2016 Democratic Convention

Putin Isn't Responsible for How the Democrats Treated Sanders' Campaign

Attempt at deflection sends a message that voter frustration is irrelevant.

|

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rick Friedman/Polaris/Newscom

It's all too typical that Debbie Wasserman Schultz's reign as Democratic National Committee chair came not from the crime but the cover-up. Emails obtained by WikiLeaks from a hacker revealed that the DNC appeared to be coordinating to make the Bernie Sanders campaign look bad, inappropriate behavior from what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Wasserman Schultz will be stepping down as chair by the end of the week (she was booed at a delegate meeting this morning) and formally joining Clinton's campaign.

The leak has exposed more of the rift between the Democratic establishment and the populist democratic socialist base that makes up Sanders' support. It highlights that the Democratic Party is not as united as it would like to portray itself as (particularly as when it compares itself to the extremely fractured GOP).

The leak has also possibly (and to be clear, this is not conclusive) suggested that hackers serving the Russian government or President Vladimir Putin are attempting to influence the election. Cybersecurity experts are saying the hack likely originated from Russia or at least has the fingerprints of Russian hackers. There's hardly a smoking gun as yet. The FBI has launched a probe to try to determine what happened to the committee's cybersecurity and who is responsible.

But that the investigation is just now starting hasn't stopped the Democrats and Clinton campaign to attempt to deflect away from the contents of the leak to try to implicate Donald Trump as Putin's stooge. The Clinton campaign very quickly put out a statement calling the leak "evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election," attempting to plant the seeds that a vote for Trump is supporting the kind of kleptocratic corruption that rules Russia. And while there's a compelling case to be made that a Trump presidency would trend toward that direction, this response is a generalized dismissal of what the email contents actually say about the Democratic Party's direction and how it feels about those who are trying to influence the party's stances.

Putin may or may not have played some role in the hacking of the DNC, and certainly it's proper that the government investigate and track down who is responsible. But neither Putin nor Russian hackers are responsible for the way the party treated Sanders and its supporters. And this attempt to quickly deflect the subject matter over to Trump and Putin has the side effect (intentional or not) of again dismissively treating Sanders and his supporters' concerns as largely irrelevant to the establishment.

There is a rift in the Democrats that is reminiscent of the rise of the Tea Party back when Barack Obama was elected, and it's not clear right now that the Democrats have learned much from the Republicans (it's also not clear that the Republicans learned either or else we might not have had Trump). There's an interesting paradox with Clinton here. Clinton is certainly the least-liked candidate the Democrats have put forward in modern times. But what has made her unlikeable in part is her naked political ambition and savviness in being difficult to nail down on actual positions. This means that once she realized the Sanders' supporters weren't going anywhere, she has carefully, diplomatically incorporated many of Sanders' most-vocal positions into her campaign (if they weren't already there). She's signed on to an absurdly high increase in the minimum wage, to a limited free college campaign (after previously focusing on trying to reduce college debt), and has reversed herself on trade deals.

Really, Clinton has done a lot to try to avoid a party crack-up and bring Sanders' supporters to her side (though this has made her an even worse candidate to libertarians). That the response to this email dump is to try to direct its talking points toward Russia and Trump serves only to again dismiss the part of the party's voting base that is unhappy with the direction the party has taken. There are rumors that there will be more leaks of more emails. Pointing fingers at Russia won't do much to stop unhappy voters who feel like the party is serving itself more than it serves them.

And that leaves an opening for third-party candidates. Check out what ReasonTV has discovered when interviewing Sanders' supporters at the Democratic National Convention:

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I’m not sorry I did it. I’m just sorry you found out about it.”

    1. “I make a mistake by letting you find out about it.”

    2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    3. So – sorry, not sorry

    4. You’re tearing us apart, Putin!

  2. It highlights that the Democratic Party is not as united as it would like to portray itself as (particularly as when it compares itself to the extremely fractured GOP).

    Excuse my naivete on this issue, but doesn’t it show that the Democratic party was extremely united? Well, ok, on thinking about the real meaning of “Democratic party”, I suppose if we have to include the newly minted young Sanders supporters who were part of Nick Gillespie’s vast army of “independents”– many of whom registered ‘Democrat’ at the 11th hour just so they could vote Sanders– then sure, it’s not that united.

    But as a party machine? United as hell.

    1. Organized enough to thwart the upstart candidate trying to screw up their plans, unlike the GOP? Yeah, I’d say so.

      1. Yeah, say what you will, the Sanders-of-the-right actually won his primary, leaving the GOP party machine with mouths agape.

        1. The GOP fucked itself. Trump was a sideshow that got them plenty of press until it was too late for them to do anything about the fact that too many disgruntled members of the rabble didn’t realize he was a joke candidate.

          1. They failed to tell the rabble what they wanted to hear, and the rabble found someone who would. Exactly the same as that dem congressman from rust belt PA who was on NPR this morning, gobsmacked with disbelief that many of his blue collar union constituents were jumping ship for Trump. Ignore a constituency long enough and they’ll find someone who will at least pander to them in speeches.

            1. I think there really was a feeling of letting the process run its course, given the wisdom of crowd idea a chance since McCain and Romney were such disasters, but the adults should have stepped in long before they did.

              A moldy old ham sandwich could beat Hillary; if Trump fumbles this and loses, it will be the biggest missed political opportunity since 2004 when the Dems ran the charmless John Kerry against a bumbling idiot and lost.

              1. Massachusetts is political clearance rack where progs dig up national candidates who voted for Iraq wars, and Repugs find the only one among them with Clowncare all over his hands.

                Now it appears the progs have another national loser warming up in the MA bullpen in the form of Warren.

                These fucks never learn.

              2. I think there really was a feeling of letting the process run its course, given the wisdom of crowd idea a chance since McCain and Romney were such disasters, but the adults should have stepped in long before they did.

                Trump and Sanders were the first true open-source candidates within their respective parties.

          2. Many disgruntled members of the GOP were perfectly aware of Trump’s liabilities and viewed shoving him down the establishment’s throat as just payback for McCain and Romney being shoved down ours. If we had found ourselves a nice, normal candidate, that wouldn’t have shown much contempt for the GOP establishment, now, would it?

    2. That makes it all the more hilarious when those same Sanderistas that are complaining about his treatment also act outraged at how Republicans could have possibly allowed themselves to nominate Donald Trump. This is indeed what a unified party establishment looks like

      Though to be fair, Sanders lost pretty decisively, and these theories of a vast conspiracy were already in the heads of most Sanders voters

  3. There is a rift in the Democrats that is reminiscent of the rise of the Tea Party back when Barack Obama was elected

    If they lose, purges must happen.

    1. If they lose, shit will get ugly, and the SJW shrieking will get much, much louder.

      1. The SJW’s will be the ones getting purged; they are the Sanders/Warren supporters. The dominant faction is the corporate faction.

      1. That’s not a good sign for them. I mean, the Democrats used to have the same discipline as the old guard communists: Victory first, then purges. Even the Republicans seem to have figured that out this year, letting Cruz speak at the convention.

  4. It’s amazing to me that the Clinton camp has already hired her. It hasn’t even been a day. That’s just naked corruption.

    1. I thought that was a joke when I saw it on Facebook.

      1. Ha! So did I! This meme was floating around, and I thought it was totally fake.

    2. So? What are you gonna do about it, vote Trump? They shove people’s faces in it because they know they will not be held accountable.

      1. Yep. That’s basically been their approach to this entire campaign. Look at how flagrantly the acted with Lynch. They don’t even try to hide their contempt anymore.

    3. Don’t be too critical of the future Secretary of State unless you want to end up on a list.

      1. I figure that any self-respecting libertarian is already on that list, sir.

      2. She’s an idiot. So no upcoming changes in that post.

    4. Cankles is epically tone-deaf. Is she going to charge Wasserman Shultz with winning over the Berniebots? I would think she needs those votes pretty badly. Giving them the middle finger probably isnt a good strategy.

      1. Nah. She’s signalling to another set of people. Loyalty gets rewarded like DWS. Somehow disloyal people become suicidal.

        1. It’s still shocking, though. I mean, most politicians would tell DWS to lay let, allow let the story go away, and then appoint her to a major cabinet position.

      2. The Berniebots will line up like good little drones and vote Hillary, because Trump is literally Hitler.

        1. Meh. A lot of the blue collar union types are defecting to Trump, a lot of greenies to Stein and some will just stay home. The desperation is palpable.

      3. Giving them the middle finger probably isnt a good strategy.

        I dunno…she’s pretty much been giving the finger to most of America since the beginning and has remained competitive in the polls nonetheless.

    5. Naked corruption! Calling SugarFree!

    6. DWS must have dirt on Hillary that she threatened to expose if she weren’t given an appointment.

      Even so, Hillary shouldn’t assume Sanders supporters will support her no matter what. Some will just stay at home or vote Jill Stein.

  5. It’s all too typical that Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s reign as Democratic National Committee chair came not from the crime but the cover-up.

    Come on, Scott. I expect better from you, unlike those other people.

    1. Well Hillary’s reign will also come from the coverup.

  6. Wasserman Schultz will be stepping down as chair by the end of the week (she was booed at a delegate meeting this morning) and formally joining Clinton’s campaign.

    Hah! I did not hear about that detail. That is perfect.

    1. Basically, she’s changing some wording on her business cards, but the job is actually the same.

    2. The fact that they do this stuff in broad daylight should further drive the point home that yes, Sanders supporters, the sun rises in the East and the DNC is an arm of the Clinton machine.

      1. To be fair, Google News seems to be suppressing the rehire detail from its headlines.

    3. The “formally” part, anyway.

    4. “Wasserman Schultz will be stepping down as chair by the end of the week (she was booed at a delegate meeting this morning) and formally joining Clinton’s campaign.”

      So, Mission Accomplished! It’s time to come home.

  7. +1 alt-text
    -1 hideous picture
    You broke even, Shackleford.

    1. Is there a non-hideous picture of DWS?

      1. They tried to make one, but when they ran photoshop on the supercomputer at Livermore National Lab, it wasn’t powerful enough.

      2. Is there a non-hideous picture of DWS?

        I guess you missed the flap about her Vogue Magazine Photoshoot, where some advanced-level photoshopping was done

        1. They even goyed her nose.

        2. They should have gone all the way and given her a set of DDs.

          1. Would you really wanna fap to DWS though? I mean, I like weird porn and all….but that is just a bridge too far.

        3. Enhance…enhance…enhance. ..enhance…enhance…enhance…ENHANCE!!!

  8. Is there even a shred of evidence that the Russian government is behind this?

    Sure, I get that the hackers may be Russian. But Russian has a thriving and robust criminal community fully capable of doing this without sovereign support.

    1. Isn’t it obvious? Payback for that reset button fiasco.

      1. Ironically, the reset button is how they hacked the server.

    2. I’m guessing the extent of the media investigation goes something like this:

      Q: Does hacker speak with Eastern European accent and wear an Adidas track suit?

      If ‘yes’, hacking was an operation of the Kremlin.

      1. They really need to bring back the Sergio Tacchini.

      2. Q: Does hacker speak with Eastern European accent and wear an Adidas track suit drink Crab Juice?

        1. No Mt. Dew.

  9. That’s just naked corruption.

    You misspelled “gratitude”.

  10. The FBI has launched a probe to try to determine what happened to the committee’s cybersecurity and who is responsible.

    A crack squad is on the case!

    1. “Gentlemen, you’re experts at making blatant crimes go away – now we are really putting you to the test: Make some meaningless bullshit look like someone else committed a horrible crime. I have every confidence in you.”

      1. “What’s the Russian translation of mens rea?”

        1. vinovnaya volya

        2. Yob tvoyu mat’.

          1. No, that’s Epi.

        3. In Putin’s Russia, crime know about you.

  11. What’s funniest about all of this is I was reading last night some bullshit story in Politico on how the Clinton camp was angry about Obama sticking them with Debbie. They claim they wanted her gone a long time ago, but he didn’t have the stomach for canning her. It was basically blaming her for the whole DNC mess.

    That story was almost certainly leaked by the Clinton campaign. Today, she is hired by them.

    1. If they didn’t, it would make the problem look like it was “actually bad” and they were distancing themselves from it.

      Opening their arms to DWS shows that they don’t think it matters.

      They probably still hate her guts and are going to stick her in a closet.

      1. Having her run Hillary’s general election campaign is a funny way to build general election bridges to the Bernie voters who hate her guts.

        1. Yes, it is definitely bizarre from that perspective.

          depends on what you think they feel is more important optics – ‘admitting fault’ (which firing her would do), or ‘chapping the ass of Bernie-bots’.

          I suspect the latter is “meh. kids don’t really vote the way seniors do”.

          And DWS actual function is not really a campaign manager, but as a fundraiser in FL with the palm beach fogies.

        2. It was a lateral promotion, RC.

        3. On the plus side, DWS has run the DNC into the ground. I was worried that they were going to put someone competent in place and do Hillary a favor. But nope. There may be a God after all.

    2. DWS knows where the bodies (figuratively speaking) are buried. Hilary HAS to keep her close.

      1. that too. i suspect its why Obama didn’t want credit for firing her earlier either.

        1. That’s a good point. I expect DWS has a lot of bargaining leverage here. Play her cards right, she could end up ambassador to Costa Rica or something. Play them wrong….

          1. Play them wrong….

            and then it’s off to Bill’s rape dungeon.

            1. Is it really rape when it’s every Democratic woman’s (of a certain age) not so secret fantasy?

            2. What did he ever do to deserve that?

              1. You want that list alphabetically or in order of unconstitutionality?

      2. Absolutely! And the Clintons want to keep her under their control so she won’t go off script and start giving interviews that don’t tow the line.

    3. At the same time, I completely believe that Obama would put off firing someone because he wouldn’t want to deal with her criticizing him afterwards

  12. The silver lining here is remembering the people saying “it’s Ron Paul’s fault he couldn’t get people interested in him” in 2008 and 2012, and now seeing supporters of a major party realize that, yes, the parties actually do play dirty.

    1. Although I doubt Ron Paul would have ever won a primary even with the enthusiastic support of the party, the real silver lining for me is how the GOP establishment got bit in the ass more than once this year by the rules they put in place after the Paul delegate “fiasco”. Live by the sword, …

  13. Clinton has done a lot to try to avoid a party crack-up

    Hillary, that is — Bill *loves* him a good party crack-up.

  14. “Wasserman Schultz will be stepping down as chair by the end of the week (she was booed at a delegate meeting this morning) and formally joining Clinton’s campaign.”

    This is what I mean when I say that Hillary Clinton is unacceptable because of impropriety.

    A person who abused her position and the good faith of Democrats everywhere is rewarded for her misdeeds with a job in the Clinton campaign?!

    People keep looking at Clinton and talk about where she is on various issues, but where she is on various issues (relative to Trump) isn’t the issue. If Al Capone were against warrantless wiretapping and in favor of legalizing marijuana nationally, I still wouldn’t vote to put him in charge of the FBI–because putting gangsters in charge of the FBI is an extreme example of impropriety no matter where they stand on the issues.

    Yes, putting Hillary Clinton in the White House is like putting Al Capone in charge of the FBI, and Hillary Clinton rewarding Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her impropriety is yet another example of Hillary Clinton’s own monumental and enthusiastic love affair with impropriety–going back decades and continuing through Hillary accepting money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

    1. A person who abused her position and the good faith of Democrats everywhere is rewarded for her misdeeds with a job in the Clinton campaign?!

      Whatever “misdeeds” she was a part of were in service to the Clinton campaign. That kind of loyalty doesn’t go unnoticed.

      1. Why would Hillary bringing Wasserman Schultz into her campaign ease Bernie supporters’ concerns?

        She was always working for the Clinton campaign, yeah, I know! Now that much is obvious.

        Was there any money exchanged? Is the FBI looking into this? Did Hillary Clinton bribe Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

        Why would Wasserman Schultz going to work for the Hillary Clinton campaign assuage the fears of the Democrat rank and file?

        Has the whole world gone insane?!

        Hillary Clinton is a crook, and after a week of being called out as a crook–the first thing she does this week is something crooked! She can’t help it. She’s like a kleptomaniac for being crooked.

        1. Why would Hillary bringing Wasserman Schultz into her campaign ease Bernie supporters’ concerns?

          Because Sanders supporters are to Hillary like the black vote is to Democrats, looks good in polls but not required to win.

          Was there any money exchanged? Is the FBI looking into this? Did Hillary Clinton bribe Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

          They’re Democrats and the Clintons, Ken, there’s always money exchanged.

          Why would Wasserman Schultz going to work for the Hillary Clinton campaign assuage the fears of the Democrat rank and file?

          It doesn’t. Wasserman-Schultz is a loyal Clinton soldier. Clinton hires that which can move the Clinton ball forward.

          Has the whole world gone insane?!

          I’ll get back to you.

          Hillary Clinton is a crook, and after a week of being called out as a crook–the first thing she does this week is something crooked! She can’t help it. She’s like a kleptomaniac for being crooked.

          And it’s had zero effect on her. It makes her pragmatic and presidential.

          1. Where’s waffles?

            I want to cop waffles’ Gillespie quote.

            Crookedness is the Democratic Party’s clitoris.

            1. The crookedness is a myth?

              1. The g-spot is a myth like “blue balls”.

                The clitoris is real!

              2. No-one will pay a teenager a buck to find a crookedness.

    2. This. All she does is “Like with a cloth?” in your face bullshit.

      What she needs is a career-ending open-mic moment.

      1. Wouldn’t matter. Her supporters already know she is corrupt, incompetent, lying, and criminal. They just don’t care.

        1. “Wasserman Schultz will be stepping down as chair by the end of the week (she was booed at a delegate meeting this morning) and formally joining Clinton’s campaign.”

          Why would Bernie supporters boo Wasserman Schultz this morning–and then turn around and cheer for the crooked nominee that hired her come Thursday?

          Mass schizophrenia? Mass disassociative disorder?

        2. Precisely. If the private server, blatantly lying her ass off about Benghazi and taking money from foreign governments while SOS won’t do it, nothing will.

          1. But this time Hillary screwed over her own party.

            The Bernie delegates sitting in the convention–this time, those Democrats, they’re the ones that Hillary screwed.

    3. ”she’s wrong about absolutely everything. But she’s wrong within normal parameters!’
      From the Who’s Worst article of a while back.
      There is nothing normal about H.R.Clinton.

      1. Yeah, I responded to that statement in that thread, too.

        I believe that was Postrel, and she was wrong about that.

        1. P. J. O’Rourke said that about Clinton.

    4. I guess you’re not with her . . . .

  15. In Moscow they would have blamed the Hand of the State Department — ???? ??????? — in order to distract the public.

  16. Pointing fingers at Russia won’t do much to stop unhappy voters who feel like the party is serving itself more than it serves them.

    Will shifting Wasserman Schultz to a Clinton campaign position do any more? What was her role in the emails or the leak that earned her the boot?

  17. The guy with the knit beanie…my goodness. Also, who could have predicted the Trans-Pacific Partnership would become an important topic this election season?

    1. Like Fracking, i doubt the people who talk most and most-passionately about the TPP have the first clue how it actually works, or genuinely understand why its supposed to be good or bad. They have talking points, they repeat them.

      1. Don’t forget Citizens United, which most people don’t even know what the case was about.

        1. Refresh, damn it!

    2. Citizens United. Of all the people I know that lose their shit over Citizen’s United, not a one of them has actually read it. The extent of their knowledge about the case is “Corporations are people”.

      1. “Do you think the New York Times has First Amendment rights? Then you support Citizens United, because its a corporation.”

        1. “But that’s different,” /progs

      2. It did rule that money is speech. I know that much.

  18. So Clinton installs an unsecured, private server in her bathroom to avoid FOIA and runs state secrets through this server, then claims there is no evidence that foreign governments hacked her system.

    The DNC, which supposedly has a “professional” IT set-up, leaves an enormous trail of misbehavior in the email system which is leaked to the public media. The DNC response is “we were hacked by the Russians”.

    There is a joke in there someplace, but I feel like crying instead.

    1. Not just the DNC’s set-up. Staffers’ phones and personal accounts, as well. They basically got everything.

      Putin has those missing 33,000 Clinton emails. It’s just a matter of what he plans to do with them.

      1. I’m sure the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis have her SecState emails.

        I’d be very disappointed if the NSA didn’t have them, too. Fer shit’s sake, if supposedly the top electronic surveillance outfit in the world didn’t notice and monitor that the SecState’s emails were buck naked in the wild, what they fuck are they good for?

        The fun will come when the people who have her emails start using them to leverage her. They will want different things, and she can’t make them all happy.

    2. Rule:

      From: Any External

      Port Protocol: 25/Any

      To: Trusted (Exchange Server)

      Done.

    3. the reality is that someone on the inside probably just leaked someone else’s credentials

      they just want to crucify whomever betrayed them*. fuck the russians, Hillary’s still mad at Putin for dissing her.

      Speaking of which, has Pagliano been found floating in the patomac yet?

      1. the reality is that someone on the inside probably just leaked someone else’s credentials

        That’s the way to bet. But, that just lets the bad guys in. What’s really scary is what they can do when they are inside the wire.

        Was on a conference call recently that talked about some recent high-level penetrations of corporate systems. They typically set up one or more sysadmin accounts and start disabling your audit and security software. At that point, there is literally nothing they can’t do, and finding them generally happens almost by accident, if some sharp-eyed IT wallah notices odd patterns in data transmissions, that kind of thing.

        The current fear is that, even when you find them, you can’t just block them or turn them off, because that could set off a ransomware payload that has been set to go off on a deadman switch.

    4. There is a joke in there someplace, but I feel like crying instead.

      It’s just Herself laughing at the people who worship her.

      “Watch this, these fucking idiots will believe anything.”

      1. So far she hasn’t been proven wrong.

        1. It really is a Stalin-level of party think.

  19. The way my Hillbot acquaintances are spinning this is desperate even by their standards.

  20. ‘ …that a vote for Trump is supporting the kind of kleptocratic corruption that rules Russia.’
    To right, Hillary has her own brand of kleptocratic corruption.

    1. That would be the kind of kleptocratic corruption that accepts Russian money in a foundation right around the time a big deal with the Russians gets cleared?

      1. Purely coincidence, I’m sure.

      2. Double plus good!

      3. How long until we start calling that good old American corruption?

  21. Debbie Wasserman Schultz made the trains run on time. As per her orders.

  22. Rule #1 of the Democrat Handbook: Never own your problems.

    1. “The buck doesn’t even slow down here.”

      1. [commissions plaque for desk at work]

  23. The democratic party is rotten to the core. It is amazing how much slimy, crooked shit they get away with and how masterful they are at evading responsibility.

    Didn’t dajal or dijaii or whatever that silly troll’s name is tell us last week that the dem convention would be smooth as silk, peaceful and everyone on the same page, all cheering for The Canklebeast?

    1. dajjal. Also runs AddictionMyth.

      1. Widely suspected of being Tulpa since Dajjals and Tulpas are both mythological creatures.

        1. The AddictionMyth blog is a little too far for one of Tulpas mayfly handles, though. It’s an interesting case.

        2. Here a Tulpa, there a Tulpa
          Everywhere a Tulpa Tulpa

          1. How long have you been waiting to use that line?

    2. If it is smooth as silk, it’ll make the Democrats suspect in my book.

      Donald Trump’s campaign speech is still ringing in Berniebots’ heads.

      “We want Bernie supporters”.

      “The system is rigged against you”.

      I suppose a blind man could see that Clinton’s crookedness would seep out eventually, but when Trmp was saying that in his acceptance speech on Thursday, who knew Hillary would hire the lady that screwed Bernie supporters come Monday?

      1. If it is smooth as silk, it’ll make the Democrats suspect in my book.

        So… *rubbing temples* the Democrats aren’t suspect in your book now?

        1. No, it’s just that that dude, dajjal, was pointing to the smoothness as if it were something desirable.

          Bending over and grabbing your ankles for Hillary doesn’t impress me–even less so if it’s done smoothly.

          1. Bending over and grabbing your ankles for Hillary doesn’t impress me–even less so if it’s done smoothly.

            Look, you’re either ready for Hillary or your not.

            1. *you’re both times*, effing auto correctamundo.

      2. Donald Trump’s campaign speech is still ringing in Berniebots’ heads.

        “We want Bernie supporters”.

        “The system is rigged against you”.

        The Bernie supporters have already appropriated the “Lock Her Up!” chant (from Christie’s speech at the RNC) for their demonstrations in Philadelphia over the weekend.

    3. The derp is strong with that one.

    4. The DNC isn’t a political party, it’s a crime syndicate.

  24. This story is just the gift that keeps on giving. This morning there was this.

    http://www.jammiewf.com/2016/h…..ked-email/

    The Dem finance chair signed an email off with “I love you too, no homo”. I don’t think that is necessarily anti gay, though the Democrats would claim that if it were a Republican. But it is unbelievably juvenile and unprofessional. The people at the DNC are just horrifying children.

    1. Proving once again that VEEP is actually an accurate portrayal of Washington.

      1. “You’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken with the head fucking hen, ’cause if I don’t win the White House, O’Brien is gonna sink your stupid boats and you’re gonna look like a hair-sprayed asshole in your 1980s mother-of-the-bride dress. And if I do win, I will have my administration come to your shitty little district and shake it to death like a Guatemalan nanny. And then I’m gonna have the IRS crawl so far up your husband’s colon, he’s gonna wish the only thing they find is more cancer. So can I count on your vote, or do I need to shove a box of White House M up your stretched out, six-baby vag?”

        1. Hillary really is Selena Meyer, only much less attractive and far more corrupt.

          1. And probably nowhere as funny and clever with her insults.

            1. One of my favorite parts of the campaign so far was Hillary reading aloud the word “sigh” off of the teleprompter.

            2. They are like Jonah Ryan but without the charisma.

              1. “I don’t know what you’ve been trying to do instead of win, but I’m guessing it has the word ‘anal’ in it.”

            3. “Go fuck yourself, Hillary!”
              “Like, with a croissant dildo or something?”

              1. “Go back to the natural habitat your nitwit mother found you in, you fucking shaved sasquatch.”

  25. Was on FB earlier and was surprised to see so many of my proggie friends tossing Hillary’s salad and eating up this alleged Putin connection hook, line, and sinker.

    1. to see so many of my proggie friends tossing Hillary’s salad and eating up this

      *projectile vomits all over office*

    2. It’s sorta like getting mad at the Russians for telling you your wife has been cheating on you. When you should really be mad at your wife.

  26. The right-wing conspiracy is so vast it goes all the way to Moscow.

    1. This is just a fist bump from Putin. “Thanks for Snowden, broski.”

      The right-wing roots in Russia go deep, all the way back to the progeny of “The Spy who Loved Me.”

      1. If anything, this is just commies (in the DNC) handing access to commies (in Russia) to help a commie (Sanders). That’s the simplest and mostly likely explanation.

  27. “We here at the Democratic National Committee believe every voter is important, and we want every vote to count. Please stay on the line for the next available Hillary for President representative.”

    1. If you are a Superdelegate, press 5, you will be prompted for your Superdelegate pin, after entering your pin, you will be placed in the appointment queue.

  28. another article about Hillary that still has to dig at Trump where was this in the articles about Trump. lets see if their Bias continues to show in future Trump articles

    1. Why is it a problem to take a dig at Trump in a predominantly anti-Hillary article? Plus, there’s not really a dig against Trump in the article. They simply mention him because the Clinton campaign said the leak of emails are an attempt by the Russian government to help the election of Trump.

      Shill for Trump as much as you want, by all means.

    2. Trump is a tremendous, world class piece of shit. He should be insulted in articles about 1400’s masonry.

  29. Well fuck. Nobody is going to Pokemon Go To The Polls now.

    1. Somebody needs to get a list of all polling places to Pokemon, Inc. so they can make them all gyms (which I gather are the real high-volume locations). For the lulz.

      Query: if I wear my “Cthulhu 2016” t-shirt to the polls, will I be violating the rules against electioneering?

      1. It’s not a ‘true threat’ so no.

      2. Some humorless poll worker might interpret it as such, even if he/she realizes it’s a spoof. You should know better. Never underestimate the humorlessness of government employees. The process is the punishment.

  30. It’s all too typical that Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s reign as Democratic National Committee chair came not from the crime but the cover-up.

    Sigh. “came to an end,” maybe?

    You guys can’t hire that editor soon enough.

    1. At Reason, the editor is there to pack in as many euphemisms as they can.

      1. Wow. A meta-euphemism. Well done.

  31. Trying to hang the blame on Putin fits neatly with the pre-1972 dem party’s anti-communist stand. Now, they can paint anyone who opposes Hillary as anti-American.

    1. Yeah, expect them to pivot big time on socialism if they win. That will be the pretext for purging the Sanders supporters. They will remain committed to wealth redistribution and free stuff, but they will call it something else.

      1. That was actually the premise for most democrat social programs beginning with the New Deal and FDR. They did not want communism to get a foothold in the US, so they decided that the government should start providing free stuff to keep the workers happy.

  32. Has anybody tried to explain why Putin would not, were he inclined to “influence” the American election, just support the avowed Socialist in the race? Occam’s Razor is getting dull, I guess.

    1. That may be his play: force the Dems to give more concessions to the commie.

    2. Honestly? I suspect that Russian communism doesn’t take Sanders’ brand of communism seriously. At least not any more.

      Most communism in the east has boiled down to control– fairness and egalitarianism towards the working class has little to do with it.

    3. He’s not a socialist, or at least doesn’t think of himself as one?

    4. The popular speculation is that Putin wants to tip the election to Trump on the justification that Trump will be less antagonistic towards Russia than Clinton.

      1. I would think the Putin has some good dirt on Clinton from her unsecured SofS server and would want her as POTUS because of the leverage he would have. I don’t see Clinton being very antagonistic toward Russia.

        1. Dirt only works as leverage if its exposure would cause harm. In proving that she is untouchable, Clinton is no longer worth tolerating as a possible asset.

  33. Probably the worst messaging for Hillary that could happen is for low-info voters to see the phrase “email scandal” as be a leading headline during the convention.

    1. No. As I said on the other thread the low-info voters will conflate the DNC email scandal with that other email scandal and assume that someone has been punished for that.

      1. Yeah, they need a new name for this one. Keep them distinct in the casual voter’s mind.

        1. The Graveltooth Affair

  34. The other great thing about this story is that it has humiliated several reporters. Ken Vogal of politico is more obsequious with the DNC then the guys at the North Korean News Service are with their bosses.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-j…..nc-emails/

    Everything these assholes write is vetted and pre approved by the DNC. Everyone of course knew that but even I am surprised by how blatant it is.

    1. At first, I thought he was just asking the Clinton campaign for comment before publication–something reporters are supposed to do.

      “Also on the thread, Paustenbach added that he was working with the Clinton campaign on a partnered response to the Vogel piece and that they agree to the DNC’s lines in the script: “They agreed that we should highlight all the ways the state parties benefit from DNC infrastructure improvements.”

      There’s your smoking gun.

      Is the Clinton campaign paying these reporters?

      Even if that isn’t illegal, I want to know.

      1. They are not paying them. They don’t have to. The Reporters are just true believers and willing to do it for free. I wouldn’t mind that except that they then lie and claim to be objective. I don’t understand how someone could be as dishonest as someone like Vogal. The guy goes to work every day and smears anyone who questions is objectivity all the while knowing he doesn’t write a single word that isn’t approved by the DNC. What a dirt bag.

  35. Anyone remember this story?

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..e16724431/

    Ironic, no?

    1. And don’t forget Obama sending an entire team of advisors over to try and influence the Israeli election against Netenyahu. But now the Dems are all about how wrong it is for a foreign power to influence an election.

      Ironic is one word for it.

  36. What is it about Democrats and their failure to secure their servers?

    Jeezuz what a bunch of morons.

  37. RE: Putin Isn’t Responsible for How the Democrats Treated Sanders’ Campaign
    Attempt at deflection sends a message that voter frustration is irrelevant.

    Voter frustration is irrelevant as the voters.
    Just ask any Hitlary or Trump supporter.

  38. Don’t let the misconduct of the DNC distract you! You’re falling into the Putin-Trump scheme!

    Show up and vote! Vote Hillary! Ready for vagina 2016! You go, girl!

  39. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 97usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    =======? http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  40. I’m so sick of these fucking Trump articles! Come up with som…what’s that? It’s not a trump article? You don’t say! *sheepishly walks away
    Now how many of you squawkers from last week are prepared to eat crow?

    1. Looks like you’re ready to eat Hillary’s crow.

  41. If Russia is complicit in this hack/leak is not a more likely reason that they are AGAINST Ms Clinton vs working on behalf of Mr Trump? From what I read they’ve been in the DNC email/computers from well before Trump got the nomination. Also, keep in mind Bill Clinton was the first president to break the “not one inch” promise to Russia on NATO expansion. Under Hillary Clinton as Sec of State we interfered in Ukraine politics/elections.. and set the groundwork for the 2014 coup… While Sec of State Ms Clinton’s foundation received millions from Victor Pinchuk (Ukraine pro NATO)… Would you fault Russia for being annoyed and giving a little back?

  42. Of course the entire primary process including the convention is theater. It’s meaningless. Hillary does not care what you think because your votes are irrelevant. It’s all been decided. She bought the office fair and square. The general election will be a farce


  43. I quit my nine to five work and now I am making85 dollars hourly. …How? I am freelancing online from my home! My old workwas bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two yrs have passed sinceAnd I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here is what i do?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax90.com


  44. I quit my nine to five work and now I am making85 dollars hourly. …How? I am freelancing online from my home! My old workwas bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two yrs have passed sinceAnd I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here is what i do?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax90.com

  45. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.