTS of words SAYING NOTHING. Why is it so seemingly “offensive” to you to be simply DIRECT about WHY you–“a lifelong,gay, female,. Obama-voting, Clinton donating democrat” voted for Trump. You seem top imply that Democrats were wrong on some issues & “nasty as we want to be” but–again NOT A SINGLE SPECIFIC ISSUE. You could probably state in a couple of fairly short paragraphs what issues/positions ALIENATED you from the Democrats and/or ATTRACTED you to Trump. I sure hope you’ve got MONEY because in the age of Trump (even if you’re white) being gay & female you are NOT part of his Chosen People

I think you clicked “Reply” on the wrong post — you seem to be replying to Samantha up above, not mgr.

I think the Russians are meddling in this election too and getting two clowns to contest each other in order to perpetuate the Democratic Circus.

Keith Ellison is the last hope for the Dem party( and if he doesn’t stick to his progressive values, and not allow himself to cave to milquetoast Dems & Corporate interests,it’s over.). My husband and I have left the Democratic party after the sham of a primary a year ago. I have lost all faith in the DNC and if Perez is elected chair I truly believe that the Dem party will become a footnote in history like the Whig party. I find the disconnect between the Party “elites”& those of us living the nightmare, trying to survive, laughable. Except, that those of us suffering don’t find it the least bit funny. Perez is so disingenuous he can’t even acknowledge the primary was rigged. If Perez can’t even be honest about what the rest of us already know, perhaps it’s time for DNC party elites to go over to the GOP. I am truly starting to believe that the Robby Mook’s, Jen Palmieri’s, Donna Brazille’s and DWS of the party should be forced to live on $8 an hour( no insurance) and be forced to make choices over life saving medicine or electric bills. Then maybe that wing would find something relevant to add to the argument. The previous commenter spoke of ‘liberals needing to spend time in the wilderness’. Perhaps, the party apparatus does, but those of us who live outside of the “D. C. Bubble” are fighting for our lives and must either reclaim the Dem Party or burn it to the ground. No more half measures.

The Clinton/Brock DNC has been going after Keith Ellison from day one. Why? Because Bernie Sanders wants him. Now, another option is a young mayor from the midwest who can be manipulated by his backers (health care lobbyist Howard Dean et al) and be trained in the 3rd Way politics the DNC is chained to. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton THANKED Donna Brazile for her service at the DNC. Donna Brazile who was fired from CNN for giving HRC debate questions before the debates. This crowd must be run out of town before it brings down the entire country.

You nailed it Charlotte! TIME for MASS EXODUS now, finally….Corporate Dem Leadership pick Establishment candidate Perez for DNC! Surprise? #DemExit DEM ADIOS join in the DEM EXODUS … GreenEnter… http://www.GP.org
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDu7jw04NPkUng2tT2Tictw
The Dems move farther to the “Center” (i.e., Right)… so we will now have a true opportunity for a new Opposition Party, GREEN PARTY,People’s Party, Socialist, all of the above…

The nature of the Democratic con game is that they need to be out of power for several years before they become re-electable. Well meaning pundits such as Mr. Greenwald fret that the con game no longer works and advise the Democrats to engage in ‘soul searching’ to devise a better way to fool the voters. However, well meaning this advice, it is counterproductive to change what, over the long term, is a winning strategy.

After 8 years of Mr. Obama, even the dimmest of progressives, with the possible exception of Mr. Wiltmellow, were beginning to realize that the sleazy opportunists who run the Democratic Party had no intention of implementing any of their agenda. So it’s necessary for the Democrats to spend a period in the wilderness, so that people can focus their hatred on Mr. Trump, and forget that the Democrats in no way represent their interests. In four years, (or eight years at the most), the Democrats will find a new cypher (such as Mr. Obama was in his early days), onto whom the people can project their hopes and aspirations. The new leader will then ride triumphantly to the Presidency and the Democrats will recapture the committee chairmanships which allow them to build stronger relationships with their investors to assure a lucrative reward when they retire.

The DNC understood this, and deliberately fielded the weakest candidate they could find to ensure they would lose and so set the stage for a triumphant comeback. The visual image of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Blankfein grinning at each other in mutual admiration was too much for even the most stalwart of Democratic supporters to stomach. She promptly lost as the script demanded.

In a two party system, no party should allow itself to become too greedy, since natural rotation will ensure they get a crack at the cookie jar. The greatest danger is that the foot soldiers of the party become overly discouraged by what is only a temporary setback and try to fundamentally change the party – to the detriment of all. Mr. Perez will mouth the proper platitudes to keep the progressives onside, while their short memories fade and their enthusiasm for the party is rekindled. Mr. Ellison may understand his proper role, but he may also have delusions of being able to implement changes. The Party, as Mr. Greenwald correctly points out, cannot allow this to happen.

Neither a Democrat nor Republican be
For Democrats oft lose both themselves and
friends
And Republicans dull the edge of
husbandry

After 8 years of Mr. Obama, even the dimmest of progressives, with the possible exception of Mr. Wiltmellow, were beginning to realize that the sleazy opportunists who run the Democratic Party had no intention of implementing any of their agenda.

From the Guardian, yesterday, this story appears.

This is one of the invisible consequences of Trump made visible. It was made visible not because it’s unusual but because of the celebrity of the writer.

Fox, who is famous worldwide for her best-selling books including Ten Little Fingers and Ten Little Toes and Possum Magic, was en route to a conference in Milwaukee earlier this month when she was stopped.

She told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation she was questioned by border agents for two hours in front of a room full of people – an experience that left her feeling like she had been physically assaulted.

“I have never in my life been spoken to with such insolence, treated with such disdain, with so many insults and with so much gratuitous impoliteness,” Fox said.

“I felt like I had been physically assaulted which is why, when I got to my hotel room, I completely collapsed and sobbed like a baby, and I’m 70 years old.”

As you snipe at me and those who don’t share your callous indifference to the consequences of your politics, you might hesitate for a moment to consider the millions of people — yes, millions if not tens of millions of people — who with suffer similar indignities at the hands of these strutting fascists. Except most of those millions or tens of millions will not have a hotel room sanctuary — nor even a country like Australia to which they can return.

Apparently, the deportation plan demands dropping the deportees somewhere near nowhere in Mexico. Their origin, their families, their possession all removed, the vicious stupidity of the Trump plan cannot — by design — consider these human beings as actually human. Instead they’re dropped in a desert somewhere like yesterday’s garbage.

Shame on you, and shame on all of you, who think whether Ellison or Perez gets to run the DNC, that your proud righteousness grants you the right to ignore the fate of others.

You’re really no better than Republicans who say, “I’m okay, tough shit to you. Next time don’t be born so poor.”

As you choose your Quixotes to remake the world as it should be made (in your opinion), remember the invisibles — if you’re capable. They are the ones who will bear your sanctimony with their suffering.

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”

Crocodile tears. Did you weep when the Obama administration conducted the largest number of deportation removals in history, or when the Clinton administration conducted the largest number of total deportations in history? Link.

Shame on you, and shame on all of you, who think whether Ellison or Perez gets to run the DNC, that your proud righteousness grants you the right to ignore the fate of others.

Just another bullshit straw man argument from the liberal who lost his/her mind when Clinton lost the election.

Who says “us/we” are “ignoring the fate of others”? Have you seen the level of protests, escalating, to try and blunt if not stall Trump’s immigration agenda?

And I’m really confused about something, how could “we/us” possibly be responsible for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda (or any other) when you’ve repeatedly insisted that it was “them”, those who voted for Donald J. Trump, who are morally responsible for the consequences of that vote?

Seriously, you’ve gone completely off the deep end with your pathetic little game of trying to blame anyone who is nominally “liberal/progressive/left” for not voting Hillary Clinton.

The simple fact is, there were myriad reasons that a very close election went to Trump (based on some states that had previously gone pretty handily to Pres. Obama–twice), an election that should not have been close if we had a Democratic party that had credibility in the eyes of those voters it is nominally ideologically aligned with. But it doesn’t. And Hillary Clinton didn’t as a candidate in far too many minds. Deal with why that is the case and you’ll be on the road to re-engaging those voters (and the 40% of eligible voters who sit out almost all elections in the US).

I’m pretty positive you’ll never convince people to vote for your candidates in the future if you don’t take responsibility for the shortcomings (real or perceived) that lead people to perceive you (whether on good evidence or not) as not having their best interests at heart, or an agenda they can believe in and you fight like a dog to deliver on, and/or if you do that your perception of those interests align with those of enough voters.

Sniveling, whining about how everyone is a heartless monster because Hillary Clinton couldn’t close the deal is absurd, untrue and politically counterproductive in the extreme–assuming you ever want to win elections again.

As you choose your Quixotes to remake the world as it should be made (in your opinion), remember the invisibles — if you’re capable. They are the ones who will bear your sanctimony with their suffering.

Oh like wow, the 557 utterly absurd iteration of “Trump’s administration’s policies won’t hurt you guys, because you guys who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton are all entitled lily white upper middle class or ultra-rich progressive purity pony seeking prima donnas.”

They will hurt me, my sister, my extended family members and many of my friends, because here’s a newsflash, we aren’t all lily white male purity pony seeking prima donnas who are upper middle class or rich.

I know that’s incredible hard for you to imagine, but maybe if you looked at the vote breakdown by demographics you’d see where Hillary Clinton underperformed compared to Pres. Obama and catch a clue. Or continue your woe is me, the sky is falling, and all “you” are at fault, instead of the 29% of your fellow citizens who actively voted for Donald J. Trump. This is on them and the Democratic party that couldn’t beat him, and nobody else.

You pathetic faux virtue signaling baby.

The above comment was directed at Milton Wiltmellow, not Benito Mussolini.

“Seriously, you’ve gone completely off the deep end with your pathetic little game of trying to blame anyone who is nominally “liberal/progressive/left” for not voting Hillary Clinton.”

candidate X said “I will stop refugees if I get elected”
Candidate Y said” I will accept refugees if I get elected”

Citizen Z cares about refugees but decides not to vote for neither of them.

Candidate X said “I will stop clean water regulations if I get elected”
Candidate Y said “I will keep clean water regulations if I get elected”

Citizen Z cares about clean water but decides not to vote for neither of them.

Candidate X is elected. Should we blame citizen Z? No.

Now Citizen Z is worried about President X refugee and environmental policies. Citizen Z can only blame himself not candidate Y. Citizen Z had the choice to avoid being in that situation.

The head of the party of candidate Y deported more “immigrants” than any other president in history, while claiming to support the rights of immigrants.

The head of the party of candidate Y was in charge of policy for 8 years, and allowed the situation in Flint, Michigan–as well as other localities–to take place under his watch, although claiming to be in favor of clean water.

It doesn’t matter what candidates SAY they will do. What DOES matter is what they actually DO when they have the power to make and to influence what really happens. However, candidates of BOTH major parties are more interested in keeping their donors and elite members happy, rather than doing what is good for the country as a whole.

“The head of the party of candidate Y ….The head of the party of candidate Y”

Completely irrelevant. Candidate Y presented a plan to Citizen Z, but Citizen Z ignored the plan and stayed home. Citizen Z cannot be blamed for Candidate X actions, but Citizen Z cannot blame Candidate Y because Candidate X got elected.

Candidate Y won in my state by a huge margin. If you are looking for folks to blame, talk to the “swing state” folks, or Florida, or whomever you like that voted for Trump.

But as a moral proposition, unless you can prove that “Citizen Z’s” vote was determinative of the outcome (i.e. the deciding vote in any contest), which you can’t, then it is impossible to hold anybody morally or logically accountable for “Citizen X” winning except the voters who voted for Citizen X.

So no.

Read my two comments again :

“Candidate X is elected. Should we blame citizen Z? No.”

“Citizen Z cannot be blamed for Candidate X actions,”

We CANNOT blame democrats or even independents who stayed home for Trump’s actions. But it is completely irrational for those same democrats and independents to blame Clinton as they get worried about Trump now because
1) Trump told them his policies will be against their interests
2) Three other candidates warned them about Trump policies

If they feel that no one can represent their interests, then they should form their own party.

Sniveling, whining about how everyone is a heartless monster because Hillary Clinton couldn’t close the deal is absurd, untrue and politically counterproductive in the extreme–assuming you ever want to win elections again. … You pathetic faux virtue signaling baby.

It’s a bit like road rage. Strangers able to shout, curse and blame other strangers for that inchoate rage that keeps you so tense.

That’s the world we’re in.

Why blame Clinton for Trump?

Here’s why: like you, like all the chatterers here, like GG, it’s easier to feel betrayed than to acknowledge the monsters. That fear shows as anger, irrational and personal, directed towards the guy with the offensive bumper sticker who cut you off in traffic … the woman putting on her make-up while in stop and go traffic on the freeway … the teenager texting … the speeder … the slowpoke … the line cutter … the honker … the hispanic kid will loud music … all those damned other people.

The emotional tone is little different from the tone expressed by Trump. Maybe it’s in the air, maybe it’s in the poison the Republicans spew as their special flavoring. Maybe it’s overpopulation. Maybe we know it’s already over.

You want uniformity here. Comfortable and consistent.

You have it already and yet you want more of it. No conversation, no dispute, no alternative explanations, no give and take, just blanket agreement because it must be their fault — the greedy, the conniving, those unprincipled strangers, the elite, the DNC, all more responsible for this mess than you.

If only they’d behave like they’re supposed to. What’s wrong with them?

I don’t know what’s wrong with them … I’ve given my best explanation above.

So let me tell you what’s wrong with me. I read this shit and I feel embarrassed for many of you. I feel diminished … not by the insults and invective, but by my own reaction. I feel drawn into a childish argument over intellectual trinkets and then I’m embarrassed for myself.

So good luck with your crusade against all the bad people.

I want no part of it.

“…After 8 years of Mr. Obama, even the dimmest of progressives were beginning to realize that the sleazy opportunists who run the Democratic Party had no intention of implementing any of their agenda. So it’s necessary for the Democrats to spend a period in the wilderness, so that people can focus their hatred on Mr. Trump, and forget that the Democrats in no way represent their interests. In four years, (or eight years at the most), the Democrats will find a new cypher (such as Mr. Obama was in his early days), onto whom the people can project their hopes and aspirations.”

It’s beyond me how any democrat can be pleased with the last 8 years. I know I’m not. Obama was generally too conservative early in his term, and then towards the end became radical and indifferent in some very odd ways. And during it all, Jobs really should have been the number one priority, because with a good job we can buy our own car, we don’t need a clunker program, with a good job we can buy a house we won’t need Section 8 housing. Instead, there was this continual fascination with health care reform. Oh, and then came more middle east meddling, and war, and more terrorism, and our streets are burning on a monthly basis. Then we’re told globalism is the answer and we should be happy globalists. The problem is, we’re all still broke!

Wow….I had never realized the importance of jobs until now, or the fact that I am still broke. Thanks for opening my eyes!

If Ellison is not accepted and installed, the left wing of the PARTY will depart the PARTY once and for all. It is that simple. If the Democrats want no more wins, then have at it, Tom Perez. You will lose almost the whole of the young vote, and huge numbers of Seniors who NEVER held any loyalty to the status quo Clinton, and never will support any more of that status quo, no matter what anyone tries to tell them about how it is better than the devil thuglicans. If you doubt me, just watch and see. There is a determination, a rage, a last stand kind of mentality that is very justified among the left wing of this Party, and there is no voice out there, not in media, not in politics who is going to change that now. If Ellison is not voted in today, that will be it for the Democratic Party. F##k Barack Obama for trying to interfere with what the base of the Party wants.

Okay, special snowflake. You trying to drive out the centrist wing of the Democratic Party? If I get Ellison, I’ll gladly vote the full Republican ticket next Election Day.

Sound crazy? That’s what you are.

This article is from an individual who has a problem with Obama and the Clintons. This is not even a proper analysis of the Democratic Party.

“those who have controlled the party and run it into the ground”

The Democratic Party is on the ground? Is it the first time a party loses control of the two branches?

“But it’s hard to conclude that a party that has navigated itself into such collapse, which deliberately and knowingly chose the weakest candidate, who managed to lose to Donald J. Trump, is one that is thinking wisely and strategically”

This sounds like a Sanders’ supporter not like a critical journalist. You portrayal of Clinton as the weakest candidate is based on polls. Polls DO NOT tell who is going to win, they predict who is MORE LIKELY to win. Polls predicted Clinton victory late in the campaign. Remember the famous interview “what polls?” “All of them”. This is a very poor analysis. It completely disregards Trump’s strategy which consisted of lying to the public, taking advantage of workers’ poor understanding of international economics, demagoguery, and an appeal to the racist voters. Greenwald assumes that Trump’s strategy would not work if Sanders was the candidate. Unless you have access to each voter’s brain, then this is an emotional argument. Trump’s strategy has been used and worked for thousands of years in many countries.

Moreover, the Democratic Party has thousands of members. Some did support Sanders, but many more backed Clinton. There are members who disagree with Ellison’s views on the Middle East. This is their right and they also have the right to pick the leader they feel could represent their views better than Ellison. You are essentially saying those people in the leadership position should cool down on their beliefs in order to gain other members who are disappointed by the party. That is quite surprising. Why these members (Rust Belt) could not themselves cool down their beliefs and go out and vote for Clinton? Many stayed home and others even voted for Trump simply because Sanders was not on the ballot. So, are those democrats who are so unyielding to a point of voting for the candidate who wants to take away the healthcare their own party gave them are “thinking wisely and strategically”?

There is another way to put it. Voter X picked Clinton instead of Sanders because she did not believe in Sanders economic plan. But Sanders won anyway. What if voter X stayed home or voted for Trump who has an economic plan that is the complete opposite of Clinton and Sanders plan. Would voter X be thinking “wisely and strategically.”?

Your “analysis” can’t be taken seriously and right from the beginning. You can’t even admit the Democratic Party has been obliterated everywhere : state legislatures, governors, house, senate, white house. In your eyes, admitting that makes anyone a Sanders supporter. I guess facts are biased. The fact that a billionnaire who funneled an insane amount of money for the Dem establishment can just come, make shit up, go on a rant, and bend foreign policy or the DNC chair race to his willl apparently doesn’t bother you, since you were very selective in your outrage. If that’s the case, if that’s not what bothers you, then no one cares about what you say. This situation cristallizes what’s wrong with the DNC and Dem Party at the national level
But let’s go with your line of reasoning for a bit, why is Glenn’s analysis disqualified because of his Sanders bias ? What makes him automatically wrong when he talks about the DNC ?
Btw Sanders’ better performance against Trump is not really up for debate : he had favorability numbers astronomically higher than Trump (whereas Clinton was just 5% ahead of Trump on that regard), the lines of attack used by Trump couldn’t have been used on Sanders (he could even have flipped them on Trump), Sanders would very likely have carried the Rust Belt, or at least HE WOULD HAVE CAMPAIGNED THERE

RIGHT ON,Boulanger!!! you got to the heart of it. If CORPROATE Democrats remain in control (& enthralled to a BILLIONAIRE w/2-country citizenship that BETRAYS this country), it’s an undeniable signal that the party REFUSES TO CHANGE. Seems like over 40 YEARS of progressives trying to “change the party from within” is enough–esp. after the DNC/Clinton Machine CHEATING Sanders out of the nomination AND that Clinton WANTED TRUMP as her opponent. For many proplr, this has been the last straw–& no amount of INSULTS about being “crybabies who didn’t get the candidate we wanted” chagnes the REALITY of the

(cont’ reality of the CORPORATE CORRUPTION of the Democratic Party. They[‘ve ONLY had FEAR of the GOP to offer since Bill & Hillary Clinton’s first term in the WH. If Hillary had won, all we’d see is MORE “free trade” (TPP), MORE wars (Obama took us from bombing 2 countries to bombing 7) & LESS PROTEST—since it’s somehow forbiden for liberals/progressives to protest politicans that wear a D. At least under Trump, THE MASK IS OFF of our Corporate-Sponsored Wall Street Economy & Endless Wars policies. At least, We The People are (finally) FIGHTING BACK. For those intersted in electoral politics, get involved with the GREEN PARTY & make it VIABLE. The only thing that the Democrats want from progressives is our money, voluneeter GOTV labor & our votes—after Election Day, they don’t give a damn about us at all.

“You can’t even admit the Democratic Party has been obliterated everywhere:”

Let’s say that every single inhabitant of the US can vote.

1) Governorship
The Republicans took control of Missouri (51.3% of votes) 3,126,000, New Hampshire (48.8% of votes) 651,380 and Vermont (52% of votes) 324,800. Those three states have a population of 8,053,000 (approximately) So the Republicans got 4,102,180 votes.
The Democrats took control of North Carolina. It has a population of 10,147,000 (approximately) 48.8% of votes : 4,952, 800

2) State Senates
Republicans took control of two states senates: Iowa and Minnesota. The total population is 8,655,000 (approximately). Let’s say all of them voted for Republicans.
Democrats took control of Nevada: population 2,900,000 (approximately). Let’s say all of them voted for Democrats.

3) State Houses
The Republicans took control of Kentucky : population 4,437,000. Let’s say all them voted Republicans.
Democrats took control of New Mexico and Nevada: total population 5,000,000. Let’s say all of them voted Democrats.

Party control stayed the same in the other states expect Alaska that is independent.

If you do not like the Democrats or you don’t like the leadership of the Democratic Party, or you are still pissed that Sanders lost, or you are simply about media sensation then you will completely dismiss the number of votes the party received. A party cannot be on the ground when more people voted for this party than for the other one.

“Glenn’s analysis disqualified because of his Sanders bias ?”

His analysis is disqualified NOT BECAUSE of his obvious Sanders’ bias. It is disqualified because

1) It is based on the assumption that Trump could not beat Sanders because he was stronger than Clinton. Again, polls, weather, economic or financial forecasts DO NOT tell you what is going to happen. They tell you what is MORE LIKELY to happen. Clinton was up against Trump! Moreover, Trump’s strategy have worked for thousands of years. Greenwald completely diregards or underestimates Trump’s tactics.

2) It blames those who picked Clinton as incapable individuals who are unable to think “wisely and strategically” . So, basically those who voted Clinton in the primary because they disagreed with Sanders proposals were not smart enough, that is a key reason why Trump won. That is just an emotional argument. Sanders supporters who stayed home or voted for Trump because Clinton won secured the victory of the candidate who told them explicitly that his policies will be against Sanders’ proposals. There is nothing wise or strategically efficient about that. You are so pissed that your guy lost that you gonna vote for the other guy who told you he would be against your interests. That is quite irrational.

What makes him automatically wrong when he talks about the DNC ?”

I do not know. I never said that and I do not think he is automatically wrong when he talks about whatever he wants.

You don’t get it.

You lost to *Donald Trump*. You lost to literally the least popular Presidential candidate in history.

And you lost everything. You lost the presidency; you lost the House; you lost the Senate; you lost a majority of the governorships, a majority of the state Houses and state Senates, and you will soon be a minority in SCOTUS.

Against – might I remind you – Donald Trump – who was at the time and continues to be one of the most widely detested political figures ever.

And what lesson did you take from this complete, utter and total defeat? Why – not one tiny little thing. You don’t see anything unusual in this. You can’t even mention one thing that you did wrong. The fact that your leaders told you all the way you were winning before this is unremarkable to you. You blame everything on everyone else except the people who were in charge during this debacle.

It is unconscionable. It is ridiculous. It shows a profound love of failure and a Dunning-Kruger level of arrogance that isn’t even able to recognize failure, let alone adapt and respond to it.

The Demodcrats will repeat history, because they are incapable of learning anything from their mistakes and incapable of changing from a party of billionaires back to their left-wing roots. Your spineless failure to act will cause terrible harm to Americans and all the people of the world and yet you will never for a second question what you do, all the way down to the bottom.

“… literally the least popular Presidential candidate in history.”

Not hardly.

Democrat George McGovern won only the single state of Massachusetts (of course) in 1972. Nixon carried 49 states with 60.7% of the popular vote.

There you go, someone who gets it. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1) Do not direct the “you” to me. I am not a US citizen and I do not live in the US. So I cannot vote in US elections. US healthcare, immigration policies will not affect me.

2) Reminder: Who is the loser? Clinton lost the election, but she is still wealthy and doing well.
Who are more likely to be affected by Trump environmental policies? The lack of regulations on Wall Street?
Who? Clinton or those who stayed home or voted for Trump because Sanders lost?

Do you believe Clinton will be affected by polluted water? Do you believe her family will be affected by the immigration policies? Think about this, and then ask yourself “who lost?”

Clinton won’t be affected by polluted water, which is why was pro-fracking, pro-DAPL, and pro-Keystone XL, until she realized that those positions were extremely unpopular and waffled unconvincingly.

Do I think her family will be affected by the immigration policies? Probably not; I suspect that in a year or so she, like Bush, will be unable to leave the U.S. for fear of arrest over her role in U.S. foreign policy, and therefore she won’t have a problem, and her clueless, married-to-a-hedge-fund-manager daughter is rich enough to escape any consequences of anything at all.

Therefore: we lost. We lost the minute Clinton was selected as the nominee.

“Therefore: we lost. We lost the minute Clinton was selected as the nominee.”

Now ask yourself, what did you do to cut your losses? If you believe between Clinton, Trump and the other candidates nobody could reduce your losses, then it is time to have your own party.

Way ahead of you there, the only reason I’m still registered as a Democrat instead of an Independent is because I have been too lazy to go in change it; the decision was made months ago.

But as for “could reduce my losses”, that depends on what you mean: if you mean “was there any conceivable way that I think the Democrats could have won”, then the answer is “sure, the Democrats could have won easily by not just running Sanders but uniting behind him and taking his goals seriously”. He would have brought out the base, motivated a lot of people to vote for the first time in years, and picked up a lot of Independents who couldn’t stand Hillary Clinton, to say nothing of not being someone that the Republican Party has been trained, for decades, to oppose without even a moment’s thought.

But far too much of the party’s internal bureaucracy is basically people hand-picked by Bill Clinton in the 1990s to ensure that Hillary Clinton — and everything she represents, economics run for the rich, more war, lip service to the causes of the left while at best doing nothing at all about them — would not face any difficulties in running for President later. Realistically, even if these people could be convinced that Sanders (or any other candidate who was not Hillary Clinton or one of her many clones of one gender or the other, like Rahm Emmanuel) was necessary in order to win the election, they would be fighting that candidate all the way in terms of policy. So in the real world, the Democratic Party is just a bunch of useless time-wasters who get in the way of actually doing anything worthwhile.

Democrats who supported Clinton in 2016 should take a back seat for a bit. They should limit their contribution to one of support. Their support of Clinton showed a lack of sound political instincts. Clinton herself did not think it necessary to have the support of younger voters, despite the certain loss of the white working class voters, which shows her lack of sound political instincts.

I’m ready to change my voter registration to Democratic Socialist come Monday morning if Perez is elected. I’ll also post, tweet, and email the DNC why.

Still on Obama cause your man Trump has turned out to be a complete fucktard ? Damn you people are fucking pathetic.

I wanted Allan Grayson for DNC. He is a lawyer and he’s available.

His far-left brand is out of place with Florida’s swingy politics. His penchant for controversy doesn’t go over well with many of Florida’s older Democratic voters. And the establishment wing of the Democratic Party wants him out, out, out — out of the Senate race, out of Congress and, preferably, out of Florida politics altogether.

But despite (or perhaps because of) all that, Rep. Alan Grayson (D) is a figure in Florida politics — a perplexing, divisive figure, but a figure nonetheless, and one who may represent a younger, more liberal, anti-establishment wing of the Democratic Party that Florida Democrats can’t live without.

This nonsense about him and his wife was a big issue according to the fake press. Elliot Spitzer had the same issue with the fake media and all he did was call wallstreet a ponzi scheme.

I will continue to back Grayson as long as he continues. We will know today whether the dnc destroys itself and a third party is born. I prefer the final destruction of the demorat party and a new party to a half baked version dimorat 2.0.

Just one more piece of evidence that reforming the Democratic Party is a fool’s errand. They (red/blue) both represent capitalistic America. A true second (third) Party needs to emerge that represents us all… call it the American Socialist Party (ASP, as in don’t tread on me)!

From Debbie (the Sane Progressive). See also link below the video to discussion of Ellison as a war promoter.

Ever feel like there’s nowhere to go that hasn’t been co-opted or made powerless?

I only feel like that when I forget to take my blue pill with breakfast.

That strikes me as really poignant right now. Could be the brandy, I suppose.

Small comfort at the moment, but this ‘safe place’ will only be created, and maintained, from the bottom up. Better news is that the people at the ‘bottom’ are working on it.

It gets both frightening and exhilarating to stop being so fixated on political leaders to stand up for us (especially if you happen to be just 110 pounds and 5 foot 3, and freak out inside when police throw you in a van for protesting), but perhaps a paradigm shift is really at hand. Lately I keep finding solace in Snowden’s statement “If we want a better world, we can’t hope for an Obama, or fear a Trump. We should build it ourselves.”

ok.
pick any small state
write out a constitution..
declare inalienable rights
declare public resources
declare public ownership and control
declare right to life support and earned comfort
declare limit of population!
DECLARE A BACKUP CURRENCY OF STATE’S OWN
publish it. push it.
watch what happens.

thanks for bringing up Snowden statement: it really is the truth…& right now we’re seeing MORE STANIDNG UP from everyday people than i’ve seen in my lifetime (& I;’m almost 60).

Bernie Sanders was never perfect, he was always merely much, much better than Clinton. (See also his unwillingness to take a stand against drone bombing or existing endless and pointless wars, and also his pro-gun stances.) Clinton merely sank below the threshold where “lesser of two evils” becomes meaningless.

Truth. I was just quite alarmed (like Debbie, with whom I don’t always agree) that on top of his surrendering to Clinton and not pursuing the “I got cheated by the DNC” angle at all, he’s promoting all that distracting Russia/Trump business, as it just adds to my increasing distrust of the guy.

You do mean Debbie (the Insane Progravitas)!

Sanders explicitly made a bargain with the DNC/Clinton that he would abide by the results of the primary election, and would back the winner if he lost, and in exchange the DNC wouldn’t quibble about the fact that he had to change his party registration to run. His unwillingness to attack the DNC is because he is a principled person, and therefore unwilling to welsh on a deal.

Also, and more importantly, there are two ideas being pushed about Russia, which have different levels of merit:

1. The idea that the Russians “hacked the election”. This claim is pretty much ludicrous, because even the people making it have to admit, when challenged, that the most the Russians possibly did — and even this is unproven to any great degree — was to reveal a few things which were true about the Democrats, and possibly also to fund some weird conspiracy theory sites which only the far right (which was already going to vote Trump) would believe anyway. Nobody claims they actually controlled voting machines or anything like that, and there’s a lot of reason to doubt that there was much going on at all. (And, further, the means which were supposedly used are peanuts to what our own country has done to influence foreign elections. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and turnabout is fair play.)

2. The claim that Trump is being controlled to some extent, either via blackmail or via money, by Russian interests. This is quite possibly true. Certainly Trump’s unwillingness to release his tax returns, even now, strongly suggests that there’s something he doesn’t want the world to see — if it were merely a case that he isn’t as rich as he claimed, well, he already won the election, so there’s no reason to admit that now.

Unfortunately, everyone in both parties has an interest in conflating these two ideas: the Democrats want to use the probable guilt of Trump to suggest that the election was faulty in some way, while Republicans want to use the stupidity of the election claims to suggest that Trump must be innocent. (Sort of like how Clinton supporters repeatedly tried to conflate the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorism, which was supported by practically every politician because in 2001 a large majority of most constituencies were in favor of military action against Al Queda, with the 2003 AUMF Against Iraq, which was voted for by Clinton even though her own constituency was against it by a margin of at least 20 points, and which was voted against by Sanders.)

Well, I think Sanders is very naïve and a bit irresponsible if he thinks his words aren’t just feeding the propagandist waves of deception from the Democrats.

Plus I don’t see how you could say he’s really a “principled person,” with what you said about “his unwillingness to take a stand against drone bombing or existing endless and pointless wars, and also his pro-gun stances.”

But thanks for the response, I don’t take issue with all of it by any means.

Not taking a stand on war is different from being likely to take action. Sanders has been fairly consistent about not wanting endless or unnecessary military action, and has voted against most of the bad stuff (like the Iraq invasion) — but since most registered Democrats seem to think that the Iraq invasion was a good thing (or else Clinton would never have been able to run) and Libya, and Syria, and drone bombing (or else Obama would have been in trouble), I think he just didn’t want to make an issue of it. The man is a politician, when all is said and done — he must have some grasp of what to avoid. (Then again, Clinton is a politician and apparently has no such sense whatsoever, so…)

As for the gun stuff, Sanders genuinely seems to believe that the Second Amendment needs to be defended; he isn’t on the NRA’s payroll and they don’t like him, so he’s not paid off for it. I disagree with him entirely on that, but I admit he was right about the most recent attempt the Democrats half-heartedly made: it was done in such a way that existing Supreme Court precedent would have invalidated the law immediately if it had passed, meaning that the attempt was just grandstanding. I disagree with his principle, but I admit he genuinely seems to hold it and isn’t just shilling for the NRA in exchange for campaign funds (and protection from being primaried) like most pro-gun politicians are.

As for the Russian stuff: Sanders believes, and has said repeatedly (and seems sincere), that Trump is the biggest threat we currently face. It’s why he campaigned for Clinton after losing the primary instead of just sitting back and saying “okay, you won, let’s see how you do on your own”. He does, as a Senator, have access to information we don’t get to know until later, if at all, so it’s possible he has reasons we can only guess at, but even with what we know, it seems likely that he’s right. So he probably thinks that an out-of-control Russophobia — which would still be less than it was in the 1950s or 1980s — is less harmful than letting Trump go unchallenged.

(Incidentally: the Indiana legislature, which is overwhelmingly Republican, is now focussing on undoing just about everything Pence pushed through as governor. That’s not because he was too liberal for them, it’s because he was so inept as a governor that pretty much anything he touched, legislatively, is too broken or impossible to enforce for even the Republican party. What, precisely, that would bode for a Trump impeachment I don’t know.)

Sanders didn’t really “not take a stand” on drone strikes, he made what I believe is an unprincipled and disgusting stance on them:

Bernie Sanders says he would use drones to fight terror as president

In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press scheduled for broadcast on Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked the independent senator from Vermont if drones or special forces would play a role in his counter-terror plans.

“All of that and more,” Sanders said.

He made absolutely no attempt to distinguish himself from Obama’s repulsive foreign policy, and as can be seen from the above embraced it quite clearly.

I agree with you that his views on guns is wrong.

I think he’s wrong that Trump is “the biggest threat we currently face” – I think that title goes to the Deep State, the military-industrial complex, and the corporate elite controlling both major Parties. Trump is just another puppet, albeit a singularly offensive person. Obama was certainly almost as much of a threat, entrenching corporatism, militarism, imperialism and the surveillance state to the present unconstitutional proportions, assassinating U.S citizens, and excusing Bush-era war crimes. Sanders should have at least been somewhat as appalled by this, if his criticism of figureheads was consistent, but he expressed no such complaint.

So I don’t trust Sanders, nor do I regard him as principled in any real sense. You do, evidently, and it’s fine for us to disagree. I would certainly like something very like his domestic policy to be central in the future, as it makes sense and would help countless millions.

If we follow him on energy and banks, we will find ourselves in less wars. I dont see anyone better, certainly not HRC. You are making a false equivalency
.

“he does, as a senator, have access to information…” this line was used repeatedly to justify support for the iraq war, including by democrats who voted for it (george bush and cheney know more than we do).

“since most registered Democrats seem to think that the Iraq invasion was a good thing (or else Clinton would never have been able to run) and Libya, and Syria, and drone bombing (or else Obama would have been in trouble), I think he just didn’t want to make an issue of it”

there are a lot of former democrats that don’t, and trump was able to run for, and win, the nomination of the party that drove us to war (with much aid from the democrats, true) after criticising bush for it; does that mean most republicans think the iraq invasion was a bad thing?

Are you saying that these people, the former Democrats who don’t think the Iraq invasion was a good idea, left the party before Clinton announced her run? Because otherwise, why weren’t they in the room to laugh Clinton out of it when she announced her candidacy?

Seriously, if the Democrats were a serious political party, if Clinton had announced that she was running for president in 2016 at all, it would have been a joke, or else grounds for having her given some serious psychological examination. The single least-popular member of the party, who polls showed could defeat no Republicans except possibly Trump and then only within the margin of error, who was so broadly hated by the Republicans that it was obvious that she would mobilize as much of their party as possible, and who had a history of kicking the base in the teeth as a campaign strategy (just like her idiot husband)? Clinton was an obvious loser! She was born to lose this election! Nobody with a brain ought to have considered her seriously for a moment!

And yet the Democrats did. If these “former democrats” of yours didn’t leave until now, I’m not super-impressed with them.

Interesting video, but I don’t see what it has to do directly with what I was talking about (though I may have been hiccupping at the crucial point). I think the whole ‘Ponzi scheme’ thing is a right on description of the national financial mess, and I daresay Trump is indeed trying to enrich U.S. corporations (his mitigating stance on the TPP is good, but he must know that millions of people are in other kinds of dire straits than just those caused by multinational business influences), but I heard nothing about helping out the regular American people or providing an anti-corporatist, anti-militarist and anti-imperialist agenda to counter the corruption of the government’s (bipartisan) present direction. Plus, lowering the corporate tax rate (as Max’s guest, who thinks Trump understands the economy, recommends) is to my mind one of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard.

But thanks for the link, as it helped pass some time before Jasmine is back from Art Class. I’m sure I, too, would buy gold like those in the Eurozone – that is, if I had any money.

i passed the link to you from a post you made on another topic
i consider it of utmost imprtance that people see the larger picture of the currency war that is playing out right now – it’s a gold rush, literally, for countries who are preparing to DUMP THE DOLLAR AS A RESERVE CURRENCY. This is why perez was recruited. Hillary supports the ponzi sceme being perpped by her backers who back the Dem party. DWS, same thing. Obama, same thing. They all support the ponzi currency scheme and that link explains the situation well.

Countries are preparing to dump. Dont know when but the signs are coming as wallstreet banksters run the market. As oil and coal fall off the change will be forced and it’s going to be a wammer. Heavy price cuts. I see it as a good thing but the wallstreet currency paper printers price fakers loan scammers, it’s a huge loser for them, huge.

it’s good that you watch it. You’ll have more than enough money to buy gold when you sell your book.

You sure that is the right video, Maisie? I heard her say that the CIA said thus and such and therefore there is no doubt about it. No doubt!

If they put in Perez, I will not vote for their candidates in 2018 or 2020. If I can survive Trump and the GOP Trumpanzees for 4 years, I can survive them for 8.

That’s all the Democrats need is another sloganeering Marxist goatface.

Self admiration is not becoming to you – except perhaps the goatface part.

Why did Obama’s White House push for Perez? Because Ellison is a Muslim, which is unacceptable to the rich and powerful DNC Party Elite. Doesn’t matter that he’s right when he opposes the illegal and immoral Gaza Blockade. All that matters is how loudly Saban can scream GODDAMNIT, HE’S A FUCKING ANTI SEMITE! at Ellison.

Perez will perpetuate the status quo. Why? Because him talking a mean game he’s scared shitless of Saban, Hillary, Schumer and all the rest of them.

yup.
the political pimps have beat their pimped outs into submission to such an extent that the pimped out political whores have adopted the BEAT ME PAY ME method. When the political pimped outs want to advance their position, they go to their pimps and plead with them to beat them some more.

An anti-Semite who backed a Jew. Oy vey.

Perez is progressive the same way Hillary was. It’s lip service. Political expediency. Perez, however he may personally feel about anything, equals the establishment, the status quo. He can feel any way he likes, as long as he follows his marching orders from The Money. Ellison may actually have… um, … what is that word… principles.

I wouldn’t be surprised that Ellison will be chosen, if the # of times his name came up in my media feeds in the last workweek. (Hopefully planted news in mainstream media still counts as data)
If the DNC voters don’t want to win again ever, they put their ostrich’s head BACK where it proverbially belonged. They sent me a survey & I answered it truthfully on what would bring me to vote Democratic party ever, or what policy would likely keep voters from looking to vote GREEN.
If the DNC wants to keep losing then people with a conscious will have to pray heart felt edtly that the GOP fractures into many parties!

Republicans threw off 29 years of neocon rule, sent them scurrying down the mooring rope, elected the Tea Party. All giggling on the left seems to have turned to outrage and tears.

Democrats don’t have the courage to install the communist anti-Semite Keith Ellison.

right. ’cause Trump hasn’t bent down to kiss the Zionist ring like those stupid ol’ neos.

oh, wait….

Saban and Dershowitz do not speak for Jewish voters or Jews anywhere. They may be big donors but that should mean nothing in a debate. I like many Jewish people am not a One Issue guy and have serious concerns about Netanyahu cuddling up to a proto fascist like Trump for protection, that will harm Israel and Jewish people more than anything Ellison has said. The fact he is a Muslim appeals to me, if only to hear the outrage. My only fear is that Muslims are too conservative, I would prefer an Atheist.

OT: Shep Smith has decided he knows what “fake news” is, which I imagine would surprise Glenn Greenwald (who disputes sensibly that a comprehensive definition can be given at all for the manipulative term). It can not be used to describe CNN, Shep declares, because:

Fake news is made up nonsense delivered for financial gain.

(This definition would seem to apply to the defense budget, incidentally, which I find amusing in a sad way.)

Mediaite

“Fake News” is a clueless public’s peek under the skirt of the tactics of small-caliber “internet marketers” to SEO + Monetize anything that reveals the faintest whiff of traffic. Click Bait, Farticles, Flogs, Splogs, PBNs – just a few of the terms/tools from that incestuous mud puddle.

Just as HST described the music business, internet “marketing” is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.

The Democratic party can never be “fixed”, Nor can the Republican party for that matter (who it could be argued had their ‘Sanders period’ when Ron Paul was running).

While its important to point out why and how its broken, and to learn from it, it not only makes establishment-tools out of those naively thinking they can manifest substantive reform, but its also a waste of energy which, for the long term, could be better spent creating a new party or creating a mass movement to force fair access to 3rd parties on the ballad or ensure some non-partisan conduit for all parties to have fair access to speak for themselves to the public.

As long as the duopoly exists American Democracy is a completely meaningless sideshow, and a distraction. While there are plenty of other factors, that is a major one and probably the only one that left, right, and independents could easily unite on, and force some “democracy” back into the system.

If Ron Paul’s foreign policy and Bernie Sanders’ domestic policy could be in one candidate, that candidate would be dismissed like Jill Stein or taken out by the Deep State awesome.

well said
we the people need to make that the 2020 slogan and mandate

Absolutely agree! I think that with the chaos of current events, the media and parties having discredited themselves so blatantly, a window exists to ensure the strikeout holds. :)

Absolutely idiotic for the DNC to nominate a black Muslim after enduring eight years of taunting nonsense from the GOP. Ellison seems like a good leader; however, his anti-Israel actions are questionable. And while, it’s great that the DNC is so accepting to all that it might pick Ellison, it would also be simply stupid if it wants to get folks in Middle America back. Too many far left “progressive” are all about patting themselves on the back for disruptive protests and decisions based solely on making a statement, while the strategies to actually win elections (and thus make change) is ignored.

while the strategies to actually win elections (and thus make change) is ignored.

What is “absolutely idiotic” is your entire statement, which concluded with you saying that the dem party should continue the same horse shit that lost all of these elections that you pretend your ‘continuance’ advice will now win.

while the strategies to actually win elections (and thus make change) is ignored.

pot, kettle, and black seem to come into my mind here

really?
anit israel? like anti south africa apartheid? like anti genocide of palestinians? The real idiots are the people who deny that apartheid is a reality among the extremists in israel.

interesting that the zionista warriors havent invaded this thred, yet.

If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighbourhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab.
Khaled Abu Toameh (journalist, Arab citizen of Israel)

Too many far left “progressive” are all about patting themselves on the back for disruptive protests and decisions based solely on making a statement, while the strategies to actually win elections (and thus make change) is ignored.

you only get three turns in Triangulation™ before you’re just going around in circles.

Hah! ,If Glenn thinks Bernie would have beat Trump in a general election I want what he’s smoking….

True, the rigged voting machines wouldn’t allow it.

ah, you must have OD’d on what it is you’re smoking not to realise you been smokin’.

Let me guess, ‘cuz Bernie’s a Commuh-nist, right?

Sanders would’ve won all 50 states against Trump.

Fun analysis, but totally irrelevant in the new politics. The dems are doomed no matter which figurehead they choose, though Perez would be less damaging from a visuals point of view. And that’s all that matters, since neither apparatchiks can inspire anyone.

Go ahead, pick Ellison, and the Democratic Party will have that wooden stake through it’s heart. ZERO red state moderates would ever switch their votes.

Perez is just another Hellary clone SEIU communist, good luck with that.

Is there not an actual Blue Collar American that could represent the Dems?

“Communist”! Ha ha!

Both Parties are represented by corporatist warmongering imperialists.

The people are represented by nary a one anywhere.

I got news for you–if Ellison stands for something, like say workers rights, and is forthright about it, working people wouldn’t (and don’t) give one good goddamn about him being Muslim or a “leftist.” That’s a fact–I work in the trades and am a union member, and I know what I’m talking about. Get out more, dude.

Is it a WHITE GUY you;’re longing for or what?

The difference is clear enough for me to say that if KE wins I stay to see what ensues and if TP wins I’m gone for good.

Staying means the DP MUST attract Independents and form an Alliance with the GP or I still leave.

I voted for Clinton, in the primaries too. BUT WE NEED TO BRING IN THE BERNIE FOLKS AND GREENS (SOME WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE STUPIDLY AND WASTE THEIR VOTES BUT SOME CAN GET PULLED IN. AND THE AFRICAN AMERICANS AND MILLENNIALS WHO STAYED HOME NEED TO GET ENERGIZED. ELLISON IS A BETTER SYMBOL TO DO THIS.

TRUMP WILL CONTINUE TO SCARE THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO COME OUT AND VOTE AGAIN AS THEY DID LAST TIME.

BUT WE NEED THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN”T VOTE DEMOCRATIC LAST TIME.

NOT SURPRISED BY OBAMA, WHO SPENT 8 YEARS DOING VERY LITTLE TO BUILD A PARTY THAT COULD BEAT REPUBLICANS AND WHO THUS SOWED THE SEEDS FOR THE OVERTHROW OF POLICY HE SUPPOSEDLY CARES ABOUT

“I voted for Clinton, in the primaries too. BUT WE NEED TO BRING IN THE BERNIE FOLKS AND GREENS (SOME WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE STUPIDLY AND WASTE THEIR VOTES BUT SOME CAN GET PULLED IN. ”

As a democrat Bernie supporter (or maybe better known to you Clinton voters and the MSM as a chair throwing, violent, Bernie bros who vote stupidly) I will never again vote for those corrupt dems as long as I live – unless 99% of the party is replaced with good leaders. The democrat party is dead!

And us stupid voters do vote when we have a leader that actually has a sincere,meaningful message for the people. That is why your Hillary lost! And I am happy, happy, happy she lost!!! :)

So, we’re still stupid in your book because we “wasted” our votes, eh? You Dems never learn; insulting and hectoring people, and doing so by ignoring your own deep ignorance about what went wrong, is not a good idea. Easy does it with the all-caps, too: A sure sign of someone who is less than convinced that their argument has any merit, the equivalent of shouting down someone when the argument is going bad.

The Vampire Bride Returns.

And she’s still cringeworthily pretending to be progressive, unlike the Democrat supporters here…

After the primaries, we came together as a party to write the most progressive platform in history. Ideas we championed are now inspiring leaders and activists across our country. Nearly 66 million votes are fueling grassroots energy and activism and everywhere people are marching, protesting, tweeting, speaking out and working for an America that’s hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted. (Hillary Clinton)

In New Video, Clinton Rallies Democrats And Promotes “An America That’s Hopeful, Inclusive And Big-Hearted.”

Bernie Sanders said in a statement “She will make an excellent – oh God forgive me, I don’t get paid enough for this crap. Who the hell does she think she’s kidding?”

Okay, I made up the Bernie bit.

Hillary Clinton continues to lie.

If the DNC Platform had been truly “progressive” it would have included support for a “Medicare for All” single payer healthcare system, support for the BDS against the apartheid state of Israel and support for deep-sixing the Obama/Clinton supported TPP trade deal.

It would have also supported eliminating the “Superdelegates” and for not allowing ANY endorsement of ANY primary candidate either covertly or overtly until the convention was O-V-E-R. Plus support for ten debates on nights that are not holidays or major sporting events.

Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn’t have a progressive bone in her corrupt body.

And we won’t see any of these “progressive” agenda items from Ellison or Perez.

If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighbourhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab.
Khaled Abu Toameh (journalist, Arab citizen of Israel)

i dont know how much you are selling that “IF” for, but you could not pay me to buy that load of YEAH-BUT
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tel-aviv-protests-dozens-injured-as-thousands-demonstrate-against-racism-and-police-brutality-in-10223340.html

israel is an apartheid colony of

The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.
3 Judge Richard J. Goldstone (former Justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations 2008-9 fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict), 2011

Agreed on all counts. I’ll add that I don’t believe any of them would enact even the platform’s (modest) proposals, but only wanted to sound as “Sanders-like” as they could stand before betraying all if elected.

That “most progressive platform in history” claim always reminds me of an old joke:

In physics, a “quantum leap” is the absolute smallest change possible. In marketing, a “quantum leap” is the largest change possible in the mind of someone selling a product. There is no contradiction between these two definitions.

And of course predictably today’s front-runners for DNC Chairperson— one meant to clean up the Democratic Party debris field left in the wake of twin F-5 tornadoes Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazil, consist of a hodgepodge of Liberal Irons who’ve all long exceeded their “Sell By Dates:” Tom Perez, Keith Ellison, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raúl Grijalva, Chuck Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and especially Harry Reid.

None of whom are considered apt prescriptions for the trio of ailments currently afflicting the Democratic Party: “Party Disunity, Apathy, and Disloyalty!”

Having successfully splintered their votes in 2016 between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, 1980s Clinton Haters, “Bernie-R-Bust” faction, “BlackLivesMatter” brigade, and disaffected non-voters, Democrat disunity resembled more like a Jackson Pollock painting rather than virile political party.

DNC leadership is now in dire need of a cultural crossover artisan who’s not only youthful, intelligent, and “politically disconnected,” but one equipped with 21st Century inside-the-beltway political accoutrements: statistics, finance, campaign law, pollstering, information technology, and cyberspace navigation.

And of course the successful candidate’s compensation package should be commensurate with their tasking.

Muscular new DNC leadership is needed to sufficiently— public perception, expunge Democrats disastrous 2015/2016 campaign misadventures. All of which cumulatively ceded the presidency, Supreme Court, and congressional control to disaster-prone Republicans.

What’s that old Will Rogers axiom: “When you find yourself in a hole you can’t get out of, stop digging!”

Collectively Democrats need to draft a comprehensive, actionable, and viable plan for a successful 2020 coup d’état to retake The White House and Congress.

The era of negligible political strategy incontinence— habitually committing political suicide with the twin DNC swords of existentialism and hyperbole, is over. The Democratic Party isn’t in dire need of a new car, insomuch as it’s desperately needs a new driver absent of any “DWIs” on their political resume.

It’s like any product I come to like that a smaller company (stpdly) decides to sell out to a conglomerate: they’re going to lure all the customers plus some until all viable competition is essentially dissolved and then, inexplicably, quash it via “poor planning”, decreased product standards, etc until that thing no longer exists in the world

She gets it:

Democrats need to acknowledge that they are anything but innocent in a political history that set dangerous precedents and hurt regular people. None of this means excusing the same or expanded actions under a new President, or that honesty is moral equivalence. Their integrity is compromised, though, and moving forward requires change. So far, that message hasn’t gotten through.

At a debate in January amongst candidates running for DNC Chair, none dared to criticize Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the handling of the primary or upset Clinton supporters by mentioning the candidate’s faults. A DNC debate this week on CNN largely mirrored the first, with former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez avoiding the question of a rigged primary. Moving on from rehashing the fight for the nomination is essential to finding party unity, and many of those voting for chair are more moderate Democrats who don’t wholeheartedly agree ideologically with the Sanders contingent – but the fear of hurting feelings or straining long standing relationships by critically examining the full array of mistakes in the last election only exhibits political cowardice. Blaming Russian interference or James Comey for an election loss is deflection. Even in anticipating what’s to come, Democrats are already cutting themselves slack. At a recent retreat in West Virginia, some reports described Democrats as feeling liberated by a shifting of responsibility. Without the numbers in Congress to block Republicans, it seems they’ve decided it’s easier to let the house burn down and then say, “Don’t blame us”. The retreat also reportedly included associates of the Clinton family. On the same day as the Women’s March on Washington, some Democrats instead attended a donor event hosted by David Brock. If this is the grand plan for the party’s future, they are in trouble.

From here on out, Democrats need to hold themselves to higher standards if they want to cut against polarization. There’s no easy path. A newly energized and organized left wants its representatives to resist at all costs and is threatening to throw them out of office if they don’t see results. Trump voters on the other hand find the strict oppositionist stance to be a turn-off. Some voters complain that identity politics leave them feeling alienated while for others it is a long overdue official welcome. And let’s face it, some people will just never be won over and others Democrats are better off without. But maintaining the status quo of Washington politics – courting big donors and making deals with special interests, giving leadership positions based on waited turns rather than merit, forging questionable alliances for political convenience (like the Democrats new embrace of intelligence agencies) and failing to take responsibility for past mistakes – is a recipe for affirming Trump voters’ belief that they were right. Even if Trump’s supporters eventually turn on him, they will still want the swamp to be drained, and without sincere reform from within first, they won’t see Democrats as the party willing to do it.

Think about the implications of the bolded portions. Either the Democratic party can change, or it won’t, and it will continue to be a smoking pile of rubble.

http://thedailybanter.com/2017/02/trumps-failures-wont-win-democrats-more-votes/

There are a number of concerns that I have with the depiction of Keith Ellison within this article.

1. He is a Muslim – why exactly is this an important factor? Ellison was raised a catholic and received a Jesuit education. His conversion to the Muslim faith coincided with his express support for the Nation of Islam. However, when he realized that his association with the NOI was a political liability to his budding ambitions, he couldn’t move quick enough to distance himself from their Black Separatist rhetoric. The fact that Haim Saban has openly characterized Ellison as anti-Semitic only speaks to a longstanding strategy of supporting the most pro-Israeli candidate.

2. He is an element of an “insurgent Sanders wing.” Although I agree that Ellison’s political positions are closely aligned with those of Sanders, I do not believe that Sanders can be accurately described as an insurgent. Not only does Sander’s voting record align with that of the democratic majority 93% of the time, his campaign-crafted reputation as a party maverick was shattered by his unwavering support of Hillary Clinton – even in light of the revelation that she conspired with the DNC to undermine his primary campaign. Sander’s value to the DNC was twofold during the democratic primary:

A. He was tasked with drawing a certain demographic into the democratic tent for the purpose of augmenting Clinton’s own perceived deficiencies

B. His “radical” persona was intended to draw the majority of republican criticism while Hillary endeavored to narrow the ideological divide between herself and her potential republican opposition in the general election.

Even now, Sanders is dutifully parroting the party line in the attempt to lend credence to the unsubstantiated claim that Russia was behind the DNC hack. Sanders is a party man through and through. If Ellison’s capacity for independent thought and action is akin to that of Sander’s then little will change regardless of who assumes a leadership role in the DNC.

He’s being maligned by Haim Saban, someone who said that Muslims deserve more scrutiny, someone with a history of “animus towards Muslims.” His being Muslim has no relevance in that context??

Oh I forgot. You’re that protester outside Red Lobster. Leviticus. Am I right?

US politics has always been a system of patronage. Politics throughout all of history has been. This isn’t exactly new behavior for our culture. They just change the labels of groups and call it new.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the anti-establishment energy in the political left will get hijacked by greedy assholes like the alt-right hipster-Nazis scooped up the Tea Party’s energy.

It’s amazing too. Only 20% of the US population voted in the election, yet nobody talks about that. It’s a clear sign that a majority of people have woken up to the fact that politics works only for people working in politics. This trend has been developing well before I was even born (I’m 31). It’s no surprise my generation doesn’t give a shit about politics because it never works for us. Politicians and businessmen just lie and take your stuff. And then we get the usual victim-blaming crap of “Oh if you voted then they’d care.” Just like any group that’s oppressed, just blame them for their peoblems and move on. Or we hear the other lame excuse of voter suppression. The suppression of the vote is when you give people a false choice with no good outcomes.

If people don’t wake up to a common sense of humanity, then expect things to get a lot more ugly. The alcoholic rarely breaks out of their cycle until they hit rock bottom. Looks like the addiction fueled consumer culture will have to do the same before any change will come.

Only 20% of the US population voted in the election, yet nobody talks about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/

It was actually about 55%, which was lowest in 20 years.

But yes the point remains, why doesn’t the Democratic party spend more time figuring out how to reach the 45% (which is about 90 million eligible voters) that didn’t vote.

Because they don’t care to. That takes something other than algorithms and advertising campaigns run and staffed by six figure Ivy leaguers with their heads up far too many centrist asses.

I didn’t make the point that the Democrats need to do something. You’re making that point. If you read my post you will see I said current politics as a system is failing, not specific political parties. Political parties are just a symptom of the bigger problem. Nice try to spin my argument to serve your purposes though. I’m sure Breitbart or MSNBC will hire you real quick.

I don’t understand all this partisan sniping either. It’s just fueling the bullshit narratives on both sides of the political spectrum. I can’t see how anyone takes this seriously. It’s devolved to kids fighting in the sand box.

I wasn’t trying to spin anything.

I wasn’t clear from what you wrote that you believe all is lost. I don’t. I agree “the system” is failing because the Democratic party since Kennedy, and most certainly since Carter and Pres. Bill Clinton, has been coopted by the same forces that drive the GOP–big business, the MICC, big finance, big fossil fuel, big media.

I think that is correctable. But if at the ripe old age of 31 you aren’t even going to fight for a better future for you and your generation, then that’s on you. There is no progress without struggle.

I didn’t say there was certainty of success, but if you don’t struggle and fight, I don’t see what your orientation or attitude will accomplish. I’d be curious what you think it will accomplish if you’re willing to share.

You certainly won’t get disagreement from me about there needing to be more political parties, and a change to the Constitution to increase the size of the House, and move towards something that is proportionally representative of the population with the purpose of having more voices forcing true coalition government. Many changes to campaign finance and media consolidation. Big changes to voting rights including vote by mail and a national voting holiday together with mandatory voting required for a tax credit, easier ballot access for all, an end to political gerrymandering, and a host of other changes to make more voices heard. I’d advocate Constitutional changes to the Senate and a Constitutional amendment such that corporate entities do not have most of the rights of human beings. They are legal fictions for the purpose of limited liability to the human that work for them. They shouldn’t have most of the same rights as humans, and not the same due process protections.

I’d actually agree that some sort of regional devolution in this country into smaller, separate and more autonomous nations might be a good idea if people were in agreement to do it peacefully.

Hell I can think of lots of changes to the currently failing “political system” that we might agree on, but we’d have to discuss them, and then fight together to try and make them reality. That’s how all change happens in the world–struggle.

Or we could just give up, smoke weed, refuse to buy anything but hand-crafted vaporizers and organic Visine and artisan bicycles and ride around pissing and moaning how awful things are while stroking our 12 inch Kentucky bluegrass beards.

Or maybe both. Who knows. But I’ve always said I’m a cynical optimist. Life is unpredictable and positive (as well as negative) change often happens when we least expect it, think is it usually doesn’t happen without pushing for it to in ways big and small.

rrhead: you point to many SYSTEMIC changes that are crucial to saving democracy in the U.S.—and it does NOT seem that EITHER political party has the slightest interest in ANY fundamental change. What MS seems to NOT know is that IT IS NOT POLITICAL PARTIES that ever changed a damn thing in this cuntry–it was WE THE PEOPLE in SOCIAL MOVEMENTS that did that PRESSURING the political parties. MN: what SPECIFICALLY fuels your CYNICAL stance to all politics? have YOU ever actually DONE anything—(& I’m NOT at all limiting politics to electoral politics)? ? ? It’s CYNCIAL DIS-ENGAGEMENT that is in part WHAT GOT US HERE!!! People shopping & wathcing TV 6 hours a day & focUsed on sports & “keeping up with the Jones” with thelatest un-necessary gadget…whole the country went to hell with CorpORations taking more & mroe & labor unions declining & ALL Public Institutions (from public schools to prisons) being PRIVATIZED For Profit while ENDLESS WARS overseas U.S. CREATES Terrorists. And it’s NOT “blaming the victim” to say that Americans PASSIVITY & UNWLLINGNESS to DO anything (except be entertained & consume stuff) is a significant part of what got us to the point of Trumpism. A democracy (or small-d democratic republic, if you prefer) REQUIRED an ENGAGED CITIZENRY. So, put your smart phone in your pocket & get busy with the resistance or get out of the way of those of us who are

Your last paragraph is precious!!

Is “precious” good or bad in this instance?

The lowest in 20 years is accurate, but it’s also the norm. Electorate is regressing back to the mean in terms of turnout.

The rate in ’96 was 50%. The rate in ’08 was 62%. Which is more common? 50%. 62% was a black swan event. Once in a lifetime, hadn’t been seen in 50 years.

Here’s the problem with the Democratic party effectively becoming the Progressive Party: it’s not much of a plan to win elections across the country. Progressives tend to be highly concentrated in highly blue areas: California, New York, the Northeast, etc. It’s already hard for Democrats to control the Senate given that Wyoming and Montana have the same number of senators as California and New York. When the party orients its platform to what plays in LA and NYC, it stands little chance of winning senate seats in the south and midwest. That’s really the Democratic problem in a nutshell. It most likely will continue to win the popular vote at the presidential level due to population concentration into urban areas, which are typically very blue. It will struggle to win the rural areas that are key to winning the electoral college and the Senate. To the extent this represents a proxy fight for centrism versus progressivism in the party, I say this: while it’s going to be more satisfying for most of the party to veer left, it’s not the smart move in terms of gaining back power. You’re already going to win progressives. The folks you need to win are the rural folks who used to see the Democrats as the party of the people and now see it as the party of Big Government.

That’s a load of horseshit. Democrats get plenty of votes throughout most of the country. The problem is that districts are gerrymandered.

You eliminated your pile of talking points that you typed when you typed your last two sentences:

You’re already going to win progressives.

No. Obviously not. And that’s why the power that has been lost won’t be “gained back” with your hammer to head plan of the same old shit, which is fooling less and less people who have any sense.

The folks you need to win are the rural folks who used to see the Democrats as the party of the people and now see it as the party of Big Government.

And you think those people are stupid? You must since your suggestion is that the Democratic Party remain what those people recognize it to be, the party owned by corporations. They also recognize that your lame talking point of “big government” is irrelevant. The problem is the Dem party wholly sold out to the corporations and so they don’t represent their constituents. Your so called “rural folks” aren’t stupid. All of this is too obvious to even warrant discussion.

When the party orients its platform to what plays in LA and NYC, it stands little chance of winning senate seats in the south and midwest.

But that shouldn’t happen because a properly run DNC wouldn’t have a single monolithic strategy. Good strategy obviously varies region to region, state to state, and even district to district.

This whole Ellison versus Perez battle is being dramatized to an obscene degree.

The more muzzies incharge of the freaks the better!

This is a perfect encapsulation of what is wrong with the Democratic party establishment, its blinkered political cowardice and “technocratic” laziness.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/hillary-clinton-brexit-trump-algorithm-experts-elites/

One of the highest-paid staff at Clinton HQ in Brooklyn, Kriegel developed a devilishly complex algorithm called “Ada” that reportedly guided all of the campaign’s most critical strategic decisions — from which states to send the candidate and her surrogates to where and when to run ads and invest resources. So panoptic was Ada’s reach that it frequently overrode the judgment and local knowledge of Democratic activists on the ground.

As the election finally reached its denouement, Clinton’s big data algorithm was supposed to be her secret weapon. Instead, just like her candidacy, it proved to be a historic dud.

In the years to come, will the mode of politics that produced both suffer the same fate?

Even the most powerful algorithm cannot compensate for the flawed assumptions of its programmers. If the Ada fiasco is an indictment of data-driven politics, it is also a reflection of the values — and deficiencies — of the technocratic liberal ethos that spawned it.

More than perhaps any waged before, the Clinton campaign invested an inexhaustible faith (not to mention considerable financial resources) in the wisdom and effectiveness of experts, its upper echelons dominated by a generation of Democratic insiders steeped in Third Way thinking and analysis.

In word and affect, it spoke the language of white-collar professionals in New Democratic coastal heartlands and showed open disdain for some of the party’s traditional, less affluent constituencies and their aspirations. It eschewed the rhetoric of populist contestation in favor of bipartisan détente with factions in the Republican old guard and gleefully chased the votes of suburban conservatives. It publicly courted both Wall Street and Silicon Valley and proudly touted the support of their leading viceroys. It emphasized personality and qualification, judgment and temperament, over ideology. And had it prevailed as expected, it would have governed accordingly.

In the sum total of its posturing, strategy, messaging, and wounded bemusement in defeat, the Clinton campaign represented the apogee of the liberal center’s technocratic vision in all its shimmering hubris and ultimate, self-defeating futility.

The Democratic party establishment can make way for the Sanders wing and its way of doing politics, or they can suck it in the minority for the next 20-30 years for all me and a lot of other lifetime Democratic party voters care.

Leftists/progressives/liberals will never defeat the GOP unless we can offer something that works for everyone (other than the financial and MICC elite) and fight for it tooth and nail. And you don’t practice that sort of politics with algorithms and platitudes that do little but slow down the race to the economic bottom in their lives.

thanks for the insight
“Kriegel developed a devilishly complex algorithm …”

The problem with such algorithms is that the correlations of the influence of money are built into the data upon which the algorithm is based – that being human behavior responding (or not) to money and media influence. But DUH, the dumb&dumbers running the show cannot see that as their blind spot as proxies for wealthy pigs and thieves obscures that particular awareness.

This post relates to something I’ve been saying for a while. If your algorithm is a dud, you can do two things [1] fix the algorithm to work on the set of values fed in [2] limit the number of variables fed in to those that consistently worked.

The DNC camp has made the decision it is best to limit the variables, than fix the algorithms. This is the motivation behind the Russia-BS and the fake news scare.

They would have squeaked a win if media worked as they predicted and expected it to. But Social Media, and fake news(tm), has empowered the public to have tangible discussions of policy – to truly debate and understand what is going on. Even if the MSM wanted to ignore the DNC hack, no one on facebook truly could. If you made a passionate argument for holding your nose and voting for Clinton to protect Cancer patience, all someone had to do was post a link to Clinton’s email advocating helping the republicans repeal to transform that passion into a furious sense of betrayal.

They lost because they couldn’t account for all the variables of independent media (fake news). So their solution? Eliminate the avenues of free discussion and collaborative debate – eliminate the primary sourced news often labeled fake. If Clinton had run this same campaign with the internet as it was in 2008, she would have won.

They don’t view elections as being about advancing the best ideas. They view it as a process of manufacturing consent for a preordained agenda. They are much more afraid of left policy than alt-right policy- something else that became clear in this election.

They don’t view elections as being about advancing the best ideas. They view it as a process of manufacturing consent for a preordained agenda. They are much more afraid of left policy than alt-right policy- something else that became clear in this election.

I would agree with the above on balance.

God comment. I like your logic. ;)

Lol..thats “Good comment”….;)

According to this article, Jared Kushner tried the same type techniques with Silicon Valley techies to win The White House for Trump:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/kushners-datamining-team-used-moneyball-tactics-to-storm-white-house/news-story/8afea000a8d2373ad1fc697609edea13

Apparently Clinton’s guys were playing checkers while Trump’s were playing chess.

If you can’t tell the real differences between Ellison and Perez, you should find another profession.

Ellison as chair of the Democratic Party will shove Democrats into the political wilderness for DECADES because the people who most need to hear what he has to say are the most likely to tune him out simply because of who he is.

Unfair, absolutely. Unjust? The same, but you have to work with what you have, and framing the election in this way is just as unfair and unjust.

I supported Bernie 100%, and Keith is a good man, but he’s not the man for the job of DNC. Not at this juncture of history, at least.

if you are implying that Peerez is a creepy pimped out wannabe who would open the floodgates to 290,000,000 impoversihed persons south of the border and allow them into the US under the guise of economic persecution and who should not be allowed anywhere near any position of authority or decision making, then i agree with you.

I don’t think it makes much difference on that score. We didn’t hear anything about how the head of the DNC was Debbie “Banks Uber Alles” Wasserman Schultz during her tenure. The head of the DNC doesn’t actually have much in the way of public-facing duties; they set policy and choose people who *do* have public-facing duties, and so having an actual liberal is fairly important. In six months, this particular contest will mostly have been forgotten by most people.

On the other hand, the fact that it is being so prominently discussed means that it has a lot of influence right at this instant. People who hate Ellison are generally already Republicans anyway, but people who hate Perez are currently Democrats. Choosing him will certainly act to drive them away; the only question is whether they will come back in time for the election, and if so in what numbers.

The democratic party donors, elites, and establishment don’t need Ellison to tap the energy of the left–Trump is doing that for them. All over the country people are going to local democratic party meetings who never went before. Adam Schiff from CA articulated what the party establishment fears over an energized base: “radicalization”.

Trump administration is radicalizing Democratic voters, creating a challenge for the party, Rep. Adam Schiff says
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-trailguide-updates-rep-adam-schiff-trump-administration-1485895271-htmlstory.html

What the establish needs is somebody like Perez to keep the base obedient preventing them from going left during the insurgency against Trump. The upcoming protest to force Trump to publish his tax returns is nothing but more rehash of Clinton’s campaign–mostly to find anything remotely related to Russia. But I suspect during these protests people will be yelling for economic justice and an unfair and unhinged tax system favoring the rich–the last thing the democratic party donors and establishment wants.

suicide is built in to the dnc, a part of the platform. It’s just a matter of making the party supporters feel all good with it.

Glenn Greenwald yesterday:

I’ve always said that allegations of Russian hacking into DNC/Podesta should be carefully and responsibly investigated with findings and evidence made as public as possible.

Glenn Greenwald today:

There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.

Interesting dichotomy here. If Glenn’s predisposed to believe something, corroborating evidence can be substituted with a gut feeling about “the ways of Washington.” However, if Glenn is skeptical of something, the evidence must be overwhelming.

I digress. Glenn also says in the 2nd block quote that the White House recruited an opponent, as if this were fact. It’s not. As the Chang article says:

Perez, Obama’s former secretary of labor, reportedly entered the race after being prodded by Obama’s White House.

But even this doesn’t really add up. News accounts showed that Perez had expressed interest in the DNC chair on November 11, only three days after the election, and before Ellison formally announced his candidacy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/labor-secretary-tom-perez-interested-in-democratic-party-chairmanship-211037805.html So while the WH may have applied pressure to Perez to go through with a formal announcement, Perez had already expressed interest prior to Ellison’s formal entry. This casts serious doubt on the speculation of Haim Saban pulling all the strings.

If the plan to sink Ellison succeeds, the message that will be heard — fairly or not — is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing influence is a critical goal.

Give me a break. At the end of the day, the DNC is ultimately a fundraising organization. Howard Dean, who is now revered for his effort in the 2006 mid-term elections, had to pucker up to these “oligarchical donors” because that’s what the DNC does. The number one donor in 2006 to the DNC: Goldman Sachs https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.php?cmte=DNC&cycle=2006 The DNC isn’t some noble institution, it is a gross means to an end – and that end is to support national candidates.

“it seems Democratic leaders prioritize ensuring that the left has no influence in their party over strengthening itself to beat the Trump-led Republicans”

Fine with me. I did #DemExit after the election, and will NOT be returning. Every vote I’ve made for a DemocRAT has ended in disappointment. Kerry, many times, Obomber once, Warren once, but good chance, not again, etc. The two votes each for Nader and Stein were the only ones I never regretted. But I got sick of the Dems in 2000 when they smeared Ralph Nader, an individual who has done more for this country than any Dem except for FDR, and in the process, scared ol’ Bernie into supporting the LOSER Hillary, rather than running as an Independent, as he should have. Porbably most DNC Dems are blaming him now, for ever running against the despicable Hillary.

And since Warren, Markey, and Rep Neal all took part in the anti-democratic “super-delegates'” (or, as I know them, super-predator) scheme to rig the primary for Clinton, well, if there is even a faintly moderate third party progressive running against any of them, the 3rd party gets my vote. Saint Warren is a fraud, pushing the Russia meme, Markey is in it for the money, Neal barely does any work.

So for those in the DemocRAT Party that want the Bernie people to come back, I say, go to Hell. Never. No more votes, up, down or middle for those imbeciles. I’d like nothing better than to see the Dems disappear, because they are not a party in opposition to the Rethugs, they are just a party to collect their bribes from their donors. And more people finally know that, as 14 MILLION left them after the election.

After all the election shenanigans in 2000 by the gop in Florida like voter suppression by purging voter databases, recounts, etc, the democratic party establishment blamed Nader, and from what I can tell, did absolutely nothing about countering the gop’s efforts to game the electoral system. Democrats are constantly surprised at things like caging, etc. In a karmic justice way, by blaming Nader the dem party establishment hurt the party long run by giving gopers an wide open field to cheat. Of course, the same pattern will repeat as now the new Nader is Putin and the Russians. While upright solid dem activists stand ready at the polling place to stop Boris and Natasha, the gopers are in the back rooms messing with the election.

The Democrats are genetic cowards, born without spines. I liked Anthony Weiner, NY Rep, because he fought back. And the DNC Dems threw him under the bus as fast as they could when his twitter habit came to public attention. The Rethugs would have made him head of the GOP. But the hypocritical Dems have to pretend they are the “good” ones, with the wench Pelosi leading the House to dump Weiner. As she herself used her position and insider information to enrich herself with the VISA IPO (beautifully exposed by Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes news show).

Check this out:

With regard to Ralph Nader’s campaign for president in 2000, Jim Hightower documented back then that “Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.” Therefore, Al Gore’s problem was not Ralph Nader, but rather a Democrat turnout problem. There were other mitigating issues too, such as the whole hanging chad controversy and SCOTUS’ upholding of Katherine Harris’ certification of George Bush’s victory in Florida, as well as the fact that Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

The Dems NEVER take responsibility for their screw ups. Never. The latest McCarthyite smearing because of their horrible LOSER Hillary disaster (for them, not me) is just the latest very predictable example. Pathetic bunch they are, and they deserve each other. Progressives should start their own party, and Bernie can piss into the wind as Schumer’s lap dog. There are notable people, like Tulsi Gabbard, who would make good candidates for a third party that would garner real people, not brain washed Dem idiots, to the cause. They’re out there, and waiting.

Absolutely. I’d campaign for Gabbard in a minute. My heat for Sanders has turned to low. And anyone with the Democrat label will not get my vote.

Charlene Avis Richards Erelis

Gore cost Nader the election.

No one has ever explained WHY the Democratic Party has ALLOWED all the election shenanigans by the GOP from 2000 on. Is it because they want the SAME option to do such things themselves—as they did to Sanders or what? For Democratic party oyalist voters, I’d just make one point: if the Democrats REFUSE to fight to PROTECT INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS & YOUR VOTE, why do you think they’d fight for anything for everyday people?

Both Democrats and Republicans are corrupt and not worth a damn.

Corporatism, militarism, imperialism and a surveillance state are all they bring to the table.

No matter how hard you squeeze them.

18 million Democratic Party members have left the party since November. I was one of them. The whole system is failing because people are catching on that their interests are of no concern to anyone in power. The Empire is collapsing.

You would think the MSM would find that of note.

Why do we still care what the Democrats do? They are clearly entrenched within the Deep State system. They are beyond reform. We can’t take power by trying to change a thoroughly corrupted system. That has to be done from the outside.

another rigged vote. Hellary just cant stop herself. Her pimps keep telling her she’s doing good for America while she keeps selling America.

Yeah, she’s the female Trump.

@ Glenn Greenwald

Seriously this shit should be getting old:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/02/there-is-a-new-mccarthyism-in-the-united-states-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-vladimir-putin

You should invite both Assistant Profs. Lemieux (assuming he is still one) and Loomis onto The Intercept, pick a few of the topics they’ve slimed you on. And then see if they are prepared to put up or shut up and debate you openly on the merits of anything you’ve written about instead of engage in their pathetic little whataboutery character assassination campaign against you.

Hell both are on the east coast and should be able to afford the trip next time you plan on being in NYC.

Most folks over the years have learned you are quite open to publically debate substantive merits of anything your write about with almost anyone. After both get their assess handed to them outside the little echo chamber of their blog, I think this petty bullshit would stop.

Up to you ultimately. I suppose ignoring them has its merits as well.

on ellison himself:

http://blackagendareport.com/content/rep-keith-ellison-personification-phony-pro-war-%E2%80%9Cprogressive%E2%80%9D

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_israel_lobby_is_smearing_keith_ellison.html

people in favor of him constantly mention he’s muslim. people against him constantly mention he’s muslim. probably because it’s the only thing that differentiates him from every other pro-libya war, pro-syrian regime change/no fly zones, pro-saudi corporate coward in the democratic party.

of course saban and adelson don’t think he’s pro-israel enough. they’re lunatics. and i don’t mean that in an ad hominem, “ur crazy cuz u disagree with me” way…they’re objectively batshit insane. they share the mentality of the idiots who smeared obama as a “leftie socialist” for 8+ years and think j street is a hamas front. for anything to change all parties involved need to go as far left as they possibly can…i’m talking “noam chomsky is too conservative for me” left. but that will never happen because DC is the capital of “hippie punching”.

Ellison voted against military aid to Israel while Israel was being bombarded with rockets & mortars.

I’ve stayed away from these comment boards for a spell, and it’s the proliferation of disgusting and dishonest BS comments like yours that have contributed to that choice.
Gripping Images of Gaza Under Siege

That was supposed to be three thumbs up symbols. Not sure why it came out as question marks.

“Why Did Obama White House Recruit Perez to Run Against Ellison?”

Because Keith Ellison is a progressive, and the Democratic party is not.

Because, in the context of the most Islamophobic administration ever, putting a Muslim at the head of the DNC might not be the smartest move. Trump just prohibited some of the biggest news networks from the White house for the first time in the nation’s history. Do you seriously think he would shy away from using blatant racist xenophobia against a Muslim Democrat in a position of power?

GG and like minded thinkers operate from the position that the Democrats lost rather than that the Republicans won, and therefore that the Democrats MUST rethink their positions, strategies, and leadership. This position ignores several truths: that Trump mounted an unprecedented campaign of lies and cons, that the Republican party had disenfranchised millions of voters through voter suppression schemes, and gerrymandering plots, primarily targeting Democrat voters, that unprecedented Clinton-demonization schemes, originating from conservative alt-right propaganda machines of the Breitbart and info-wars kind, and gleefully adopted by alt-left, enhanced by baseless ramping up partisan Wikileaks published leaks, caricatured Clinton to the point that even her supporters found it hard to counter, and finally, that the bully position of progressives must be rewarded, or else they would bury the party just like they undermined Clinton’s presidential bid.

So finally, because it is wrong to rewards bullies.

clinton “caricatured” herself. at this point she’s patricia bateman: she simply is not there. an empty vessel where people pour their preconceptions.

but then you think wikileaks are “partisan”, so i guess it’s a waste of time pointing out the obvious.

“i guess it’s a waste of time pointing out the obvious.”

And yet here you are, pointlessly pointing away.

So finally, because it is wrong to rewards bullies.

Gollum, is that you?

Progressives had cost the Democrats, and the American people, two elections. Time for them both to move on: Democrats to seek a more stable supporters, and the progressive to forming their own party.

So the Democrats are not progressive? Good to know.

So yer sayin’ hillary lost because the republicans won.
oh.

No. It is a question of focus of review of events as a way to learn an affect a change. If the focus is ‘Clinton lost’, then the remedy is change the Democratic party’s ways; if the focus is ‘Trump and Republican won’, then the remedy is how to counter Trump’s cons and Republican voter suppression and gerrymandering. It is safe to say that both are required, and in my view, the second more than the first. GG’s tendencies to emphasize the first and completely ignore the second is detrimental to the future of Democratic success. Not that he would care, Problem is, with the Democrats gone, and progressive represented by the impotent Greens, the future is bleak indeed.

It is safe to say that both are required, and in my view, the second more than the first.

HINT: that is why the dems lost.

ps – you are lost. birds of a feather?

Americans had just elected a very regressive administration, and GG’s remedy is to elect a progressive to head the DNC?

An unprecedented corporate-head liar, who constructed a cabinet of billionaires and their loyal servants, sits in the white house, and we are here navel-gazing about the downfall of corporate involvement in politics?

You are correct: I am at a lost. In a conversation about electing an important position of the Democratic party, the only qualification in discussion is the progressiveness of the candidate? Progressives had twice abandoned Democrats in their hours of need (2000, 2016), and are now threatening retaliation if Ellison is not elected. There are nearly 50% of eligible voters who do not vote. As much as I’d like to see a stronger presence of progressives in government, perhaps it is time for Democrats to look at a more reliable source of support. The idea that their salvation is progressives is untested. In the presence of the current extreme corporate right-wing administration, it is almost certainly suicidal.

“Because, in the context of the most Islamophobic administration ever, putting a Muslim at the head of the DNC might not be the smartest move.”

You couldn’t be more wrong on this point. Did you not see the support of many Americans at airports nationwide showing their support for Muslim travelers? Electing Keith Ellison will make Trump and his administration lose their freaking minds! It’s the perfect trolling, and good for the party.

“GG and like minded thinkers operate from the position that the Democrats lost rather than that the Republicans won, and therefore that the Democrats MUST rethink their positions, strategies, and leadership.”

Okay, a few points on this

1. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. Yes, I know this doesn’t matter as far as the actual election rules are concerned. But that should show you that the majority of Americans are NOT on-board with Trump’s agenda.

2. No candidate won a majority of the popular vote. There were plenty of voters who found BOTH to be pretty disgusting. And as per point #1, MORE were disgusted with Trump.

3. The election results indicate that if Clinton tried a little harder in the rust belt, she could have won. But she completely ignored. This election was won in the rust belt period. And guess who’s from the rust belt?! Keith Ellison!

As for your characterization of progressives being “bullies”, I think you mean “progressive voters with enough clout to screw the Democratic Party if it doesn’t elect Keith Ellison”. That’s not “bullying”; that’s democracy.

BTW, I’m a swing state voter (PA) who voted for Clinton. What other choice did I have, anyways?

I don’t agree with your assertion on point #3. The Rust Belt was never going to go for Hillary. They voted on jobs, period, and they trusted a businessman like Trump to create jobs over a career politician like Hillary. It doesn’t matter how much time she spent there. She wasn’t going to win them over.

Also, with respect to the airport protests: there’s a serious danger in treating those as predictive of anything. Airports are in urban areas. Urban areas are typically more blue than other areas. The voters that matter – those that flipped from Obama to Trump – are not the ones protesting at airports. It’s all well and good for the party to show energy, but don’t mistake that for strategy. You can get a billion people to protest in NYC, LA, etc. and it won’t matter a whit. Until you can get a message and a candidate that resonates with working class folks in the Rust Belt and Great Lakes, you’re going to have trouble winning elections.

with respect to the airport protests: there’s a serious danger in treating those as predictive of anything. Airports are in urban areas. Urban areas are typically more blue than other areas. The voters that matter – those that flipped from Obama to Trump – are not the ones protesting at airports. […] Until you can get a message and a candidate that resonates with working class folks in the Rust Belt and Great Lakes, you’re going to have trouble winning elections.

I agree with what you’re saying here, especially the last bit about the RB and GL areas. But I would caution you against thinking that the airport protests are the only ones happening, or that they are all necessarily one-sided.

Republicans everywhere have been avoiding their own town hall meetings, and the ones that have put themselves in front of their constituents have come out pretty thoroughly flayed and filleted. And some of the people wielding the knives are self-identifying (former?) supporters of them. People like that Republican lady whose husband is dying of cancer and she’ll be damned if she’ll let her Rep take Obamacare away. The roar that goes up when folks like her shout out their stories have got to be chilling to the bone for Sanctified Leaders like Mitch McConnell and Tom Cotton.

So, while most of the enthusiasm for uproariousness is on one side by definition of them being the losers, I think it would be a mistake to not realize that there’s a lot of anger and frustration being aimed at the GOP by folks they’ve previously had firmly in hand.

No one can reasonably claim that people attempting to run against Democrats who are in bed with lobbyists, corporations, or wealthy donors such as Saban are putting a purity test to the Democratic party. People running for office against incumbents is called Democracy. The Democratic party has attempted to use party rules to maintain the status quo Democrats who are tied to Billionaires like Saban. It is utter bullshit to claim that it is a purity test for people to want a Democrat to represent their interests and not Saban’s or any other wealthy donor.

sheeeeeeeeeee’s baaaaaaaaaaack…. hellary the loser clinton posting on twitter her campaign sub victory to give her “followers” (the ones who also betrayed Bernie Sanders) a nudge to vote for the new top wallstreet whore, mista peerez. Hellary Clinton, sure knows how to win a lose!

Excellent article explaining the Obama push against progressives and Ellison.
Why was it impossible for MSM to come up with these names, numbers, and time lines?

The DNC Chair is the face of the party on all of the news programs. Disgruntled steel workers and coal miners will except a black Muslim the way they accepted an assertive female. Sad but true. We can’t win without their votes as evidenced by the most recent election. We can’t wait for them “to come around.” Just imagine the Fox Blasts “Friend of Nation of Islam” new head of the DNC.

If that’s your criterion, I think you may have overlooked the fact that Perez is not white by racist standards either, so no advantage.

Wow. I don’t think I’ve read an article with such an obscene level of unsubstantiated and unproven conjecture masquerading as fact in a very long time.

I know facts are harder to do — but, ultimately, they are what we must hold to.

Why don’t you regale us with some facts?

and yet you post no counter arguments or refutations. just a bunch of ten dollar vocabulary and sanctimonious whining. the spirit of christopher hitchens is alive and well.

As usual, the article makes good sense. But… there’s a 2nd, major element missing. As David Talbot put it in the brilliant book The Devil’s Chessboard, the CIA is the “steel fist” of the MIC which includes Wall Street. The Israel lobby has names and faces, 2 of whom you cite, but the CIA as well as the MIC are these amorphous bodies that are not just people, but a Mindset.

Once they were introduced directly into the White House by Papa Bush, they convinced Bill Clinton that obedience has great rewards – and he was greatly rewarded.

When it was apparent that a dog catcher would beat any Republican in 2008, they pulled Mrs. Bill and Obama to represent them. They were both obedient and the loser would get the follow-on presidency.

Being blinded by their own power, they never imagined the Trump/Sanders renegades as even vaguely potential winners in 2016. They were wrong, as usual.

Since Trump shot holes in their former property, the Repub Establishment, they can absolutely not allow the Democrats to also slip out of their hands.

Between the Netanyahu influence and the Mindset they concocted an obedient Perez candidate.

Only if Ellison LOSES and the ex-Sanders supporters stop their juvenile fear-mongering and hysteria is there any hope for a Progressive Party. But should those two things occur, America might conceivably see a third party win and a redirection toward democracy.

I like Keith Ellison and think he would be great as would Tom Perez. I would oppose Ellison simply on the grounds that he may be influenced by Bernie Sanders. This is the DNC not the INC. Bernie is not a democrat so calling him a wing of the democratic party is WRONG. If he wants to be that, then declare himself a democrat and fight for what he wants or believes in. Until then he is an independent and should have no say in the DNC machinations.

This is another offensive comment concluding that Ellison has no personal agency. Stop. This.

Until then he is an independent and should have no say in the DNC machinations.

An independent who has caucused with Democratic party his entire career, who is more “democratic” and stands more consistently for progressive policies than the democratic party has over the last 40 years, shouldn’t have a say?

That’s your position? You think you can win going forward without giving the Sanders’ coalition a “say” in the Democratic party’s direction? Good luck with that.

Funny the Senate majority leader doesn’t see it that way given his committee assignments and his new role in the party. Now of course Schumer is a calculating scumbag and I’m sure is doing it for one reason and one reason alone–he is trying to coopt Sanders’ supporters back into the Democratic party fold. But that’s not going to happen unless and until the Democratic party establishment and leadership changes its ways, adopts a no quarter permanent progressive policy agenda, and start actively fighting for that agenda all across the country.

Short of that welcome to the political wildness the centrist Clintonian Triangulating Neoliberal agenda created. Sucks for all of us, but lines have been drawn and we’ll see who is on which side of those lines.

if you are the example of what democratic party persons are or have become, then let me say to everyone else in the words of Dr. Alan Grant,
“rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrun!”

Bernie Sanders has integrity and cannot be bought. He fights for his principles which have remained unchanged for decades. He could therefore, NOT be a Democrat. One has to be very corrupt to be a Democrat.

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result. I have to assume the Dems are indeed insane! They lost my support and won’t get it back until they start working for the people again, not the billionaires!!

Why? Because Perez has a record of taking action on his beliefs and Ellison has a record of flapping his gums – just like Mentor Bernie

I hope Pete gets it. I think the Sanders’ influence on the party that they never belonged to, don’t like and can’t stop tearing down was a key factor in 2016 – something which I’ll never forgive. The Bernie & Jane show want to start their own party – but if they can hijack one with the infrastructure already made, they’ll be quiet happy with that.

Not a word of what you said was true.

“Flapping his gums” Bernie just tried to get a medicine re-importation bill through Congress, with Republican support, including Ted Cruz. And if the 12 Dem senators, who are corporate owned whores, had not voted against it, we’d all be paying a lot less (Canadian prices) for our medicine. 2020 “hope” Corey Booker led the charge of the deplorables.

As far as “tearing the party down”, the DNC elite are doing that fine all by themselves. Bernie thinks the party can be reformed. I think that is a fool’s errand, so I did #DemExit, very happily, after the election. And no, I did not vote for Hillary. I don’t vote for cheats, liars or criminals, so that eliminated Trump, and Clinton, from getting my vote. I did vote for a woman, Dr. Jill Stein. Again. Done with the Dems, up and down ticket, including Saint Warren, who I voted for last time. Doubt I will again.

Speaking of Booker, I wouldn’t be surprised if the DNC insiders have already made a dirty deal with Booker for 2020.

Whether Booker or some other DNC establishment insider, the fix will be in again just like it was with the corrupt likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Bernie Sanders has nickname called “The Amendment King”, a nickname he earned during his career in the U.S. Congress. He’s gotten plenty done.

White Progressives are exhausting. Good luck opposing Trump with that mythical third party.

Good luck winning elections. You cannot shun Progressives and then complain when your candidate doesn’t win.

Stop battling progressives and start fighting the right and you might start gaining some seats and winning elections.

I didn’t know White Progressives were such a cancer? How do you feel about Black, Brown and Asian Progressives? How do you feel about Women Progressives?

Don’t hold back now. Give us your wisdom on how to win elections.

I am baffled by the comments on this thread. I’m in my sixties, have voted Dem all my life because the Republicans are the party of big money, but have seen the Dems increasingly become that also. Govt has moved radically toward the right in my lifetime. So, not a “member,” and really not represented by anyone in govt except a few people like Sanders, who are being excoriated by party faithful here for the sin of making people hope again that they might make their govt represent them. How is that bullying, or hysteria or fear-mongering? Do you not want for your govt to represent you instead of multi-national companies? When you see the rest of the world passing us by in standard of living and when you see our govt subsidizing fossil fuel companies and our govt corruption, don’t you want more? Do you want perpetual war? How are the Bernie supporters to blame for anything but trying to revitalize our democracy? I voted for your precious Hillary because I was more afraid of the thugs who are in power now. But, with all my heart and intellect, I blame the DNC for Trump’s winning, and I blame them for our institutions being so weak that we may not survive that presidency. You people need a real good dose of reality IMO.

That’s a perfect comment. Thanks!

Absolutely. There’s a widespread, deep, and disturbing emotional element in the Hillary followers’s thinking. Fear and trembling is not common among the people who run things and even when they are wrong, the pros win, because of the element of brain fluff among the immature. That’s how we got Trump and it could lead to a two-time Trump.

You wouldn’t think this many Hillbots could be so dull or arrogant. Maybe they are. Or maybe there is still a chunk of Correct the Record cash still being directed toward selling the Hill and Co. line of BS. Honestly, as much money as they see at stake, and the s-loads their plutocrat donors throw at them, to not try to influence opinion, especially in a place like this, where so many clearly are operating without the usual blinders and sharing their insights, would be epically stupid, even for them. But it is also a fool’s errand- they get shot full of holes every time, since those annoying things called ‘logic’ and ‘truth’ get in the way of their talking points…

Besides ad hominen insults against “white progressives” do you have any CONCRETE & SPECIFIC suggestions to make? or did you just want to DUMP on people who actually try to work for change–instead of the sell-out Corporate Democrats which keep things the SAME helping the 1%–which btw include plenty of people Black Agenda Report editor Glenn Ford calls the “BLACK MIS-LEADERSHIP CLASS “. Here’s a few of them:Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is in the pockets of Big Pharma & For Profit Charter Schools; Rep. Alcee Davis (D-FL) just offered up a bill to authorize Trump to go to WAR ON IRAN (who has NOT attacked the U.S. or any other country in almost 200 years—before you mention the 1979 hostage crisis: that was a response to the U.S> overthrowing their elected progressive president in 1954 & installing the brutal Shah for 24 years); President Obama proved himself to be very much in mnay pockets: NOT ONE Wall St. crook or Bankster went to prison even as the “War on Drugs” rage on & on & on during his 8 years (w/about 2,000 people pardoned in the last months of his presidency–but,NO REAL CHANGE to the Prison-Industrial Complex).Obama PUSHED FOR Trans-Pacific “free trade” deal which would ahve EXPORTED more jobs (as NAFTA did) but, even worse would have in essence given Corporations VETO power over laws t the federal, state & local level. When Obama got into office the U.S. was bombing 2 countries & when he left the U,.S.was bombing SEVEN. Reality Check: you CAN'[T judge political integrity by MELONIN.

Honestly, if you look at the Leftwing and what they’re saying right now – our way or up yours – and – if Ellison doesn’t win, we’re going to revolt and tear the party down – how can ANYONE realistically differentiate the Leftwing from the Trump army? Its the SAME language, the SAME threats, the SAME demands for a totalitarianism dogma platform. The Leftwing, incapable of wrapping their heads around the complexities of real life, are attempting to dumb down the party to Teabagger levels (because, as they actually say, the Tea Party was really successful). And look at Trump, gleefully prodding the Left by continually bringing up Hillary because he knows it irritates the Left. How easily manipulated they are, already attacking Dems in red districts because they don’t fit the purity mold. FYI, those will turn into Republican seats pretty easily, and the likelihood that the Republicans will win a super majority in the Senate is becoming astronomically high. Sad that people are so, so ignorant.

For the past 25 years I’ve been a registered Democrat. Up until the 2016 elections I’ve voted Democrat. I voted Green Party and down ticket Dem. I don’t feel that the Democratic Party represents me any longer. If there were a Progressive People’s Party, I would join it in a heartbeat.

I wish The Citizens Party would take off!:

votecitizens.org

There isn’t any left; there isn’t any right. There’s just the elite Party members who toe the neoliberal/neoconservative pro-empire line, and the nameless proles who live in the slums. That’s George Orwell’s 1984; that’s the world the elite have been creating over the decades since the end of the Cold War.

Trump is of course no champion of the proles; but he wasn’t supposed to be elected, either, he was supposed to be the foil to Hillary Clinton’s triumphant victory. So what went wrong? Why didn’t the Anoited One, who enjoyed the full support of the corporate media and of the deep state establishment, waltz into the Oval Office? Even Julian Assange was saying that Trump would never be allowed to win, after all.

Really, this kind of instability also preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union. The American Empire is headed in the same direction, regardless of internal Party politics. And there aren’t two parties; there’s just one party, the Corporate Party, and the liberal-vs-conservative debate is just a puppet show.

I totally agree.

Exactly. That single party in no way represents the citizens in this country. Furthermore the citizens are considered the enemy in need of being monitored, restricted, and controlled.

Unfortunately far too few Americans can comprehend this fact, having been the victims of constant disinformation by our corporate media.

So you think everything that Glenn wrote is wrong, but you see no need to write about why you think so. Well, you do have the money on your side, but not a lot else.

@Justin Runia

My, but you do have the Hillary campaign’s talking points down to a T. They’re as stoopid now as they were then.

Clinton and Sanders’ voting records were very similar…Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton should indicate that their ideology was close enough

Their respective voting records on whatever bills happened to be up in the several years both were in the Senate are not indicative of why the left base will never support Clinton or anyone like her. Y’all can shriek at us until you’re blue in the face that they’re not that different — we aint’ buying it, becasue it’s bullshit.

These issues are non-trivial:

1. TTP. Bernie opposed it. Clinton supported (except for insincere waffling during the campaign no one believed). This is precisel;y the sort of populist issue that saw 2-time Obama voters in the rust belt go over to Trump. (Bernie would have won!)

2. Keystone XL pipeline. Bernie opposes. Clinton has supported it, but again, has done some waffling that no one believes, or should believe.

3. 2006 border fence legislation. Clinton vote for it; Bernie against.

4. Breaking up Big Banks, Glass-Steagall. Bernie supports, Hillary opposes.

Sanders supports a higher minimum wage. Clinton is diffident, and not at all reliable on the issue — she almost certainly won’t “Fight for 15.” Then there ‘s fracking — she promoted it as Sec’y of State. How about oppressive student debt and free state college? She mumbled some diffident bullshit as she saw that issue become popular. But she’d do nothing to effect it and certainly won’t propose policies like it.

Sanders is a social democrat looking to Scandinavia as a model. Hillary disdains that model and sniffs: “We’re not Denmark.”

One Democrat after another can be found all over whining that Bernie is “too left,” as are his supporters, and all kinds of hand-wringing that he/we will pull the party left. Hint Justin: that whining isn’t inspired by the huge similarities between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. [eyes rolling]

One Democraft after another… that’s a lot of strawmen you’re propping up there. Every Democrat I know would have been fine voting for Sanders, had he won the nomination. We weren’t threatening to take our votes and walk, we weren’t making false equivalencies, we weren’t claiming Sanders cheated, even though many of the states he won in were Caucuses, which by their nature are more exclusive and exclusionary than primaries. Which if you think about it, is pretty big-hearted of us, since Sanders isn’t a Democrat and has done very little to support the organization or down-ballot candidates. Oh, but his ideology! So sharp, so superior, how could we not just admit that his trade protectionism was exactly what was going to win the day? Well, for one thing, it wouldn’t have; while Sanders was pushing his half-measure nationalism, Trump took the nationalism message to its logical conclusion, not just demonizing those foreigners that took our jobs, but targeting the brown people inside our borders that work for less and have scary prayer mats.

But we’re missing the point here: the DNC chair doesn’t actually have that much power, and the two guys who are currently front-running are by any measure, on the left side of the party. It’s people like you who are trying to re-litigate the primary, projecting Sanders and Clinton on two people who are their own masters. I’m fine with Ellison, I’m fine with Perez, it’s people like you who are trying to feed your own ego by collecting the scalps of people who ARE ON YOUR TEAM.

One Democraft after another… that’s a lot of strawmen you’re propping up there.

You bet your ass, it’s one Democrat after another, including Claire McCaskill whose ass we’re gonna primary. CNN:

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said on Thursday that she may face a primary before the 2018 mid-term elections, comparing calls for ideological purity from the Democratic base to the conservative Tea Party movement of the Obama era.

This “purity test” she and other Democrats shriek about, means we demand a move to the left. Candidates who share our goals, actual progressive not centrist neo-liberals like Clinton and McCaskill.

And a DNC chair like Ellison who at least is unlikely to obstruct us. Perez is almost guaranteed to do so, it’s why the Obama/Clinton wing want him. That is, they are AGAIN saying “fuck you” to the left base.

Which if you think about it, is pretty big-hearted of us, since Sanders isn’t a Democrat

EXACTLY, you think it’s “big-hearted” and we spit on that. As currently constituted Bernie doesn’t fit there, and neither do many others of us. That’s the point — we social democrats get a big part of the Democratic Party, or we will continue to abandon you. Period. In which case, ya’ll can continue as a smoking pile of rubble.

Do I assume we both live in Mo? JC, born and mostly raised.

You are telling me that here in Missouri, we are going to get someone left of Clair elected, when Todd Akin almost won a US Senate seat saying women can’t get pregnant from legitimate rape? Lies.

We lost Kander, a Carnahan and a Robert Redford looking gov candidate supported by the NRA in 2016, but yea someone to the left of McCaskill is getting elected here at home. People here won’t vote democrat because they don’t like the name democrat. I really believe the dems should call themselves independent so my neighbors aren’t afraid to vote for them.

Where do you live? KC? STL? Springfield? I live in Columbia, one of the most liberal cities in the COUNTRY and I wouldn’t buy that steaming load of crap.

I’ve knocked on more door and made more calls and spent more money than I’ve wanted to trying to gain blue here in Mo — so when you primary our candidate (unless it is Carl Edwards) than you better come ready for a 2 year commitment to GOTV and the $50 million dollars you are going to need to get your “real” democrat elected! You are aware the her race was the second most expensive Senate race in 2012 (second to Sherrod Brown in Ohio) so yea, bring your check book, or take your frustration with the party out on some other red state!!

I would guess Kander would have won except for one reason- Hillary Clinton. Dem turnout was pitiful, do you think Hillary, with the support of her gal Claire invoking the hammer and sickle against Bernie in the primary had anything to do with that? I think there are a fair number of rural voters in Mo. (myself born St. Joe, schooled in Columbia, have lived most of the rest of my life in KC), like struggling people everywhere, who would have voted for someone HONEST who they believe truly wants to help them, even if their politics disagree. There is a belief among many Hillbot types that she lost because everyone not living in a liberal enclave were misogynistic, racist reactionaries who voted against her out of spite. No, many were economically desperate folks who voted Trump out of desperation. Income inequality growth is very real and very terrifying to those who are getting booted from the middle class. Add that Hillary was the absolute worst candidate to those folks (why wouldn’t she share her Wall Street speeches? why, for God’s sake, do you basically call provincials and working class people not only deplorable, but IRREDEEMABLE!), and you got what Bernie said would be a guaranteed loser for the Demos- a low turnout election. If Claire can’t win a contested primary against what would have to be a very popular opponent (with all of the Demo functionaries and money lining up behind her just like they did for Hill), so be it! Have the guts to try to speak to the half of the country (really more in mid-terms) who believe the political system is completely corrupt or that voting for one party over the other is meaningless, and therefore don’t vote. Claire made her bed when she and Nixon dutifully took a hatchet to Bernie and pissed off his many, many supporters. Maybe she should try to reach out to them instead of bitching that she may have to fight to prove she is the best candidate. So. F-ing. Tiresome. Same. Old. Shit.

LOL Mona !!!

There’s just too much shit in the crapper to flush !!
BTW: I like your style !

ARE ON YOUR TEAM

What’s the use of being On Your Team if we’re benched in every conceivable way and not allowed to participate? Your Team, if you will, is the team of Endless War, Endless Bank criminality, Un-Accountability, Endless Spying, American Citizen Hitlists (Not even the Republicans dared to try this one) and total Corporate Servitude.

That’s Your Team. I’ll take my toys somewhere else to play, thank you very much.

And Endless Indefinite Detention. Forgot one. That’s what Your Team stands for. Everything that is despised by anyone with a conscious.

Justin needs to read with a more critical eye. Glenn did not endorse the view that Perez and Ellison are close in their position – neither did Chang. The statement was that Perez supporters make this claim. Given that Perez does not have a public record of votes that supports this assertion, it all comes down to claims.

The Sanders vs. Clinton comparison is another case that should encourage Justin to read more carefully. Mona has made the case for that, so I won’t belabor this point.

Here is what I said earlier, insinuating that if you are smart, you won’t fall for the line that Perez is nearly identical to Ellison – you see, Saban would not have stayed out, or knocked Perez as he did to Ellison, if they were “the same”:

Faced with the possibility of a party for the people, the elite decided to introduce Perez the imposter. After all, you can’t ignore Saban!

Perez is an imposter because of blind loyalty to the establishment run by the Wasserman-Clinto-Brazille gang. The hope is that Perez is “smooth” enough to win over the party faithful, and “the rest’ don’t matter anyways because “the rest” are too independent and too smart to fall for this.

This is a direct quote: “The narrative that has developed around the race—Ellison as Sanders-style progressive, Perez as party establishment—is a bit overblown. Both have strong progressive records, both have support from various unions, and both have broadly similar ideas on how they want to reform the DNC….This is all true. The differences between Perez and Ellison are minimal.”

Re-iterated by Greenwald: “As Chang correctly notes, supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that he is materially indistinguishable from Ellison in terms of ideology (despite his support for TPP, seemingly grounded in loyalty to Obama).”

So, both Chang and Greenwald admit that they don’t have a lot to work with, in terms of why exactly those nasty establishment Democrats would pick someone who has mostly the same policy and organizational goals as the person they’re trying to sandbag, so they move onto an entirely circular, evidence-free argument about how this is about hurting the feelings of Sanders supporters.

so they move onto an entirely circular, evidence-free argument about how this is about hurting the feelings of Sanders supporters

You’re such a scumbag. Glenn doesn’t make that point. You do. Bernie supporters don’t care about hurt feelings. You Hillbots continually talk about how they didn’t vote for Hillary because they’re children and their feelings were hurt. They didn’t vote for her, because she promised them nothing.

Your Queen thought she was going to win. So she didn’t want to make promises that she’d later have to renege on. And that’s why she lost. Because she was so sure that she was going to win. She and everybody advising her needs to be fired. Immediately.

Take the Democratic Party and fuck off. Leave the Bernie supporters alone. They’re not part of your retarded party.

This is hilarious for a couple reasons:
a) I love it when people start in with the Ad Hominem, it shows how much gas is left in the rhetoric tank. Looks like we’re running on fumes here.

b) It was just 8 short years ago I was being called an ‘Obot’ for pointing out to Hillary Clinton die-hards that Obama had won the nomination fair and square, and they had a lot more in common with Obama than McCain. ‘Member that, guys? Hillaryis44.com? The site is still up, if you want to take a look in the mirror; a bunch of people swearing that there are huge, irreconcilable differences between members of their own coalition, working themselves into a froth over imagined slights and conspiracies, building monuments to mis-spent anger that will hopefully last for the ages.

Water, water everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.

You know what’s funny Justin, is how democrats can talk so much shit and not say a goddamn thing. I think this genius was key to your loss. And I hope you keep it up.

The other thing that’s funny is I can talk shit about Democrats all day and not tire of it. I can call republicans names for only so long, as it would get boring after a while as they wouldn’t get it. But calling democrats names would never get boring. I’d personally enjoy it so much, I’d do it all day and all night.

God, your hackery is so utterly dishonest.

So, both Chang and Greenwald admit that they don’t have a lot to work with, in terms of why exactly those nasty establishment Democrats would pick someone who has mostly the same policy and organizational goals as the person they’re trying to sandbag,

Glenn quotes Chang:

It appears that the underlying reason some Democrats prefer Perez over Ellison has nothing to do with ideology, but rather his loyalty to the Obama wing. As the head of the DNC, Perez would allow that wing to retain more control, even if Obama-ites are loath to admit it. …

And it’s not just Obama- and Clinton-ites that could see some power slip away with an Ellison-headed DNC. Paid DNC consultants also have a vested interest in maintaining the DNC status quo.

And ya know what the evidence is, Justin? In addition to common sense? All those fucking Podesta/DNC emails. They’ll do all that again, if it’s Perez.

Ellison predicted a Bernie win early on (and was widely mocked for doing so) and won’t push the insurgent left out of the primaries. Ellison gets it. Perez –the Obama lackey — will be more amenable to the same bullshit we saw with Podesta, Brazille, and Wasserman Schultz etc.

We aren’t fools, Justin. We know exactly why you establishment Dems are opposing Ellison. And you’re gonna keep losing all over at all levels — federal, state and municipal — if you keep doing this shit to us. We won’t, in sufficient numbers, turn out to to install any more Clintonist neoliberals at any level.

Get that through your heads, internalize it, adjust your behavior accordingly — or keep mostly losing.

I’m not opposing Ellison. I’m perfectly fine with him chairing the DNC, I think he would do as good a job, given the practical restraints of the role, as anybody else. My stance on this article is that it’s a pointless re-litigation of the primary race, and fails Greenwald’s high standards regarding evidence-based journalism. Maybe you want to unpack some of the baggage you’re bringing?

(to the tune of Yesterday — Beatles).
Literacy …. I am not half as smart as I used to be …

Okay, enough joking. Pay attention carefully Justin…. : ” … supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that …” is not the same as Greenwald endorsing this viewpoint. Translation: supporters of Perez can make this claim within the framework they have constructed, and within this framework, the claim is not unreasonable. As he points out though, this claim falls apart.

Uh, no. “…Not unreasonably…” is Glenn Greenwald’s voice in that sentence. It’s not Chang’s voice, or the voice of Perez supporters. You can tell this is the case by the sentence that follows: “In other words, Perez, despite his progressive credentials…” This isn’t an argument about policy, because again, there’s scant evidence that Perez and Ellison are very far apart on policy.

You see the vague outline of an argument based on the idea that Ellison would reform how DNC consulting contracts are awarded, but it’s pretty quickly discarded, because there’s no evidence outside of the insinuation that Perez once dodged a question about it, and Ellison had a random line about the “corporate consultocracy.” This would have been a good basis of an argument, but there’s nothing in the record to actually support it. I mean, The Intercept is a publication with a full staff of journalists, you would think that they could call up Ellison and get some clarification on exactly how he will clean up the ‘consultocracy’, but I’m guessing a) the DNC admin doesn’t have a lot of control over how donor money is ultimately spent and b) Ellison’s office probably wouldn’t be excited about furthering Greenwald’s pointless beef against the bulk of the people who make up the DNC.

The remainder of the argument is “The White House put up Perez for the nomination, and even though there is no evidence that they were responding to Haim Saban (literally what Greenwald said) , it would be naive of us not to speculate that they were!” Far more words are spent on this argument rather than the detailed matter of what consultants would be employed, even though its built on hot air. It’s pretty obvious.

Don’t change the subject! This is not about “DNC consulting…”, or “consultocrary” or whatever else you threw in…

You tried to take a point that you yourself claimed to be vague and use it as a basis to equate Perez and Ellison – which would in turn allow you to make all sorts of other absurd points. I made no claim as to whose voice it was. There is no endorsement of the argument. Full stop.

Now that you are called on to account for a bogus argument you tried to stitch together, you are throwing in the kitchen sink. Not working!

There’s no reason for the left to be excited about either Perez or Ellison, as they are both corrupt. Like Bernie Sanders – in fact even worse in some respects and pointedly equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s idiocy – Ellison’s approach to foreign policy is disgustingly militarist and imperialist.

Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report had this to say:

Keith Ellison, the Black U.S. House member from Minneapolis who is co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, says the U.S. should push for a no-fly zone over rebel-held areas in Syria…

On U.S. imperial policy, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between [John] McCain, the hard-right Republican, and Ellison, who purports to be a progressive Democrat. Neither gives a damn about international law or the rights of smaller people’s to shape their own destinies. Ellison went to Saudi Arabia, the most socially backward rich country on the planet, and described the King as a “visionary leader.” He rejected George Bush’s troop “surge in 2007, by calling it “too little, too late.” Like Obama, he quibbles about whether U.S. wars are smart or dumb, too late or right on time, but never about the inherent right of the United States to wage war against the weaker nations of the world.

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Personification of the Phony, Pro-War “Progressive”

Presumptuous Insect

This is a video of Perez literally running away from questions about settlements.

This article adds another dimension to that hilarious event!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_cDNaNWnkU

Any realistic DNC reform effort would have to involve the following:

(1) Eliminate the superdelegates from the primary selection process.

(2) Set a fixed number of Democratic primary debates for the primary.

(3) Reform state laws to allow independents to vote in the Democratic primary, with same-day registration.

The above reforms are needed, since that’s how Sanders was blocked from winning the primary; and he’d clearly have beaten Trump. How did this play out?

(1) The superdelegates were roughly evenly split between Obama (180) and Clinton (220) in Feb 2008 – but by Feb 2016 the superdelegates had pre-selected Clinton (451) over Sanders (19).

(2) The DNC sponsored 26 primary debates in 2008; only 9 in 2016. In 2016, Sanders gets more popular after each debate as his message resonates with the public – so the DNC shut down the debates.

(3) Independent voters were prevented from registering Democratic months in advance of the election in many states, which prevented them from voting for Sanders.

The practice of corporate elites handpicking Democratic candidates has to end, since they only pick losers. Without those changes, you can count on nothing but more election losses for Democrats.

Any realistic DNC reform effort would have to involve the following:
(1) Eliminate the superdelegates from the primary selection process. You’re giving superdelegates more credit for overturning elections than they actually have. The superdelegates consist of elected officials on the federal, state, and local, level, and those who are within the different Democratic groups across the country (look it up in the by-laws). The whole purpose of establishing superdelegates was to end the very thing you accuse superdelegates of, putting in place the loser of the popular vote in an election. You need to brush up on your political history.
(2) Set a fixed number of Democratic primary debates for the primary. Okay. 6, no more, no less and all debates should be scheduled 3 months prior to any primary election.
(3) Reform state laws to allow independents to vote in the Democratic primary, with same-day registration. NO, NO, NEVER. Our Party it is not the “Come and Go as You Please Party.” You can be an Independent all day long if you want, fine, be one. Or you can be a Democrat if you like, happy to have you, but NEVER ever, should the Democratic Party agree to SAME DAY REGISTRATION! Fence Sitters need not apply! I live in an open primary state and I hate it, watching known Republicans asking for a Democratic ballot in the primary, just because they want to weigh in on who represents the Democratic party in any given election. That is what you are actually asking of us for your Independence. It’s something we should NEVER ever agree to, and protections addressing this very issue should be adopted Nationwide in the next convention and added to our platform to protect our Party from individuals outside our group who want nothing more than to sit on the sidelines until it suits them. It’s why we lost to Sanders and his supporters in 2016, and it’s why we lost when Nader dipped his toe into the waters in 1992, so, NO, NO, HE(LL) NO. You can vote for whomever you want. Sanders had the opportunity to run as an Independent and he chose not, too. If Independents weren’t happy voting as Democrats in the General Election then, they had no to call to complain to us. You should have directed your angst directly to Bernie Sanders. Many Democrats didn’t want Sanders, but that’s history, and I wouldn’t have had any problem your writing in Sanders name on your primary ballot “’til the sun don’t shine,” but the Democratic Party should never ever suffer again the likes of a Sanders’ commandeering our Party. I still fume at his announcing I’m running as a Democrat for media coverage. The schmuck never changed his Independent status. That’s how much he embraced the Democratic Party. It’s why Independents should NEVER ever be allowed to tell Democrats how they should run their Party or their primaries/elections, period.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-he-ran-as-democrat-for-the-media-attention/
The above reforms are needed, since that’s how Sanders was blocked from winning the primary; and he’d clearly have beaten Trump. How did this play out? It didn’t. The only place he was strong was in low turnout Republican States were they held caucuses. He didn’t win in Democratic States, and you’re sadly mistaken in assuming Sanders would have won the primary if, all of the closed primaries were open.
(1) The superdelegates were roughly evenly split between Obama (180) and Clinton (220) in Feb 2008 – but by Feb 2016 the superdelegates had pre-selected Clinton (451) over Sanders (19). Superdelegates aren’t going to support a usurper over a long-established, long-registered, long-voting, long-representing politician, over a long-time Independent who didn’t want to be a Democrat in the first place. Why are Sander’s supporters so tone deaf on this very fact?
(2) The DNC sponsored 26 primary debates in 2008; only 9 in 2016. In 2016, Sanders gets more popular after each debate as his message resonates with the public – so the DNC shut down the debates. Freebies always resonate, and the majority of his speeches were conducted on college campuses (his base) where he would greatly benefit from his free college, paid off student debt, and the promise of a never-will-happen $15, unrealistic minimum wage.
(3) Independent voters were prevented from registering Democratic months in advance of the election in many states, which prevented them from voting for Sanders. You need to show facts on that one. Illinois is an open primary State, and Clinton won handily in the primary and general election. Why? DEMOCRATS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. New York is a closed Primary State and you had to register by March 25th in person (Mailed by 25th received by 29th to vote in the April 19th Primary. This is not an unreasonable deadline. If you don’t know your states registration policies, then you shouldn’t making demands on what the Democrats deem an acceptable registration policy for its MEMBERS.
The practice of corporate elites handpicking Democratic candidates has to end, since they only pick losers. Without those changes, you can count on nothing but more election losses for Democrats. Excuse me, but Clinton won her election FAIRLY. She announced her candidacy, where she was running for office, and completed all of the necessary paperwork to be on every ballot in every State and all of the 6 voting Territories. This is how you run, and Democrats won’t stand for Independents or anyone for that matter, who have weak arguments about why they should be allowed to meddle in Party Business, and when it comes to Party Business, we’re especially perturbed when the person isn’t informed enough to argue the point. I decided to use the caps lock because the election has been over for almost 4 months now and you seem to be unable to accept the fact that Sanders didn’t win because he would have never won. If he wanted to have a chance at winning he should have did more to embrace the Party and not PO long-time members by using Republican tactics to go after Clinton during the Primary. Two, I decided it was necessary to point out you are spouting irrefutable information and trying to win an argument by drawing false conclusions. And finally, I further stand by this as Tom Perez, a Clinton supporter won against Keith Ellison a Sanders backer, won DNC Chair Today. Get it now?

Any realistic DNC reform effort would have to involve the following:

(1) Eliminate the superdelegates from the primary selection process.

(2) Set a fixed number of Democratic primary debates for the primary.

(3) Reform state laws to allow independents to vote in the Democratic primary, with same-day registration.

The above reforms are needed, since that’s how Sanders was blocked from winning the primary; and he’d clearly have beaten Trump. How did this play out?

(1) The superdelegates were roughly evenly split between Obama (180) and Clinton (220) in Feb 2008 – but by Feb 2016 the superdelegates had pre-selected Clinton (451) over Sanders (19).

(2) The DNC sponsored 26 primary debates in 2008; only 9 in 2016. In 2016, Sanders gets more popular after each debate as his message resonates with the public – so the DNC shut down the debates.

(3) Independent voters were prevented from registering Democratic months in advance of the election in many states, which prevented them from voting for Sanders.

The practice of corporate elites handpicking Democratic candidates has to end, since they only pick losers. Without those changes, you can count on nothing but more election losses for Democrats.

Like!

Any realistic DNC reform effort would have to involve the following:
(1) Eliminate the superdelegates from the primary selection process. You’re giving superdelegates more credit for overturning elections than they actually have. The superdelegates consist of elected officials on the federal, state, and local, level, and those who are within the different Democratic groups across the country (look it up in the by-laws). The whole purpose of establishing superdelegates was to end the very thing you accuse superdelegates of, putting in place the loser of the popular vote in an election. You need to brush up on your political history.
(2) Set a fixed number of Democratic primary debates for the primary. Okay. 6, no more, no less and all debates should be scheduled 3 months prior to any primary election.
(3) Reform state laws to allow independents to vote in the Democratic primary, with same-day registration. NO, NO, NEVER. Our Party it is not the “Come and Go as You Please Party.” You can be an Independent all day long if you want, fine, be one. Or you can be a Democrat if you like, happy to have you, but NEVER ever, should the Democratic Party agree to SAME DAY REGISTRATION! Fence Sitters need not apply! I live in an open primary state and I hate it, watching known Republicans asking for a Democratic ballot in the primary, just because they want to weigh in on who represents the Democratic party in any given election. That is what you are actually asking of us for your Independence. It’s something we should NEVER ever agree to, and protections addressing this very issue should be adopted Nationwide in the next convention and added to our platform to protect our Party from individuals outside our group who want nothing more than to sit on the sidelines until it suits them. It’s why we lost to Sanders and his supporters in 2016, and it’s why we lost when Nader dipped his toe into the waters in 1992, so, NO, NO, HE(LL) NO. You can vote for whomever you want. Sanders had the opportunity to run as an Independent and he chose not, too. If Independents weren’t happy voting as Democrats in the General Election then, they had no to call to complain to us. You should have directed your angst directly to Bernie Sanders. Many Democrats didn’t want Sanders, but that’s history, and I wouldn’t have had any problem your writing in Sanders name on your primary ballot “’til the sun don’t shine,” but the Democratic Party should never ever suffer again the likes of a Sanders’ commandeering our Party. I still fume at his announcing I’m running as a Democrat for media coverage. The schmuck never changed his Independent status. That’s how much he embraced the Democratic Party. It’s why Independents should NEVER ever be allowed to tell Democrats how they should run their Party or their primaries/elections, period.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-he-ran-as-democrat-for-the-media-attention/
The above reforms are needed, since that’s how Sanders was blocked from winning the primary; and he’d clearly have beaten Trump. How did this play out? It didn’t. The only place he was strong was in low turnout Republican States were they held caucuses. He didn’t win in Democratic States, and you’re sadly mistaken in assuming Sanders would have won the primary if, all of the closed primaries were open.
(1) The superdelegates were roughly evenly split between Obama (180) and Clinton (220) in Feb 2008 – but by Feb 2016 the superdelegates had pre-selected Clinton (451) over Sanders (19). Superdelegates aren’t going to support a usurper over a long-established, long-registered, long-voting, long-representing politician, over a long-time Independent who didn’t want to be a Democrat in the first place. Why are Sander’s supporters so tone deaf on this very fact?
(2) The DNC sponsored 26 primary debates in 2008; only 9 in 2016. In 2016, Sanders gets more popular after each debate as his message resonates with the public – so the DNC shut down the debates. Freebies always resonate, and the majority of his speeches were conducted on college campuses (his base) where he would greatly benefit from his free college, paid off student debt, and the promise of a never-will-happen $15, unrealistic minimum wage.
(3) Independent voters were prevented from registering Democratic months in advance of the election in many states, which prevented them from voting for Sanders. You need to show facts on that one. Illinois is an open primary State, and Clinton won handily in the primary and general election. Why? DEMOCRATS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. New York is a closed Primary State and you had to register by March 25th in person (Mailed by 25th received by 29th to vote in the April 19th Primary. This is not an unreasonable deadline. If you don’t know your states registration policies, then you shouldn’t making demands on what the Democrats deem an acceptable registration policy for its MEMBERS.
The practice of corporate elites handpicking Democratic candidates has to end, since they only pick losers. Without those changes, you can count on nothing but more election losses for Democrats. Excuse me, but Clinton won her election FAIRLY. She announced her candidacy, where she was running for office, and completed all of the necessary paperwork to be on every ballot in every State and all of the 6 voting Territories. This is how you run, and Democrats won’t stand for Independents or anyone for that matter, who have weak arguments about why they should be allowed to meddle in Party Business, and when it comes to Party Business, we’re especially perturbed when the person isn’t informed enough to argue the point. I decided to use the caps lock because the election has been over for almost 4 months now and you seem to be unable to accept the fact that Sanders didn’t win because he would have never won. If he wanted to have a chance at winning he should have did more to embrace the Party and not PO long-time members by using Republican tactics to go after Clinton during the Primary. Two, I decided it was necessary to point out you are spouting irrefutable information and trying to win an argument by drawing false conclusions. And finally, I further stand by this as Tom Perez, a Clinton supporter won against Keith Ellison a Sanders backer, won DNC Chair Today. Get it now?

How clueless is the dem party’s leadership?

Hillary’s message to those gathered to vote (paraphrased): “we wrote the most progressive platform ever, and now people are taking that message to the streets.”

How utterly trumpian and galling is that arrogant inversion of reality!

Clueless? You seem to be the clueless one in your argument. Are you a registered Democrat? I doubt it. Well I’m a long-time registered Democrat, and have been voting Democrat since Nixon, and I’ll tell you one thing, this country doesn’t elect progressives. It’s why these candidates didn’t win Humphrey (’68), McGovern (’72), why Ted Kennedy didn’t win the nomination in ’80 and Carter didn’t win the election, Mondale (’84), DuKakis (’88), Al Gore (’00) although G. W. Bush was appointed, Kerry in (’04), and it’s why Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, B Clinton, and Obama did. Sorry for the history lesson, but you seem to think being progressive is the end all solution to winning the Presidency. It isn’t.

C’mon. Are you serious? How could they not be MORE different?! Perez and Ellison are agents of principals. To the extent that the principals are different, so too are the agents. Ellison is an agent of Bernie and all his supporters. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist Independent, who believes in the primacy of class over all other social dynamics (i.e if we simply pass Glass Steagall, single payer, get rid of NAFTA and TPP and reduce income inequality then civil rights, equality of opportunity, and equal protection under the law will follow ineluctably as surely as night follows day. No Democrat believes this. Since 1965, the Democratic party has championed civil rights, equality of opportunity, and equal protection under the law. Even the fight for working families and children has been understood in the context of civil rights, equality of opportunity, and equal protection under the law. These have been the central organizing principles of the Democratic party and its policies since 1965. It takes a lot of chutzpah for a socialist registered as an independent to insist that Democrats have betrayed their party or members simply because they don’t believe primacy of class, economic reductionism, or white populism.

It is no surprise that Obama accomplished nothing positive in Palestine, with “one issue guy” Saban on his back. The Dummocraps are little better than Trump if they let a prick like this regulate their policies. Trump can do something useful and deport Saban to Israel.

Trump is a shouldertoshoulderer who picked Friedman the One-Stater, a bankruptcy lawyer,* as his ambassador to Israel.

He’d sooner dub Saban a Knight than deport him as an Alien.

*He also, like, totally doesn’t have a preconceived notion that he or other Jews are all top-notch businessmen like him (in his own mind) or anything.

And here’s a really good piece from Major Danny Sjursen a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176245/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_mission_unaccomplished%2C_15_years_later/#more

Kenneth Christopherson

HRC refused to allow transcripts of HER private speeches to Wall street (wonder just exactly came out ion her mouth at those talks). Waserman Schmitz and Brazille were fired for throwing the primaries for HRC, thereby precluding the progressives any kind of chance at all with THAT process. Obama was elected for CHANGE and proceeded to lie down and kiss the GOP’s heart ends to the point that the DEMS lost Congress the first election that came up. After that Obama was effectively NEUTERED and really not very productive(albeit due to total obstructionism). Demi need to decide if WE are going to to be the party of BLUE DOGS or the party of the PEOPLE and not the CORPORATIONS. Washerman Schmitz and HRC were tools of Wall Street and the CORPORATIONS. Time for Change, FOLKS, time for CHANGE!

I actually hope that Tom Perez wins. If Ellison wins, some on the left might be lulled into some kind of complacency, thinking that they’ve won. If Perez wins, the left will stay mad, and hopefully leave the democrats for a third party.

I agree that Perez winning would be the best outcome, but not just because of complacency should Ellison win.

I’m more afraid that a sizable number of millennials, fairly new to the political process, would become disillusioned enough to drop out rather than to fight harder and do what I personally think must be done– ditch the dems and start building the foundations for a viable 3rd party coalition.

I’m more afraid that a sizable number of millennials, fairly new to the political process, would become disillusioned enough to drop out rather than to fight harder

That ship has already sailed. If it hadn’t, turnout among millennials would have been as high as that among Boomers, and they would have voted Green. The fact that when Sanders lost the primaries, the millennials stayed home in droves, indicates that a large chunk of them are now convinced that there’s no point.

The myth of the Big Money, bankster coddling progressive will be the end of the Democratic party.

Those selling the idea are liars.

Reading this felt like having a nourishing meal.

I know we now live in the time of Trump but that does not mean we must all partake in alternate facts. No one knows why the Obama white house wanted Perez to run but it could have something to do with having other notable candidates. If Perez was not in this race then Ellison would run with it and right now, the DNC needs many viable candidates to throw their hat in the ring so the best candidate can be picked.

Also, the crap about Saban, seriously. If the Obama white house pushed for Perez to run, then the argument about Saban is mute. Obama ran against Hillary in 2007/2008 and I am sure he was donating to Hillary then. Obama was very tough on Israel as president which led to a frosty relationship with him and Netanyahu but we are to believe Obama pushed Perez to run because of a guy who backed Hillary. If Ellison loses, then it will be because he is moving too far to the left. Sanders himself, as called himself a socialist which is not where the DNC wants or needs to be. Obama is as left as it gets without getting to the Socialist fringe and to suggest there is some alternative motive without facts is just plain wrong.

The DNC needs idea people and having less people suggesting ideas is just plain stupid.

The hasbara is getting thick.

Obama was very tough on Israel as president

He was. Israel wanted $55 billion and they only got $38 billion. Suckers.
Israel would have been able to kill tens of thousands of civilians if Obama had let them. Still, they got some 2200.
There’s always next time.

No one would have been killed if Palestinians had not been firing rockets & mortars killing or injuring 2,000 Israelis.

Here’s a big part of “the problem” with America’s “establishment” both GOP and Democratic party. And Prof. Bacevich lays it out quite succinctly:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176246/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_at_the_altar_of_american_greatness/#more

Good stuff, rr. David Brooks is such a jackass.

“Democratic leaders prioritize ensuring that the left has no influence in their party”

I’ve been voting for over 20 years now and it’s been like that the whole time, but the party (and the media) was always able to convince me that leftists were a minority within the democratic party and in America and that I needed to shut up and just vote “D” without thinking. Unfortunately for them, social media has changed all that we don’t need political parties or the media to organize and fight politically. I honestly hope that Perez wins so that leftists will finally abandon the party for good. The only thing that the democratic party has to offer is ballot access, but with enough planning, good candidates can get on the ballot to challenge worthless democrats and destructive republicans.

I am so glad I am not alone. I’m a writer by trade and I’ve been watching the Democrats build this narrative for months now. It’s good cop vs’ bad cop. It’s Progressive Keith, (fan of imperialist regime change, Israeli apartheid, and backed by banks and billionaires) vs’ Establishment Tom (fan of imperialist regime change, Israeli apartheid, and backed by banks and billionaires).

Post general election, Keith is immediately attacked by Democrat donors. He’s smeared in a way that activates the radar of the Identity Politics Superheroes. Now they’re a little more sympathetic to Keith, even though they’re mostly neoliberals who follow Nancy “I don’t think the Democrats want a new direction” Pelosi.

Semi-official vote counts are leaked. Tom is ahead. Progressive Berniecrats scream bloody murder and threaten to start up a third party. No, wait. Keith is ahead. Progressives espouse hope for change. Now the candidates are all on television because the Democrats want the whole world to see this fiction, not just the Beltway.

We are all being played again. I don’t for a minute think this entire vote hasn’t been orchestrated by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Pelosi and their billionaire backers. Keith is going to win and it’s only because the Democrats are scared. They see the power of progressive organizing. They see the interest in Socialism growing. They will do anything to keep their power. If you go back to them after Ellison wins, we will have a repeat of 2016 in 2020.

Sure, maybe a Dem will win in 2020, but it’ll be a fauxgressive Dem who talks the talk but lets the poor people get poorer while our tax dollars are spent on sending our military to kill innocent Muslims in imperialist wars.

I am praying Perez wins, because the only way anything changes for the better is if we burn the Dems to the ground and start fresh. Yes, it’ll be hard. Yes, it might take 12 years or more to build a new party. But having true progressive reforms in 12 years is better than settling for the possibility of incrementalism for the rest of our lives.

Please don’t be fooled. Ellison blocks people on Twitter for asking polite, straightforward questions, like how much money he’s accepted from Soros and how he defends his position on BDS. Leaders don’t hide from the public.

How do we call them out? They’ve been using these exhausting formulas for decades. Hillary’s campaign was Rovian, now this head fake is a phony embrace of liberalism. They’re copying the GOP’s rebranding strategy, which embraced the Tea Party without truly addressing their concerns. Democrats still have the same people operating in key areas. Some have been promoted.

I understand the need for strategy but too much strategy without an organic evolution is hard to sell to liberals and independents. Most are not enticed by marketing alone. Governing is not like selling consumer items but Dems seem to have a culture of operatives who treat it that way. They seem more interested in protecting the flow of money to their political operations.

Esther Meshoe, daughter of conservative South African parliamentarian, Dr. Kenneth Meshoe, slammed the BDS movement as nothing but false propaganda. “The truth is there is no apartheid in Israel,”

Because boycotts always hurt innocent people (More than 575,000 Iraqi children died from sanctions,) they should not be used unless the matter is very important like life & death.

Don’t single out a particular country when other countries are doing the same thing otherwise you lose moral authority.

There should be just one demand & everyone should agree to stop as soon as the goal is met otherwise the target will not change if it is not confident that the sanctions will stop.

It is especially wrong to hurt innocents when there’s little chance of success. Omar Barghouti, the founder of BDS, won’t end BDS until Israel agrees to take in all Palestinian refugees. Israel would never agree to stop being a Jewish state so there’s zero possibility of success.

I voted for Trump because I was tired of the same ole promising us everything we needed then discarding us after getting our vote and moving forward to tax and spend and keep their donors happy cementing a lucrative lengthy “career” for themselves in politics. Their all dirty and the entire process requires sanitation. I like your idea.. I’m onboard.

Pretty much comes down to fuck the democratic party if they blow this and railroad Ellison. Give us an anti-war party or go to hell. Trump and the GOP is dropping the Shock and Awe on us (Thanks Naomi-Awesome book!!!!WOW!!) bringing total privatization, destroying regulations and eliminating social programs and here we stand with our fingers in our asses bickering. They aren’t going to stop and the democratic leadership still thinks this is a tea party.

Not crazy about her scattershot delivery, but this gal gets to the bottom of the big money issues at the heart of the DNC race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okSpEXZYOys

I agree 100% with your analysis, Glenn.

The one point I’d add about what likely motivated Obama to toss the Perez bomb was Obama’s self indulgent quest to preserve his “legacy”.

Yes, corporate/wall street donors and the ADL have given Perez their stamp of approval, but Perez also has demonstrated his loyalty to Obama’s agenda (including not holding wall street accountable for taking the US economy to the brink).

I’m positive that had Hillary won, she and a more dem Congress would have made it a priority to try to bring Sanders to his knees….and then kicked him in the ribs while he was down.

I believe Obama thinks of Ellison as Sanders’ proxy, and that he likely personalized Sanders’ campaign rhetoric about our decimated middle class and imperiled democracy, interpreting it as a rebuke, a criticism of his own precious “legacy.”

Tom Perez represents the corporate-funded wing of the Democratic party, where Keith Ellison represents the essential shift back to public funding of Democratic candidates. If the Democratic party continues on the Clinton-Perez path, it will continue losing to better-funded Republicans because voters will see too little difference in two ethically compromised parties.

Since the DNC’s byzantine plot is controlled by the superdelegates, the ideology of the figurehead is not important. The best strategy of appeasing the progressives would be to go ahead and let the upstart win, then subvert/coerce him to the dark side.

When will be the day in which the US has a third political party, both the Democrat and the Republican party are the parties of the establishment. It doesn’t matter who is elected president nothing will change for the 99%. Bernie Sanders could have done it, however, he did not have the strength to do it. He missed a real opportunity.

Justin Runia, your comments are full of straw men and distortions of Greenwald’s piece:

So, let me get this straight; you have no real evidence of substantive ideological difference between the two front-running candidates for DNC chair, but you will basically make some up, admitting you have no evidence to do

You have nothing “straight.” Greenwald observes, as does the writer over at TNR — Clio Chang — whom Greenwald approvingly quotes, that the political differences between Perez and Ellison are nearly non-existent, and Greenwald “made up” none. No, what the distinguishes them, as Chang observes, as that Perez is trusted to carry water for the establishment Obama/Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, while Sanders-supporting Ellison is not.

But that doesn’t stop Greenwald from jumping to a conclusion of the sort he was just decrying yesterday concerning Russia.

FFS, get a clue. If you think the Democratic Establishment doesn’t pay any attention when the biggest donor to its money machine denounces Ellison, you are to naive for politics — or else too duplicitous an establishment party for any of us here to take you seriously.

The fight for DNC chair is not remotely analogous to a nuclear armed superpower promoting the existence of villainous plots by another nuclear-armed super power based on anonymous speculation. The likelihood of billionaire Saban’s loathing of Ellison playing a role in the former case is matter of common sense; the Russia hysteria in the latter case, by contrast, is dangerous fear-mongering with extremely high stakes for the world.

None of your posts answer this Greenwald point: Why is the Obama/Clinton/Perez faction so eager to send yet another “fuck you” to the left-wing base?? How has that been working out, hmmm?

I’m not really sure why you couldn’t just reply to my comment, but whatever, here we go…

The outcome of an open election to pick the chairperson of the DNC isn’t a “fuck you” to anybody. Get. Over. Yourselves.

As stated by Chang, then reiterated by Greenwald “…supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that he is materially indistinguishable from Ellison in terms of ideology (despite his support for TPP, seemingly grounded in loyalty to Obama). ” OK, so from there you have this insane leap where Perez MUST be up to something if he isn’t ceding the job to Ellison, which is apparently is the final piece of the puzzle that will bring all those Sanders’ supporters in from the cold, which if you think about it, doesn’t really paint a flattering picture of those same supporters. But never mind, because the silly bullshit is just beginning; in a sane world, having the two front-runners for the chair be within spitting difference of each other on policy, to the point where they are pals and have dinner together, would be a great thing for people who claim to be motivated by progressive goals, except this is less about progressive goals and more about ego-driven axe-grinding, so the fact that Perez is currently leading in informal polls IS THE WORST THING EVER. HOW CAN WE ACCEPT 98% OF A LOAF WHEN 100% WAS SO CLOSE TO OUR GRASP? THOSE NEO-LIBERAL BASTARDS KNOW HOW MUCH WE HATE ONLY GETTING 98% OF WHAT WE WANT, THEY DID THIS JUST AS A FUCK YOU BECAUSE THEY KNOW OUR IDEOLOGY IS PURE AND INCORRUPTIBLE.

Or… Maybe Tom Perez was recognized as the well-meaning, productive person that he is, and the Obama White House thought it would be good if he had a job for the next couple years. Most people need jobs.

Bernie people and others on the left are never going to believe or accept your hackish, disingenuous “reasons.”

The outcome of an open election to pick the chairperson of the DNC isn’t a “fuck you” to anybody. Get. Over. Yourselves.

Almost all of take it as yet another “fuck you.” Whether you like it or not. So why not go for Ellison? Or is yet another “fuck you” to the left base just fine and dandy?

You can’t get around that’s how we reasonably see it, so what’s your answer: Why not go for Ellison to avoid another middle finger to the left base?

Well?

On nytimes.com, “Weakend Democrats Bow to Voters, Opting for Total War on Trump”:

“Mr. Perez, who was Mr. Obama’s labor secretary, is still viewed as a favorite
in the race, and he has been backed by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr. But he has struggled to dispel the impression that he is an anointed favorite
of Washington power brokers.” All just a marketing problem–to the party-centric.

demicans and republocrats are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, criminal, and immoral.

I guess what it boils down to for me is, if you are happy with the status quo, fine, no problem, vote corporate Dem, or Republican, whatever flavour you prefer. If on the other hand you are not happy with the rightward drift fuelled by gerrymandering, pay-to-play, permanent military industrial complex then you need to get the vast majority of ordinary Americans who agree with some progressive policies out to vote, raise small amounts, volunteer, run for office.

Where this fits into the race for DNC chair, and by extension every other Democratic post or seat in congress is exemplified by my following question:

After asking ordinary Americans to back such an enterprise, what do you think happens when after they have contributed substantial amounts of their meagre resources to putting a Dem into office, they then see “their” Dems vote with the Republicans?

Myself, in their place I would ask, “what is the point of going through all that effort to put a Dem there, if the end result is that the Dem votes with the Republicans anyway?”

To take but one example, a momentous example, the Iraq war vote. The Republicans voted to invade Iraq….what did the “opposition” do? What did Hillary Clinton do? She voted for it, not against it.

If Americans wanted a Republican in congress, They’d vote for a Republican. They didn’t need to vote for Clinton to get the Iraq war, A republican would have voted for that just as well. And if they want a progressive in the DNC chair….they’ll vote for a progressive. Not someone that Clinton’s people claim is “just as progressive” as a progressive. An ersatz progressive.

What about Buttigieg? He was recently endorsed by a number of former DNC chairs including Howard Dean. Does he really not even rate a passing mention in the article?

That wouldn’t fit the 2016 replay narrative. Which is why I hope he lands it. Ultimately, I think the strategy moving forward will vary little regardless of who holds the position, but I trust those who have held the position, know what the work is like, and see the value in rebuilding the party around a neutral character rather than continue the establishment/insider v. activist/outsider narrative.

I would suggest that electing Perez will be a much better solution. That will lead to even more massive exodus of progressives from democratic party and make democrats even less important nationally. That will pave the road for the third party with or without Bernie.

The notion that the Obama administration wanted to limit the power of Bernie supporters by supporting Perez is overblown. Perez was one of the most, if the most, effective cabinate members Obama had. Bernie supporters already are having a substantial effect on the dynamic of the Democratic Party, with states such as California, Michigan, and Florida being influenced heavily by people who felt the bern. These are only a few examples, but the Democratic Party will have to respond to the energy and participation that Bernie supporters are pushing for. Obama most likely supports Perez, as do many others in the Democratic Party, because they know how effective he is. The party needs unification above all else, and this is lost in the establishment vs anti-establishment rhetoric that has dominated the DNC chair debate. Ellison has served for 10 years in congress, so he isn’t exactly an outsider. As a resident of his district, I think he would be a solid choice for the DNC chair, but Tom Perez stands out through his public service as someone who would be the talented candidate needed to steer a divided party in the right direction, and I have reservations if Keith could do that as effectively.

Perez is really effective, so effective in fact that he created a public debacle before he even took the position.

Remember a few weeks ago when he admitted the 2016 primary was rigged, then walked back his statement shortly afterwards? Yes, what a great selection to unify the party and energize the base! /s

Unification under the rule of Wall Street is all Perez has to offer.f

Keith Ellison is a Soros vetted War Hawk who has been shilling ‘regime change’ in Syria and No Fly Zones for four years. NEITHER of these shills is progressive. This is Identity Politic Ellison (selling lies that will KILL innocent Muslims, if not deport them VS Establishment Politician Perez. Ellison backtracked in two weeks about keeping lobbyist money out of DNC. This is a show. This article misses the larger point. There is no REAL representation in either.

Another indicator of this same rift at DNC is Resolution 33, banning corporate money from the party. Apparently there were democrats this morning supporting corporate funds, stating that corporations were not all bad. In an incredibly confusing and disorganized morning session today, this and other resolutions were postponed for further study and will be voted on tomorrow morning. The resolution was brought forward by sfpelosi. This is another totally symbolic vote, but it highlights the same factional dispute.

The Dem establishment is more than willing to skip confronting the Trumpsters in favor of using its slime to sideline legitimate liberal contenders for top Dem spots for the very simple reason that they are much more in line with the Repubs philosophically, ethically and morally than they are with the truly progressive contingent of their own party.

Has that old chestnut adage, money talks, bullshit walks, ever be more true?

Greenwald’s analysis, as well as Chang’s analysis, is really well-done!

Faced with the possibility of a party for the people, the elite decided to introduce Perez the imposter. After all, you can’t ignore Saban!

Perez is an imposter because of blind loyalty to the establishment run by the Wasserman-Clinto-Brazille gang. The hope is that Perez is “smooth” enough to win over the party faithful, and “the rest’ don’t matter anyways because “the rest” are too independent and too smart to fall for this.

THE major flaw in this article (which is a good representative of

the major flaw of most “liberal’s” perspective on the democrat

party) is that it assumes that there is a real substantial difference

possible between any candidates for any position within

an organization as corruptly corporate-owned as the democrat

version of Milton Freidman’s choir.

Ellison enthusiastically endorsed Hillary Clinton after it was obvious

that that corrupt candidate was his only allowed choice from

within the corrupt, predatory system of which he is a proud member.

The democrats are republicans who lie.

They depend upon the gullibility of delusional suckers to help

reinforce the corruption which they share with the republicans.

Sanders and Ellison are Clintonites and their tepid attempts at

challenging the corruption (which is central to the party) were

clearly restrained from going to the distance necessary to be

genuine.

The waffling Kuciniches are abundant within the fraudulence of

these lying republicans. When push comes to shove, they prostrate

themselves before the power of militarizing Wall Street and then

pretend to have fought a good fight.

If elected, Ellison will help put out any remaining fire.

His history of complicity and enthusiasm for the dominant

agents of Wall Street is where his “pragmatist” delusions

will lead, just like any of the others.

IF the democrats elect Ellison, it will be because he is there to

maintain the delusion. If they do not elect him, it is because their

need to rub people’s noses in their crap is too precious to them.

Trump has done what he can to save the DNC and the lie of a

two party system. The democrats clearly need him to give

the illusion that they have something else to offer.

The problem is that it is nothing more than

more lies.

This is so great Glenn, thank you. Thank you.

Look at this!! Clinton’s people and Trump’s have something in common….opposition to them is driven by misogyny!!!

(and we thought we were mad about kleptocracy, oligarchy, militarism, etc…silly us!!!)

Kellyanne Conway at CPAC: Feminists protesting Trump ‘just have a problem with women in power’

“Turns out there are a lot of women who just have a problem with women in power,” Conway added. “This whole sisterhood, this whole let’s go march for women’s rights. And you know, just constantly talking about what women look like or what they wear or making fun of their choices or presuming that they’re not as powerful as the men around, this presumptive negativity about women and power, I think, is very unfortunate.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/kellyanne-conway-at-cpac-feminists-protesting-trump-just-have-a-problem-with-women-in-power/

When are all the female Bernie Bros, going to realize that feminism isn’t real, Trump loves women more than anyone!! and Clinton only lost because she was a woman!!!

On point as always.

Journalist David Sirota offered this observation on Twitter:

“The fact that Dems haven’t unified behind a Medicare-for-all bill to call GOP bluff on “replace Obamacare” says a lot about today’s Dem Party”

Trying to keep a failing party in power by keeping those around who keep actual progressive ideas from coming to fruition is why I keep repeating myself.

Jesus, I didn’t really think I could think less of the DNC. Congrats! After reading this I’m really starting to think a 3rd party is the only option.

Glenn, I can never thank you enough for your outstanding journalism and unflinching courage and integrity. On a personal level you help to keep me sane and for that you have my undying gratitude.

I’ve heard frequent bursts of laughter since the election of President Trump. Not the joyous or happy kind of laughter everyone likes – but more the maniacal or hysterical or edgy type. Um, it’s me. And I’m expecting another such crazy laugh after the DNC Chair vote, because I don’t believe status quo establishment Dems can see either their path’s destruction – or that other train still coming at them.
It all reminds me of one of my favorite Grateful Dead tunes, “Casey Jones.”

Switchman’s sleeping, train hundred and two is
On the wrong track and headed for
[snip]
Trouble with you is the trouble with me
Got two good eyes but you still don’t see
Come round the bend, you know it’s the end
The fireman screams and the engine just gleams

Driving that train, high on cocaine
Casey Jones you better watch your speed
Trouble ahead trouble behind
And you know that notion just crossed my mind

Thank you for standing next to the track and waving some light in their eyes, Glenn, maybe you can break through their one track thinking. Your lantern does shine brighter than most.

“The question that will be answered on Saturday is whether Democrats have more urgent priorities than denying power to the left.”

I know the answer already! It is NOPE! It has been clear for *years* now. Since Clinton I, really.

I’m with you Kathleen, confidently predicting the outcome in favor of Perez tomorrow. Wish I were wrong.

The Democrats won’t change because underneath they like what Trump is doing it will make them rich. They will keep the infighting in the party so that the Republicans will do things as a party they know they can’t. It doesn’t matter which party they are one big party that works for corporations and We the People are not in it. That is why I have switched to the Green Party and will not go back. Forward with progressive values. There are lines that are to dear to cross and Americans need to remember that and quit giving up like the Dems. The Republicans learned that well and look how they are doing.

This smacks of conspiracy theory way too much. A much simpler and very reasonable explanation is that Perez, an Hispanic, is liked by Obama as a valuable ally for the progressive changes that Obama champions. If you watched the CNN televised DNC debate, you saw more agreement than disagreement. Mention was made of a private lunch between Ellison and Perez but there was very little sniping by the other candidates. What was simultaneously wonderful and sad about the debate was the civility, high level of both eloquence and substance and diversity among the candidates. Sad because of the contrast to the garbage-mouthed false demagogery from the Republican party, especially the leader of the party.

This is just Greenwald’s way of sowing dissent among the left.. That’s all him and others of the far-left do nowadays. Personally, I like Ellison but he’s not the right man for the job at this moment. Either way, we’ll see..

None of these folks are liberal…Until the democrats purge their party of conservatives I will no longer vote for them.

the last thing the Democratic Party needs to win back Rust Belt voters is a black Muslim as the face of the party

That’s my favourite anti-Ellison argument: “Hey Democrats! Let’s combat Trump’s Islamophobia and racism by conceding that we shouldn’t have blacks and Muslims in leadership positions!!!”

This is presently a damn sad and sorry truth, I hate but it is a political post 911 fact. We can not compromise on inclusiveness but we must on the other issues if we wish to win the center and win elections. I am a Democrat but calling folks “deplorable”, later term abortions and considering Australian style gun control and open boarders, even totally free college losses the center we need to win. We can get half a loaf even two thirds or risk no bread.

Fred, your sorry idea of political realism has been the governing norm & it is a resounding failure for the Dems on a local, state & federal level. There is no “center” to pander to, this was the brilliant hill strategy, it’s over.

JLocke is totally correct. Have principles and fight for them or STFU and get your ass out of the way. No more of this shit, let us win FOR you you cowards.

Moderation and cowardice are quite different things. I would be happy to step aside and let you and your counterpart on the otherside have at it.

And your argument is: “Let’s convert the uneducated racist Rust Belt voters to our party by electing a spokesman who will be the target of their racist Islamophobia.” If such miraculous types of conversions were possible, a woman would be President now.

And yours is, “Let’s make sure the same failed leadership, the ones that drove away enough Sanders supporters to lose to Trump, remains in charge in the futile hope that more cozying up to the wealthy will convert those rust-belt rubes”.

Shorter version “let’s keep losing with the team we have”

And your argument is:

Wow, so much to unpack. Briefly:

No, that is not at all my argument. My argument would be…make the Democratic party a progressive party, give the rust belt what they want, give them Bernie Sanders, give them economic justice.

I do agree, Ellison as a black, as a Muslim, would be targeted by the Republicans, just as Obama was. Should the Democrats have gone with a white version of Obama…to avoid racist attacks? No, running away from bigotry is not the answer.

And if the Dems followed my advice, Clinton would be president now? No, if the Dems were progressive, they would not have rigged the primary, two DNC chairs would not have resigned in disgrace, Sanders would have had a fair shot at winning, and Sanders was favoured to beat Trump in one on one polls.

It’s not only Trumps’ Islamophobia, he didn’t vote himself in office, it’s his voters’ Islamophobia. If the goal is to capture/re-capture Trump supporters and turn them into/back-into Democrats, a Muslim-led DNC is a sure fail.

So, let me get this straight; you have no real evidence of substantive ideological difference between the two front-running candidates for DNC chair, but you will basically make some up, admitting you have no evidence to do, for exactly what reason? Why is it that you can dismiss claims about Russian hacking for lack of evidence, then turn around and pretty much make up stories out of whole cloth? Oh, I get it, because the Democratic party is your enemy, falling prey to the narcissism of small differences, and all that. Bravo Greenwald, you are the model of self-restraint, but please remember to STFU the next time you try to slag Vox or some other publication for failing your journalistic purity tests.

BTW, there’s a pretty obvious reason Perez may have been nominated that you seem to be overlooking: unlike Ellison, he doesn’t already have a job, and it makes sense to keep him on the Democratic bench, rather than losing him to the private sector (which, as we know, is the kiss of death for “progressive” ideologues like yourself). But please, by all means, continue your nonsense conspiracy theories in service of tearing down the Democratic party so that it can be rebuilt in your image, they are certainly entertaining.

falling prey to the narcissism of small differences

Is it “small”, the difference between Sanders’ 27 dollar funders, and Clinton’s billionaires?

Yes, it is small. Clinton and Sanders’ voting records were very similar, and the Democrats let Sanders invite a bunch of people (who would go on to campaign for the Green party) to the Democratic Platform Committee. Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton should indicate that their ideology was close enough, and furthermore, it was the Democratic Party as it exists today, that Sanders went to for support of his presidential campaign. The Democrats had nothing on Sanders; he could have ran for the Green Party presidential nomination, but he chose them, which indicates that either Sanders is massively corrupt and venal, or maybe, just maybe, the Democratic party is actually pretty close to where Sanders’ ideology lies.

Or we have a two-party system that is massively rigged in favor of candidates from one of the two parties. His willingness to run under the Demo banner should have been seen as a boon- a chance for a thoroughly corrupted institution to transform itself and take advantage of an electorate disgusted (rightly) with the status-quo. Instead, the party hacks knee-capped him and suffered an epic fail with the ‘safe’ candidate.

“Why is it that you can dismiss claims about Russian hacking for lack of evidence, then turn around and pretty much make up stories out of whole cloth?”

This is the main problem I have with Greenwald. If something confirms his worldview, he has the credulity of a child. If something goes against his world view, no amount of evidence is sufficient to even consider the possibility.

“But please, by all means, continue your nonsense conspiracy theories in service of tearing down the Democratic party so that it can be rebuilt in your image, they are certainly entertaining.”

Funniest thing I’ll read all day. The only folks “…tearing down the Democratic party…” are the hacks at the helm of the Democratic Party. How do you not know this?

You must think that if HRC had managed to squeak out a win that it would have somehow erased the tidal wave of damage in Congress, state legislatures and governors offices overseen by the “leaders” in the party.

. . . then turn around and pretty much make up stories out of whole cloth . . .

Yeah, like totally man, except for the links to his evidence.

unlike Ellison, [Perez] doesn’t already have a job, and it makes sense to keep him on the Democratic bench . . .

That’s your argument? Why if Perez is such a true progressive would he stop wanting to be a contributing member of the party unless he gets the DNC job? And in case you didn’t notice, Perez didn’t just decide to run of his own volition, he was approached by certain individuals. Or is your argument that the head of the DNC should be awarded to whichever loyal Democratic party operative that isn’t currently employed? Because what you’re arguing in the latter is the classic definition of political patronage.

But please, by all means, continue your nonsense conspiracy theories in service of tearing down the Democratic party so that it can be rebuilt in your image, they are certainly entertaining.

Oh so the party that is out of power at both the state and federal level, hemorrhaging registered voters, and lost to Donald Fucking Trump while giving up a thousand state level seats and a majority of state Governorships, doesn’t need to be “rebuilt” from the ground up?

If you think the status quo is acceptable, or that the Democratic party has been successful doing things they way they have in the past, I’d hate to see what failure looks like to you.

Oh right, people like you at base think the Democratic party establishment can never fail, it can only be failed by its voters, who oddly, seem to be indicating with their lack of votes and passion for that agenda, that they really don’t like what the current iteration of the Democratic party is offering on balance.

But yeah, make sure and continue to move to the center/center right and see how that works out for the party’s electoral prospects going forward.

a) Greenwald admits he has no evidence in paragraph 9:
“There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. ”
But that doesn’t stop Greenwald from jumping to a conclusion of the sort he was just decrying yesterday concerning Russia.
“But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.”
So, we can’t afford to be naive about the DNC, but we have give every benefit of the doubt to a country with a fairly well-documented record of anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-journalist, anti-democracy actions that is actively trying to annex its neighbors. THAT’S MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CLARITY AT WORK, FOLKS.

b) It’s nowhere near patronage to recruit leadership, especially when it has been noted by Greenwald himself that Perez matches the direction of where the Democratic party should be headed. What I’m talking about though is this thirsty scramble to attribute impure motives to every action of career Democratic party operatives. I’ll remind everyone here that the Democratic party had nothing on Sanders, they didn’t make him run for the nomination of their party–he CHOSE the Democratic party and its apparatus because either he’s ultimately as venal and corrupt as all those phony sell-outs, OR MAYBE the Democratic party is actually full of competent, professional people who represent the best chance for positive progress that we have. I know Occam’s Razor has fallen out of style in the fever swamps of Pure Ideology, but I still remain a fan.

“he (Sanders) CHOSE the Democratic party and its apparatus because either he’s ultimately as venal and corrupt as all those phony sell-outs, OR MAYBE the Democratic party is actually full of competent, professional people who represent the best chance for positive progress that we have.”

I was wrong, some how you’ve topped yourself. Yes, the two choices are: Sanders has spent 50 years advocating for the most marginalized for just this moment to satisfy his personal ambitions, or the Dems really are that great.

How do you make this shit up?

OR MAYBE the Democratic party is actually full of competent, professional people who represent the best chance for positive progress that we have.

Given the electoral results of the last 8 years, and policy arc since Clinton, you believe the Democratic party (or its establishment, consultant wing, Goldman Sachs/Rubin-Citibank faction) is “competent, professional” and “the best chance for positive progress we have”?

If so we’ll have to agree to disagree on the definition of competent and profession, and who “we” is. Because little if anything the Democratic party has done has not reinforced the neoliberal status quo, and done anything but slow down the destruction of working and middle classes in this country.

I expect better and so should you. If you don’t, best we’re ever going to achieve is coalitions of convenience, rather than true solidarity.

I know Occam’s Razor has fallen out of style in the fever swamps of Pure Ideology, but I still remain a fan.

So which is it, do you believe “Occam’s Razor” principle in which case, and given the Democratic party establishment’s history both recent and past, Saban’s attack (and many other elected representative “centrists” in the Democratic party coalition) on Ellison had nothing to do with the recruitment of Perez, or that the entire party just wanted to make sure that Perez stayed in the fold and that he wasn’t unemployed?

I mean I’d like to know which argument you are now making so I can argue against it.

–[Sanders] CHOSE the Democratic party and its apparatus because either he’s ultimately as venal and corrupt as all those phony sell-outs,

Your conclusion doesn’t follow your premise. Because Sanders chose the Democratic party rather than run as an independent does not mean he’s corrupt, only that he saw it tactically as the best chance at advancing his agenda, given the existing role the two parties play in this country. Similarly, and he has stated this openly, he saw it as his best platform (and with existing infrastructure) to advance the message and policy agenda that he believes (and millions of us lifelong Democratic party members (until recently)) ALL democratic party members should be advancing. And that isn’t in any way radical as a function of the Democratic party’s past–it is straight FDR Redux.

And that’s the point. The Democratic party has strayed so far, whether out of venality or bad political instincts that they are perceived by millions of your fellow citizens as only “marginally” better or different than the GOP on balance in the economic sphere.

Do we all agree there are significant differences between the parties–absolutely. But I don’t think the Democratic party really understands the economic reality on the ground for 10s of millions of their fellow citizens. And more importantly, even if they do, they offer nothing that is going to meaningfully address that situation. The adopt the language of the GOP, and at best policy half-measures that never ever deliver.

That’s your fight. This isn’t just a battle of tactics, it’s a battle about whether the Democratic party can reinvent itself on a concrete policy agenda that serves the working class rather than their current Wall Street/business factions, sell it unequivocally, and figure out a way to fundraise without the former, because they simply can’t have it both ways and maintain any credibility.

I’m sorry people are struggling to grasp that political reality on the ground.

” THAT’S MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CLARITY AT WORK, FOLKS.”

I thought is was just the result of Mr. Saban spending

“whatever it takes” to elect her …
“Haim Saban prides himself on his top-giver status: “If I’m not No. 1, I’m going to cut my balls off,” he once remarked on the eve of a Hillary fundraiser.

The moral and professional clarity of Haim Saban is where the spotlight should shine.

“unlike Ellison, he doesn’t already have a job, and it makes sense to keep him on the Democratic bench, rather than losing him to the private sector “

The loss would be immeasurable.

Things you can’t “unsee”…. the circle jerk of Saban keeping control of the DNC, and the DNC keeping control of Democratic Party Proce$$.

To my peril, I keep forgetting about Single-Issue-Saban.

I imagine Perez will be elected. The Democratic Party establishment would probably rather be skinned alive than risk facing another 2016 Primary. They really can’t afford to let their Left wing optimistic and energized. Ellison would attract all the wrong people. And, I fully expect that if Ellison were to – somehow – magically prevail, Obama will hone OFA into the sharpest of knives to carve Millennial Sanders’ supporters into the most fragmented pieces ever.

Not going to be devastated if Ellison remains in the House, in the same way I was not devastated to see Warren remain in the Senate. But, to turn Ellison aside, suggests to me, that the Democrats are looking well past 2020 for any kind of comeback, on any political level.

Oddly, turning Ellison aside might be the only thing to inoculate Sanders’ supporters from being fractured by OFA’s revival.

The democratic party the place where progressive movements go to die. They need to be taken off life supports and just die. This process is torture and it is distracting from moving on to a party that is a Party of the Working Class.

” …turning Ellison aside might be the only thing …”

The Democrats are like addicts on their way to rock bottom, which I’d thought would be quite visible by now to most anyone, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Are we there yet?

Wow, completely unsubstantiated theorizing about the influences behind the DNCrace. What an incredibly hypocritical article by an author who frequently demands irrefutable and tangible evidence before entertaining any number of news stories.

Did you even read the article? Or click on any of the links? Here is just one quote:

The DNC headquarters was built with Saban’s largesse: He donated $7 million to build that building, and he previously served as chairman of the party’s capital-expenditure campaign.

Every link has the evidence you seek. Too bad you’re too lazy to click and read.

He freely admits there’s no evidence, but he proceeds to rumor-monger anyway, absolutely failing to hold himself to the same standards he demands of others. 100% hypocrisy.

presumably, you are referring to this statement:

<blockquote? There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.

You simply shut your eyes to the very next sentence . Really? Is this how you operate? You take one sentence out of context and shut your eyes to the rest of the entire article?

If this is your belief and your ability to deduce or come to your own conclusions, I fear no amount of evidence would suffice, even if it bit you in the *ss.

So, you are saying that money doesn’t influence decisions, prove it? Is that your rebuttal? LOL.

Oops…messed up my blockquote. Here is what should be blockquoted.

There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.

Yep. I read that. Its an assertion with no supporting evidence. An insult about someone’s naïveté isn’t a substitute for proof.

“Haim Saban prides himself on his top-giver status: “If I’m not No. 1, I’m going to cut my balls off,” he once remarked on the eve of a Hillary fundraiser. ”

The top donor always expects his donations to be used to help the cause.
Mr. Saban is the victim here.

So, then I’m correct. You don’t believe Big Donors and their contributions affect candidates. You’re dreaming.

Here’s your proof. They have laws about campaign finance. Primafacia.

misspelled it…it’s Prima Facie

That’s the proof and here it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prima-facie

This isn’t about what I believe or not. This is about Mr. Greenwald holding himself to the same high standards of evidence for promoting a theory as he demands from others.

This isn’t about what I believe or not. [I believe] This is about Mr. Greenwald holding himself to the same high standards of evidence for promoting a theory as he demands from others.

Why are you running interference for a billionaire who has declared openly his preference for Israel over America?
He’d rather ‘cut off his balls’ than not be the #1 donor to Hillary. How can one not infer he would do anything to get Hillary elected?

Your comment and request for proof is absurd on it’s face. You’re asking for proof that money affects politics. That’s what you’re asking. And it’s self-evident that is does.

You might as well as him to prove it’s air that he’s breathing. You’re absurd.

“Its an assertion with no supporting evidence.”

Right. The DNC torpedoed Bernie in many ways, all documented. From leaking debate questions to denial of voter lists, the DNC sank Bernie despite his over-whelming popularity.
Saban spent more money than anyone else over the last 20 years keeping the Clinton’s in power.
But please continue defending someone openly dedicated to a foreign power.

I voted for Bernie, and I’m not defending anyone.

I totally agree with you, and everyone knows that Glenn is an Obama hater from way back!
GOP are all going to fall because of Trump and Russia!

Lately, I can predict what the Democrats will do. The establishment democrats that lost the 2016 election are so full of themselves they don’t think we can see right through them. They think Americans will hate the Republicans so much we will come crawling back to them. Not this American! Our two party government needs an overhaul. Neither party does their job of representing all of America’s people! It is a depressing realization and the people are just now waking up!

is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing influence is a critical goal.

If this is true, then what you are saying is that there is no real home for liberal ideology and policy within the Democratic Party, right? So, electing Ellison would simply still lead to more failed elections as those donors will prevent real liberal policy.

Thus, the only real option for Ellison-Sanders supporters is to break off from the Democratic party in a proxy fight for control of the base.

If the plan to sink Ellison succeeds, the message that will be heard – fairly or not – is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing influence is a critical goal.

Let’s unglue these two propositions:

“the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors”

— AND —

“preventing left wing influence is a critical goal.”

The solvent that dissolves the glue of these two propositions comes in a little bottle called “Citizens United.”

If money is the determining factor in all elections then it would be very, very stupid to alienate those with cash willing to give it.

What appears to be an ideological struggle is actually a strategic battle.

Which is better: a weak candidate with sufficient funds or a strong candidate with insufficient funds?

This is a good question and it should have very little to do with “left wing influence.” As long as money decides outcomes (ask Harold Stassen, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or Joe Iveadream which they would prefer.)

I would vote Ellison over Perez but I also would vote ANYONE over Trump.

If I had a vote.

You’re argument was destroyed in 2016 by Sanders. Average donation, $27.

You’re argument was destroyed in 2016 by Sanders. Average donation, $27.

Not quite destroyed.

We’re not talking about President Sanders. We’re talking about President Trump.

And that’s one election.

There were 635 other elections. Who won the majority of those?

Birds don’t refute gravity and level playing fields don’t refute a round earth.

If money is the determining factor in all elections then it would be very, very stupid to alienate those with cash willing to give it.

Money is quite obviously NOT the determining factor in ALL elections. You are aware that Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by wide margins? You are aware that money was not a deciding fact between Clinton and Sanders in the primary as Sanders raised and spent almost as much as Clinton.

Moreover, your conclusion, even if we accept the premise that money = election success (in ALL instances for your proposition to be true),–it only follows that if money=election success then if you are going to “alienate” one source of income, then you have to replace it with another source, which of course is eminently doable given how Sanders funded his campaign. You act like you want to be a slave to the whims of the ultra-rich benefactors of the Democratic party.

Remaining so is both unnecessary and counterproductive, because perpetuating that relationship destroys what little credibility (much less integrity) the Democratic party has left with huge numbers of its “base”.

How do you not see that?

So this isn’t a “strategic battle” but an ideological one as indicated. That’s been so obvious on the merits of the evidence for decades (re: the Democratic party policy agenda since the first Clinton, and arguably since Kennedy and most certainly since Carter) it is almost beyond dispute.

It’s funny, and sad, because you used to have something meaningful to say over the years on various topics. Now everything that comes under your name appears to read like you’re drunk or have suffered a serious head injury. In any event I hope it isn’t either, or that if it is you are getting the help you need.

So this isn’t a “strategic battle” but an ideological one as indicated.

(huge, melodramatic sigh)

Why must I always make the obvious explicit?

I am in favor of a leftist ideology. Nationalize the banks and oil companies. BBC is better than CNN. Protect the rights of the oppressed and give State help to those people most needful. Corporations are not people.

But here’s the fact.

Money controls elections.

No money = no chance.

There are exceptions, of course, but that’s the whole point of the Republican inspired Citizens United. Play by Republican rules and you get — presto! — Republican policies like ACA.

I would like that to be NOT the case. But it doesn’t matter if Ellison or Perez gets the DNC chairmanship because the rules will remain the same.

Progressive policies are expensive, they return little profit, progressive policies favor people over corporations and generally the more honest and trustworthy politicians eschew ideology in favor of actually helping people.

You could build a wonderful — delightful even — Mars colony based entirely on progressive principles.

Except we don’t live on Mars. And nothing grows there.

It’s funny, and sad, because you used to have something meaningful to say over the years on various topics. Now everything that comes under your name appears to read like you’re drunk or have suffered a serious head injury. In any event I hope it isn’t either, or that if it is you are getting the help you need.

Apparently we live in different realities. In my reality — this nightmare — Republicans control all three branches of government while the decent people (with exceptions) are shut out.

This system rewards corruption. Either blow it the fuck up or do the best you can with what you have.

I don’t know what your reality looks like, but it’s got to be better than the one I live in.

Money controls elections.

No money = no chance.

Straw man. Who has ever argued, much less me, that being competitive in American elections does not require some money? Of course it does. And totally beside the point.

The question is, unless you’re being purposefully obtuse, is where to find that money. Sanders has shown the way–small dollar mass citizen funded campaigns.

This system rewards corruption.

And so you believe you can change the system by aid, abetting and perpetuating a corrupt system that produces corrupt anti-democratic results? Seriously? That’s just stupid, not to say obtuse.

Either blow it the fuck up or do the best you can with what you have.

I’m for changing it i.e. building a critical mass for never supporting anyone who takes money from the likes of Haim Saban.

Here’s the simple “reality” and maybe we don’t share it and you aren’t capable of comprehending it–you can’t have your cake and it eat too. You can’t aid and abet a corrupt system, or serve the interests of your hyper-large corporate and individual donors, and actually serve the needs of the working class. It is literally impossible as demonstrated by history and logic.

Seriously, you need to get over whatever this is, and get back to reality, which I distinctly remember you at one point in time being in touch with:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I would like that to be NOT the case. But it doesn’t matter if Ellison or Perez gets the DNC chairmanship because the rules will remain the same.

Then fight to change the rules. Fight to create a new reality on the political battlefield where accepting money from certain factions or individuals is electoral suicide.

Not saying it’s going to be easy. Real change never is. But with your defeatist attitude and simplistic acceptance of always accepting a reality where our political system is fundamentally corrupt, corrupted, and corruptible means what–give up? If that’s what you honestly believe–that no change is possible–why not just resign yourself to the reality you find yourself in, and make the best of it for you and yours? Because you don’t really believe that, you’re just frustrated, scared, and can only see the glass as half empty right now instead of the incredible opportunity that is staring everyone on the left right in their faces. But we’re going to have to fight for it, one person at time, person to person, family member to family member, friend to friend, stranger to stranger, urban to rural . . . .

Or you can sit back and whine that it is all so patently unfair and not try and change it. But don’t be under any illusion that power concedes anything without a bare knuckles fight.

Here’s the simple “reality” and maybe we don’t share it and you aren’t capable of comprehending it–you can’t have your cake and it eat too.

Reality?

Hahaha

Here’s the reality.

I blame the people voting for Trump for Trump’s election.

You — and the rest of the GG cult apparently — blame the people voting for Clinton for Trump’s election.

I can’t live in your reality because it’s too fucking complicated.

That’s my “simple” reality.

I blame the people voting for Trump for Trump’s election.

So do I. We’ve hashed this out before and we agree.

You — and the rest of the GG cult apparently — blame the people voting for Clinton for Trump’s election.

You’ve been here long enough to know I am one of the first people to call Glenn out when I disagree with him in the merits, or when he employs a bad exemplar of an argument (like say Ron Paul). So shove your “cult-member” accusations up your obtuse ass.

What we are arguing is that in foisting up Clinton, they ran a huge tactical risk given the American public’s perception of her and the Clinton brand generally. That was avoidable, and therefore bad political strategy and tactics. They need to own that.

I can’t live in your reality because it’s too fucking complicated.

Sorry you can’t handle complexity, even though none of what I’ve argued on this topic is at all complex. Perception is reality. The Democratic party needs to change its perception. It does that most easily by changing how it does its party business, the concrete policy agenda it espouses and learn to do so in simple terms that appeals to all voters, and rebuild its grass roots on the ground organizing infrastructure that it has abandoned in favor of data wonks, consultants and advertisers who are as far removed from the day to day lives of the vast majority of this nation’s citizens as they are.

That’s reality. That you and other’s are confused by it, or don’t understand it, or don’t want to accept it is on you. Some of us have been trying to point this out literally since Pres. Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Unfortunately you appear to want to perpetuate the status quo out of fear of change, agree with the status quo, or simply can’t grasp what it is going to take to return the Democratic party to majority status in this country.

I think that’s a fight worth having, for all our sakes. Because if it all goes down in flames it takes all of us with it regardless of our differences.

That’s my “simple” reality.

“I blame the people voting for Trump for Trump’s election.”

The fact that Saban made sure the voters had to choose between a cold shit-sandwich and hot turd-stew is our simple reality.

No money = No Chance

You’re unhinged dude. I don’t really understand how you could be so blind, especially given this particular election cycle.

Trump, who locked down the first win of his mere 17-month old political career with 289 electoral votes to Clinton’s 218, raised $306 million between his official campaign committee and outside groups as of Oct. 28. In particular, the president-elect did especially well with individual contributions and smaller ones, raising more than $105.3 million and $67.6 million, respectively. He spent $285.5 million, according to OpenSecrets.

The Trump campaign also appears to have spent its money wisely. Though the election tallies have since changed, Trump spent a little less than $5 per vote, according to Reuters.

In contrast, the former secretary of state blew Trump away in the fundraising game but couldn’t claim the Oval Office. Between Hillary for America, her campaign’s main arm, and outside groups like Super PACs, Clinton raised $687.2 million and expended $609.1 million.

Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and LOST

Your argument sucks and your still too upset about the loss to think clearly or coherently. Try some new Meds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-did-trump-spend-his-campaign-beat-hillary-clinton-total-money-raised-2016-2444150

Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and LOST

You might want to address my argument — my words — rather than make a different argument.

I wrote and you read, “No money = No Chance.” I know you read it because you cited it.

No Money = No Chance does NOT mean the most money always wins or even necessarily often wins.

Is that too unhinged and incoherent for you? Yes?

Oh well. I’ll explain it to you. There is a certain threshold of money necessary to run a credible campaign. That threshold differs from election to election — a local election has a much lower threshold of money than a national election. So far, so good, right?

Once past that threshold, money is still important but NOT determinative. Even your link assumes that when it refers to “smart” use of money.

Let’s try a metaphor. Water freezes at 32 degrees to make ice. That’s a threshold. For two skaters racing on that ice the temperature matters — more cold makes more solid ice; less cold makes less solid ice — but not as much as a thousand other factors: musculature, skates, wind, training, strategy, etc. Money is like the ice. It matters a lot to skaters, but also — at a certain threshold — it doesn’t matter so much.

Swimmers can’t win an ice skating contest. That’s what No Money = No Chance means.

Still with me? Too bad. I’ll continue anyway.

This threshold defines the two party political system. The first question isn’t “what do you believe?” It is “can you accomplish what you promise?” The money goes to those who can most realistically offer assurances but when there are only two alternatives, then money favors money which effectively blocks out alternatives.

This is the system we have now. It is called “oligarchy.”

You do not blow up an oligarchy by electing oligarchs.

Duh.

[note to Intercept. Please delete my previous misformated comment. Also, how about a preview?]

Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and LOST

You might want to address my argument — my words — rather than make a different argument.

I wrote and you read, “No money = No Chance.” I know you read it because you cited it.

No Money = No Chance does NOT mean the most money always wins or even necessarily often wins.

Is that too unhinged and incoherent for you? Yes?

Oh well. I’ll explain it to you. There is a certain threshold of money necessary to run a credible campaign. That threshold differs from election to election — a local election has a much lower threshold of money than a national election. So far, so good, right?

Once past that threshold, money is still important but NOT determinative.

Let’s try a metaphor. Water freezes at 32 degrees to make ice. That’s a threshold. For two skaters racing on that ice the temperature matters — more cold makes more solid ice; less cold makes less solid ice — but not as much as a thousand other factors: musculature, skates, wind, training, strategy, etc. Money is like the ice. It matters a lot to skaters, but also — at a certain threshold — it doesn’t matter so much.

Swimmers can’t win an ice skating contest. That’s what No Money = No Chance means.

Still with me? Too bad. I’ll continue anyway.

This threshold defines the two party political system. The first question isn’t “what do you believe?” It is “can you accomplish what you promise?” The money goes to those who can most realistically offer assurances but when there are only two alternatives, then money favors money which effectively blocks out alternatives.

This is the system we have now. It is called “oligarchy.”

You do not blow up an oligarchy by electing oligarchs.

Duh

Your back-peddling, slippery slopes and red herrings are showing.

That’s absolutely the stoopidest explanation you’ve ever given.

Go back to decaf. Seriously.

“The solvent that dissolves the glue of these two propositions comes in a little bottle called “Citizens United.”

I’ve been chatting up fellow Democrats trying to figure out where they’re coming from with this latest argument. As a former Democrat and Bernie supporter (including a part of the one quarter billion dollars he raised in cash donations during the primaries) I find that it falls completely flat.

The fact that a relative unknown Independent senator can change party and run so successfully on only individual small cash donations via what was essentially a word-of-mouth campaign negates that premise altogether.

Everything about the Democrats denial of the existence of a populist candidate leads to only one conclusion: the establishment neoliberal Democrats simply want to retain power at any cost, despite the evidence that there is a way to both retain power and expand progressive ideas (universal health care, as one example) that most Americans can get behind – particularly after seeing what Trump and the GOP intend to do.

Just before the election I feared that I was right to expect that a Trump victory would be the only curative for a party that has slid so far to the right that they’ve become indistinguishable from the GOP in many ways, and I still think that’s the case, but it boggles the mind seeing so many everyday Democrat voters towing the failed party line despite the evidence all around that keeping the status quo simply will not work anymore.

The last paragraph italics were unintended.

What appears to be an ideological struggle is actually a strategic battle.

Yes, that was the: “Clinton is a progressive!!! No, really!!!” line.

It would take more time than I have to enumerate the progressive policies Sanders has supported all his life, and which Clinton has not. (oh, no wait, she “evolved”!!!)

Already Clinton’s GOP opponents are working to set a narrative, to make sure voters ask themselves whether her shifts mean Clinton can’t be trusted or doesn’t have the courage of her convictions. And Clinton’s 25 years of public life give them lots of material.

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/23/478973321/evolution-or-expediency-clintons-changing-positions-over-a-long-career

It would take more time than I have to enumerate the progressive policies Sanders has supported all his life, and which Clinton has not. (oh, no wait, she “evolved”!!!)

Let me save you some time.

Donald Trump.

Republican House and Senate.

Republican governorships.

Republican state legislatures.

Corporate media.

You blame Clinton and the entire Democratic Party.

I blame Trump and the entire Republican Party.

Unlike you, I don’ t have to waste my time splitting hairs.

Commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic.
— James Madison

Establishment Dems and donors know the right move, but would rather risk future losses and irrelevancy than relinquish power. The sad part is that the threat of Donald Trump and the Republicans might be enough to justify their resistance to popular reform.

Like they say in Dutch: “Een ezel stoot zich geen tweemaal aan dezelfde steen”, i.e. “Fool me twice, shame on me” – ‘ezel’ being the DP’s icon. And if they do, maybe we will see a new party after all… Let’s keep fingers crossed!

“Thus it has always been and thus it shall ever shall be”

due to the depravity of the human condition. The Democratic Party needs a shroud and burial preparations.

The purpose of the Democrat Party as it is presently constituted is to make sure that progressives do not win any elections.

So, if the establishment/elites in the DNC are not willing even to throw the Sanders wing a symbolic bone in the form of allowing Ellison to win, the question is how Bernie could believe that he could ever bring about real change from within this party?

Having been undermined, if not actually cheated, out of the nomination, Bernie still seems willing once again to mislead his supporters into thinking that they have a future in the Dem. party.

Bernie would be better off starting a new party or joining forces with the Greens, or even the Libetarians, as he likely would have a higher probability of effecting the changes he wants to bring about with that strategy.

Even if Ellison wins, he will face an enormous amount of resistance (similar to what Trump is facing from his own party) from the establishment/ elites who want to maintain the Obama/Clinton coalition which apparently is the choice of the pro Israel lobby.

Alan Dershowitz said on CNN last night that he will leave the Democratic Party if it becomes the “American Party of Corbyn” by electing Ellison as Chair. Addition by subtraction?

Good riddance, Dershowitz is a loon. And CNN is garbage. One of the few things Trump is right about, American mass media is useless unprofessional PR drivel.

As per the Clio Chang article Glenn references:

“Party regulars wanted to ensure control of the group, rather than allowing it to flourish as an independent entity, one that could challenge the party itself.

“The same could be said of today’s battle over the DNC and the push to install a loyal technocrat like Perez. This reluctance to cede control comes despite the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 state legislature seats since 2009.”

In other words, it’s all about control.

Since the party’s establishment (~1828), Democrats have generally favored centrist and modern liberalist positions of the “Third Way” variety, but within this approach there’s a troubling undercurrent of neo-corporatism too. The growth of the US’ private-for-profit prison industry (supported by Republican and Democrat administrations equally), for example, illustrates the dilemma – and numerous unintended consequences – that this sort of muddled philosophy inevitably brings about.

One of two things will happen–either the Sanders’ “wing” of the Democratic party will prevail, and save the Democratic party from its neoliberal/centrist/hawk self by taking it over, or it won’t.

But if it doesn’t, the Democratic party is unlikely to win a majority at the federal level for decades (except by the gift of the GOP totally imploding in their never ending quest to functionally destroy the administrative state), nor a majority of the states. The states where the Democratic party still maintains a majority in at least two of the three state branches of government–are the most progressive states.

The message is and has been clear for decades–the Democratic party centrist/neoliberal/hawk (Clintonism, Washington consensus . . . whatever label you like) would rather destroy and disempower its left flank, and remain in the minority, than cede power to it (what do people think “hippie punching” is). It’s because the Democratic party isn’t progressive or left in any senses of the word. It is center-right (and leftish only on a handful of social issues), hawkish and neoliberal.

The reason isn’t complicated, it’s simple–the progressive wing’s agenda doesn’t involve big money, but rather small donors. It actually wants to do something for the working class other than mouth platitudes. It wants a different set of policy choices re: Wall Street, the MICC, and Israel. And most of all it wants to abolish the pay-to-play lobbyist access for pay, private sector to high government official revolving door politics that the Democratic party “establishment” is up to its eyeballs in.

The Democratic party “establishment” understands this quite well and will do everything and anything to preserve their individual financial positions and perks within the party until it no longer exists as a viable opposition party.

You watch. They can’t achieve lasting power again without the Sanders’ wing. They think demographics can save them, but it can’t. Only looking to the younger vote, across demographics that went so hard for Sanders, can it be saved.

I just hope win or lose this battle for the soul of the Democratic party, the Sanders’ wing holds its ground, and its votes, even if that means something as painful as losing some elections going forward until they can drill it into the narcissistic heads of the Democratic party leadership that we want no part of their crumb sandwich centrist bullshit. Either fight for progressive ideals openly and consistently or get fucked. And if the Sanders’ wing loses this battle it needs to pick some senior “establishment” targets in safe/safer districts and figure out a way to run a true progressive and start taking down the leadership positions one by one wherever they can until the message comes home.

There is no other way to force the Democratic party establishment to cede power. It must be taken from them if we want a different working class focused politics in this nation.

There’s no shame in being Republican Lite. Once the people have over-imbibed on the strong stuff, they will welcome a little Republican Lite to assuage their hangover. People are being far too pessimistic about the Democrats’ future.

Once the people have over-imbibed on the strong stuff, they will welcome a little Republican Lite to assuage their hangover.

Sort of like switching to decaf, yea? ;)

I can never quite discount the idea that there’s some kind of strange conviction at work, even when things appear wholly craven and cynical. People rationalize what they want and/or what benefits themselves, and a lifetime of rationalization can end up taking on a life of it’s own, creating the most improbable ‘true believer’. I’m not sure there’s any more likely candidate for that than an establishment politician. Perhaps they have to destroy integrity to save it?

Good point. Still, even if there’s rationalization as you suggest, the underlying motives that drive people’s rationalization are more important, and often more enduring, than the nicer-sounding “convictions” which owe their existence to these baser motives. I agree that politicians often see themselves as having some principled convictions, but politicians tend to also have a side that’s cynical and selfishly calculating. And lots of members of the DNC aren’t even people who’ve held elected office — they just specialize in helping to run winning campaigns, so they have less need to see themselves as people of integrity than the politicians themselves do.

the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors above all else

This is the correct choice. As long as the Democrats can provide cover for oligarch’s agenda by continuing to move rightwards, they will be compensated whether or not they are actually elected. And at some point, the shenanigans of the Republicans will exasperate the voters so much that the Democrats will be needed in office to calm things down and consolidate Republican initiated changes. So while they may be tempted to pursue popular policies, they must hold firm, maintain discipline and resist temptation.

Depressingly true. The only thing that might work is the formation of a single issue “money out of politics” party that has *no* platform other than “money out of politics”. Candidates could hold whatever positions they wanted on everything but that; once they got into office they could vote in limits on campaign spending, donations, and lobbying. These measures would go back to the courts, of course — we’d see if the Supreme Court might change its mind about money as speech in the teeth of a mobilized populace. They’ve consistently done so about everything else (civil rights, abortion rights, gay marriage, and on and on).

Excellent summary Glenn.

The reason why this happened is because they would rather lose with politicians like Clinton than win with politicians like Bernie Sanders.

Winning means t hey have to govern and they have to deliver. Trump in a way is learning this the hard way. Obama did not deliver and as a result helped elected Trump in a way that no Clinton supporter will ever admit.

Worse, the Democratic Party wants to keep the big donor money flowing. A politician like Ellison would reject that. The US is a plutocracy, pretending to be a democracy Mr. Greenwald. The Democrats exist mostly to do what the rich want and as an outlet to try to suppress the left.

I’m not convinced this is only a symbolic choice. From the DNC emails, we saw that crucial decisions about uses of funds, party messaging, working with the press, and much more, were made by the DNC head. DNC leadership was/is a big factor in the corruption of the DNC–jockeying for super-delegates, focusing on big-funders and national (as opposed to local ad state-wide) elections, and generally supporting HRC and her bank-friendly agenda before and throughout the primaries. How is this merely symbolic? The DNC head was key to undermining Sanders primary run, and as you so eloquently and disturbingly point out, the same factions that backed DWS & Brazille are now smiling on Perez. That DNC party stalwarts see the left as more threatening than Trump & the Republicans is infuriating and extremely destructive. It’s also totally unacceptable. Thx for yr insight & reporting.

Great write up, Glenn.

I live in Ellison’s district and caucused for Bernie. As far as my area’s concerned, Dems here have never been more ready for someone like Ellison to take over the DNC.

During the election I was stopped by an old lady in a grocery store who just wanted to talk about Sanders and Ellison, and how the Democrats need to get back to being progressive. I know this is just a single anecdote, but I also know that the wish for better DNC leadership is not just a millennial one.

The fact that the Democratic party still can’t look inward, that they’re still getting behind neo-liberal policies and backing people like Pelosi and Schumer, and that they’re still so tone deaf, is infuriating.

If they actually care about getting those seats back and having a shot in 2020, they’ll start listening to the massive amount of people screaming at them for change, rather than selling their platform and party to a one issue oligarch.

This is all so unbelievable.

These people would rather see the country burn than engage in any sort of reckoning that could potentially see them ceding power to the people.

It’s hard to imagine a sorrier bunch of assholes than the DNC and their voters that defend this sort of thing.

Perfectly and articulately said! The Democrats are totally insane. And useless.

Exactly! Anyone who voted for Clinton just supported this type of crap. What a lot of these people who vote for the lesser-of-evils Democrats don’t get is that by voting for them you support this stuff. Better to cede a few elections and vote Green or whatever your conscious tells you and build a progressive movement that could actually win some elections eventually than to maintain the status quo by supporting assholes like the Clintons (many seem to have already forgotten that it was BILL Clinton who moved the Democratic Party toward much more corporate-friendly positions, starting with NAFTA and GATT).

Why did White House recruit Perez to run against Ellison. Same reason Obama’s White House supported other political candidates over candidates supported by unions. It’s because they care about power and the money that goes along with it and not the people they are supposed to represent.

There is also a slight problem for Ellison that could hurt him that maybe people were aware of. I was since I live in his district. http://www.startribune.com/nonprofit-ceo-bill-davis-pleads-guilty-to-fraud-theft/383272061/

As the political critic Walter Karp said nearly four decades ago, the goal of any political party is to maintain and control the party machine. In that light, Glenn’s analysis is spot on about Perez’s candidacy. It is not about steering the party left, right, center, or into the ground, but to ensure control of the levers of power.

I wish I cared which of them wins, but my Dem exit is permanent and they are only clearing my conscience further with this behavior.

I named 2 programs “Bernie” (strategic) & “Have Trump” (tactical) and financed Aurora as well in the early eighties. Theme Castle was named by the CIA for my desire to see Disney World. Leo was chosen by Leo.
http://nyti.ms/2h1Bvze

The selection of Keith is essential to the future of the Democratic Party. I doubt that they get it, but I’m hopeful.

Kind Regards,
Jacob Price

Sam Ronan only. The rest are garbage or mostly garbage for progressives.

If this is about domestic Democratic policy then why was Mr. Ellison involved in trying to change the Democratic Party Platform to align with a pro-Palestinian stand rather than one that simply (as it is now) supports two states for two peoples? I agree with him on domestic policy but his hostility towards Israel (and yours for that matter) is deeply disturbing and not fact based.

Define “being hostile” towards Israel, as it pertains to Keith Ellison.

So, being hostile toward a country built on stolen land, a country that continues to expand by stealing more land, and a country that treats the Palestinians as non-citizens when it isn’t outright killing them is a bad thing? I suppose you would have been opposed to hostility toward apartheid South Africa too, maybe even hostility toward Nazi Germany.

Stolen land, that’s funny. Hebrews are indigenous to the middle east. If any land was really stolen it was America, all of this was indian land at one time. So maybe you should pack up and leave New Jersey, or wherever you’re living.

Jews haven’t lived in what is now Israel for thousands of years before the U.S. and western Europe stole Palestine for the purpose of creating a client state in the region, mainly for oil. Your statement shows either extreme ignorance or a totally immoral, lying position.

And BTW, I didn’t say anything about the Americas, totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Haim Saban is not prominent for the general public, yet GG explains why he is very important to DNC insiders. This got me thinking about how it would be interesting to put together a web page/site that listed all the people and corporations who have given a lot of money to some party or other, along with their last big financial act, their last big statement, and possibly any govt. policy actions that are thought to be close to their agenda. The updates could be sequenced like a blog or a tweet stream.

That is a very good idea.

This^
Yes please.

It’s time to sink the old ship! If we don’t elect Ellison we will be putting a stake into the heart of the Progressive Democratic movement forever. Out with the old, in with the new!

Filters SVG