go.

Now that would be fair.

why DWS and Hillary can't figure that out I don't know unless they have something to hide.

I hate that a 1%er would ever contact me for support or a donation. I want to know how a Hillary Campaign supporter got my private email address?

Including me. I've never donated to the DNC or any of the Clintons - give my donations directly to candidates, including automatic monthly donations to Sanders. Suddenly in October I start getting snail mail begging letters from the Clinton campaign. I do delight in mailing back empty envelopes so they have to pay the postage on them.

Came across a whole chain of posters over at Huffington Post with the same complaint. We conclude the Clinton campaign lifted our contact information via the DNC's vendor's data breaches a couple of months ago.

It's not a conspiracy.

and stuff it. I worked for the Dem. caucus in my state legislature for 10 years and am not so politically gullible as to fall for any or all of these DNC sponsored: "Tell RBG you support her" type ads. I know they are simply fishing for contact info to add to their fund-raising lists. That is why I make my political contributions directly to candidates. If I want someone to vote a certain way, or I object to something they have voted for, I am quite capable and willing to phone their offices and tell them directly. And THAT does not require giving out my email addy. Given the timing, and the large number of Bernie donors contacted by the Clinton campaign after the first data breach, not to mention the reputation of Clinton & her campaign tactics from 2008, a reasonable person can conclude Hill & Deb have been up to their old tricks again.

If, as you posit, it is so damn easy-peasy for a political candidate to get names, why would a straight arrow man like Bernie rip-off names from a server and then self-report. You are deep in denial about reality and are projecting on to others the "conspiracy" charges that you worry are at the heart of the relationship between Debbie, Hill and the DNC.

Hillary has practiced situational ethics her entire professional career, going back to her sneaky behavior of hiding legal opinions when she was a researcher for the Watergate committee, to her over-the-top, bully-the-12-year-old-rape-victim, voluntary, unpaid defense of a man she believed (and laughed to an interviewer about) guilty of the rape, to her creation and direction of the Bimbo Eruption Squad to threaten Bill's victims.

You can continue supporting her and trashing a decent man like Bernie Sanders until the cows come home. She and Debbie jumped a Great White this time around and it will cost her the primary election.

I've documented all of these facts in earlier posts. Go to my journal if you want to read about them at the links.

And seriously, consider coming over to the light side - it feels terrific to support an ethical, honest candidate.

I like Senator Sanders - as a Senator. But he wouldn't be an effective president. Yes, I'm well aware of Hillary Clinton's sleaze factor, but I'd rather have a competent Democratic sleaze who supports most of what we support than Ted Cruz, who would send this country into a tailspin. Yes, it's about winning. And after 2000, anyone ought to understand that. Winning. Period. It's about not having the GOP in the White House with a congress that together would jam crippling legislation down our throats, the effects of which would be felt for decades.

The worst thing they are right about is pissing off Democrats. I was pissed off today.

I believe they really messed up this time. I was shocked by the number of Reddit posts that say now they will never consider voting for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

Sorry, but all this talk about a real campaign? Don't be another Ralph Nader. Understand what's at stake.

I am well aware of what is at stake.

I had a Democratic President offer to cut my Social Security. I have a Democratic President fighting hard to enact a job killing trade deal.

No one knows more about what is at stake than I do.

for the rich, raise taxes on the poor, and everything that's bad about Hillary times 100. There's a place for Bernie in a Clinton administration, but there's not a place for Bernie as Commander in Chief.

The age bracket for DU participants probably doesn't include the very people we need to put a Democrat in as President. So I'm just saying, I think both Bernie, HRC, and O'Malley supporters on DU know the consequences of a Republican President. We're the ones paying attention. We're the ones who will get to the polls.

at around 8:17 it might be a few seconds earlier. But, this says it all. She is on team Hillary or she wouldn't say US. She would say something like the DNC is exploring appropriate sanctions in light of this security breech. Not that they are exploring remedies available to US.

these tyrants.

This sucks.

having a significant other like this. I know such unions exist - I've seen them first hand. But can you just envision how democracy works in such a relationship?

Weekend debates with 1/3 the audience is a prescription for a losing election. This must change now.

I would like to know how DWS has her position. Is she elected, selected, manipulated into the position? I see little democracy happening.

And if by some chance Sanders wins, I have a feeling she'll be un-appointed fast.

OTOH, with HRC in the WH, her job security will be high!

......should have had her job a long time ago.

DWS is very alienating to long time Democrats. What is the party thinking?

Simple -- how do we beat Sanders?

You spend your career in politics and you believe in your heart that fund raising is the only significant determiner. It all flows from that.

Two generations ago, you could get elected to Congress without needing to raise more than $50,000. Now it takes millions.

Sanders is putting forward the idea that the person-to-person campaigning that defined Democratic politics from the New Deal through 1964 can be revived. These people are -- for the most part -- sincere in believing that to be naïve. Human nature then leads them to try to prove it is naïve, by using any means necessary to keep Sanders from winning.

Not coincidentally, when fundraising supplanted retail politics in the late 1960s, the shift of the entire spectrum toward the right began.


Sanders' campaign can only work if there are lots of people who are sincerely pissed off. The wars and recession that have seriously affect people's lives are what drive the Sanders movement. Professional politicians and their functionaries have not had their lives affected by that -- and all their "professional" experience tells them the only way to win is raise big money.


The real dispute between the two candidates is whether times have changed since the 1990s. Of course they have, but these people don't believe it -- and damned sure do not understand it. You can see it in Debbie's contempt for Sanders. She really believes that she knows better.

Just like Hillary, her day is passed. She does not realize that she is the one living in the past.

They eat mosquitos and other insects, keeping their populations down. She is just a tool of the 1% and has destroyed the Democratic Party under her time at the helm (I almost said leadership).

Put another way, she fucking sucks! And I have sent emails and messages to the DNC saying as much.

But even those I prefer to her.

is hurt more by that fact Most people will be occupied this Saturday, so Hillary can beat that Time & Space without saying too much . I support Bernie Sanders more now than ever, the only attacks come from the Clinton supporters and his greatest compliment by way of the Desperate Dismissal of the 1% by way of their puppets MSM .

....of the corporatist rich and powerful. The DNC is completely coopted by Wall Street and monyed interests. The only real difference between DWS, Hillary and their ilk, including many here on DU, from Rubio, Jeb and Paul Ryan is their stand on a narrow range of social issues. Important to a certain extent, but when the people are being crushed and exploited economically, who gives a shit? When someone looses their job due to TPP, then looses their house and can only find low wage, part time work to feed their family and their family members are killed or maimed in endless wars of empire, those issues become meaningless and DWS, Hillary and Paul Ryan merge into the same caricature of useless political apparatchiks doing the bidding of the oppressors. At least HRC is willing to toss some crumbs, while her rich donors devour everything else. The Republicans won't even afford us crumbs, thus the only real difference.

That said, if it comes to it, I will vote for HRC simply because I've not missed an election in 35 years and social issues are all we have left. Sad, really sad. The Republicans are devouring themselves and my party is quickly becoming the new Republicans.

This might be the Emperor has no clothes moment for DWS and the DNC as a whole.

Question for Secretary Clinton: Will DWS receive any appointment from you, if you are elected? Not a very fair question, but an appropriate one. Though of course the real high paying awards for good service to the establishment are elsewhere. Government service is just a typical path to them (or a temporary servitude between gigs).

Thanks for the thread, votesparks.

That's a question for DWS.