This is a brand new release of information for us non-DCCC staff.

sure. WE--Dems--did not need this. Just saw this.




http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08/31/breaking-nancy-pelosi-hacked-career-ending-documents-revealed-leaked-documents/

You know what, I don't care what's on any leaked document because their looking for away to destroy Hillary as well as the Democratic party - true or not, I don't think anything could be as bad as letting Trump win the election. We might as well suck it up and move right along. Also, I posted this same thread on the AA community board and some seem to think it fraudulent, so who knows.

for instance they advise democrats well on avoiding using red herring, avoid co opting the movement, to invite and encourage contact with BLM activists.

I kinda find taking one sentence out of context to be a bit dishonest. I know it gets clicks but the actual memo is definitely not disparaging of BLM

To me it reads like, how not to look like a clueless idiot when talking to members of the Black Lives Matter Movement.

As the saying goes.

There are "progressives" that have butthurt concerning the primaries, and see validation everywhere....

Say you 'understand their concerns' but refuse to support 'concrete policy' (That would address it) - Give them nothing but lip service in otherwords.

“Invited BLM attendees should be limited. Please aim for personal or small group meetings." - Small groups only, keep them weak, because we don't want them to get any signifigant attention. Again, give them some lip service.

And it seems that BLM reads the memo similar judging by their statement over it.

We are disappointed at the DCCC’s placating response to our demand to value all Black life. Black communities deserve to be heard, not handled. People are dying.

Whether Republican, Democrat or otherwise, our elected officials have an ethical and democratic responsibility to make legislation that reflects the needs of their constituents. That includes Black people facing life-threatening challenges because of racist, failed policies.

We demand, and are fighting every day for, a radical transformation of American democracy where all Black lives are valued. We expect that our elected officials will stop pacifying and take us seriously.

We encourage all policymakers and elected officials to read the Movement for Black Lives policy platform and commit to legislation in the first 100 days that ensures that #BlackLivesMatter.

"Small groups only, keep them weak, because we don't want them to get any signifigant attention. Again, give them some lip service."

So if that's what they meant, why do you think that they didn't specify that?

Everyone is "handled" in an election, including the candidate. Obama wouldn't meet with Islamic groups during his first campaign because of being careful on messaging in a climate that was equating him with being a muslim, and a radical one.

Campaigns are about optics - including Bernie's shutting down of a rally when BLM activists took the mic.

Pearl clutching going on here.

I live for the day when we have a political (r)evolution that leads the pols to embrace candor as a strategy for optics.

Either support a thing or don't or make your own proposal but for the love of all that is good stop hedging and prevaricating.

"Ceasar's wife must be above reproach."

And you still haven't explained why you think that they meant "give them nothing but lip service" when they said to have small meetings?

And you can dream of a world where people don't care about body language, turn of phrase, slips of the tongue, and the facial expressions, and who stands in a photo of politicians, and are happy to just read printouts of their policy statements.

But where would we put all those unicorns?

and some Democrats are applauded for trying to silence their voices.

What a strange dichotomy.

It's actually more sad.

Especially:

Be a partner and lead from behind," reads the memo to DCCC staff, dated Nov. 19, 2015. "BLM activists don't want their movement co-opted by the Democratic Party. They are leary [sic] of politicians who hijack their message to win campaigns."

This is language used for internal use, not for public talking points. Much like the Planned Parenthood sting video caught medical professionals talking casually about "tissue collection" with other professionals, in a setting that was not the same as talking to the public about it. This made the pro-life community clutch their pearls in horror, even though anyone in the medical profession could tell you about conversations they had with each other using wording they would never use with the patient or family.

Sounds like exactly what the BLM was asking them to do, but worded in a way that wasn't crafted for the public. If indeed these documents weren't altered.