Updates from Julie Driscoll Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 7:54 pm on November 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Let’s talk about this Stein-driven recount 


    Stein’s fund-raising goals keep changing ($2.5M, $4.5M, $7M?).  She’s raised almost twice the amount of money in a couple of days that she raised during her entire presidential campaign.  She’s only targeting three states, all of which Clinton wasn’t supposed to have lost but which she did lose.  She has yet to mention that states Clinton won, like NH (Clinton only by by 2687 votes), NV (Clinton won by less than 30,000 votes), and Maine (Clinton only won by about 20,000 votes) might also be worthy of that Stein “election purity” test.  And yet, we’re expected to believe that she’s acting alone, that this is about “democracy,” that her motives are pure and she’s uninterested in money, political sway, publicity or anything but the purity of the American vote? Stein officially filed for a recount in Wisconsin (read the Petition here) – and now, as the plot thickens, the Clinton campaign has decided they’re going to “participate” in that recount effort, despite the White House’s firm assertion that it “did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber-activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” that they believe “our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective” and that Americans should follow the “will of the people” (and, as an aside, it appears that Clinton’s ass-kissing of President Obama is history, now that his influence didn’t hand her the reins of power).  


    We’ve watched, since the election, the Clinton loyalists refuse to accept the results of a democratic election.  We’ve watched them whine, wail, protest, curl up with coloring books and blankies and pacifiers and grief therapists.  We’ve noted the fact that Clinton cultists believe their votes should be supreme to the votes of the people who, you know, actually elected Donald Trump.  I expected more hand-wringing and garment-rending and gnashing of teeth, pretty much endlessly.  But this transparent effort by Stein and the Clinton camp to literally re-visit the scene of the “crime” they believe was committed against them is simply un-American.  After all, when Trump said in a debate he might not automatically accept the results of the election, Clinton deemed it “horrifying” and went on to lecture that that’s “not the way our democracy works . . . we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them . . . I, for one, am appalled that someone . . . would take that kind of position.”  Call me crazy, but this latest maneuver by Stein, with the Clinton camp’s participation – given Clinton’s horror at someone not automatically accepting an election’s outcome – is more than a little confusing.  And more than a little disgusting.



    A few pollsters got together and decided, with absolutely zero evidence, that because Clinton lost those rust belt states, someone must have rigged it (probably the Russians, which seem to be their go-to excuse for all their failures).  Or Comey.  Or, you know, fake news. Something.  The Clinton campaign’s counsel, Marc Elias, said there’s no evidence of sabotage but they feel compelled to tag along, you know, just in case.  J Alex Halderman, who was one of the first to point to possible irregularities, and who supported Stein’s Wisconsin petition with an affidavit, said there’s no real evidence of rigging:


    Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

    So what’s the end game, here, aside from trying to wrest the election from Trump?  No, if this were about democracy, we’d be rolling the recount efforts back to the primary, a time we know that Clinton’s cronies at the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Clinton against Bernie, or examining the states, like NH, where the margin was slimmest.  No, the point is, Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate and pretty much a terrible human being who more than half the country didn’t trust, someone who thought hob-nobbing with celebrities replaced actually engaging with what she clearly thought of as the unwashed masses, who spouted party lines without passion or sincerity, and who people, simply, didn’t like.  

    Stein is trying valiantly to convince us this is just about election purity, that there’s nothing self-serving about this equation:

    We want to know what our vote is, and that our votes are being counted. This is not a partisan effort but we need to have confidence, too.

    Epic fail.  She’s now placed herself squarely into “partisan hack” status.  

    I used to mumble, “Go away, Hillary.”  I now add, “And take Stein with you . . . .”


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 7:13 pm on November 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Progressive venom: This anti-Clinton liberal voted Trump 


    riggin-the-primariesMy late father, a schoolteacher and, later, school principal, used to say to me, “If you’re gonna be a bear, be a grizzly.”  As a strong boots on the ground liberal, I’ve joined protests and rallies all over the country for progressive causes, from DC to Nebraska; I’ve been a lifelong Dem and true liberal – and then came election 2016.  And here I am today, an Obama voter twice, a staunch Bernie supporter, a Demexit’er, and a liberal progressive who cast my vote for Donald Trump.  It wasn’t enough for me to just be a bear, in my mind, after months and months of battling hard against hard-core Clinton cultists on social media, going head to head with thousands of friends and followers, taking a firm stand against Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for; no, I took dad’s advice, and this “bitching” Bernie supporter went grizzly.  What’s more, I don’t have a second’s regret – zero, zip, nada, zilch.

    Somehow, to false-flagging progressives and Clinton cultists, my absolute, steadfast refusal to support Hillary Clinton – and my choice to campaign actively against her candidacy on social media, where I have thousands of friends and followers, and a wide open Facebook wall – was the most traitorous act anyone could commit (far more than any of her transgressions, which they’ve conveniently ignored from day one).  To them, I gave up every progressive street cred I ever had – and that was way before I began to state publicly that I was going to vote for Trump.  I’d been to more protests and rallies all over the country on behalf of progressive causes, written more articles on behalf of progressive causes, and bashed more Republicans than any of these people, and yet my progressive bona fides were unworthy and were consistently called into question – unless I agreed to support their chosen candidate (then, presumably, they’d love me again).  For years, I had been a very strong progressive voice on Facebook, consistently standing against Republican agendas, and these people praised me and heaped accolades on me and couldn’t get enough of my opinions – until I exercised my progressive right to reject their very un-progressive chosen candidate.  Then, I was condemned, castigated, called “teabagger” and accused of being part of the “Republican smear machine.”  Suddenly, any brilliance they thought I had when I was bashing Republicans turned to mud, and my incendiary posts against Clinton were nothing but black marks against my liberalism.  Suddenly, when I was no longer bashing Republicans and was bashing their chosen candidate, these so-called progressives didn’t want to hear me – and, in fact, told me repeatedly that I should quit posting about it (although not quite that politely).

    I started predicting the American version of Brexit months ago – but they wouldn’t listen.  I predicted that the head-in-the-sand approach by Clinton supporters about her many vulnerabilities and lack of trustworthiness was dangerous; I told them that their belittling agenda, the insults and dismissive attitude toward Bernie supporters, was fatal; I told them that winning friends and influencing people didn’t include telling Bern’ers and anti-Clinton progressives that Clinton didn’t need us and that we needed to sit our whining asses down.  Over and over I told them that millions of people weren’t behind her, that we wouldn’t come back into the fold – and they didn’t listen.  Those of us who adored Bernie watched during the primary as Clinton & Co. dismissed Bernie supporters as pie-in-the-sky lunatics who were following a starry-eyed, inept candidate full of unrealistic dreams.  We watched them gloat about superdelegates and how Clinton had it on lock; we heard them mock us, taunt us, insult us.

    And then came Wikileaks, and all of our suspicions about collusion and rigging and the efforts by the Dem establishment, the DNC, the media, and Clinton and her crew to actively sabotage Bernie were proven true – and not only proven true, but were even worse than we thought.  We wanted Bernie, and instead they said, “Oh, no no, that’s not gonna happen, we squashed that, we made sure that won’t happen, we made our back-room deals to assure that won’t happen – but here’s a neo-liberal, lying, corrupt war hawk instead.  Get on board.”

    This whole thing has been an evolution for me.  After Bernie was eviscerated by the powers-that-be, and before the dump of Wikileaks, I was still staunchly, resolutely anti-Clinton, but hedged my bets a little.  Johnson?  Stein?  Write in Bernie?  More Wikileaks came out, more mean-spirited sniping, more back-and-forth about insulting Bernie and his supporters and voters in general while keeping us “marginally on board.”  We learned how the Clinton coalition, the Dem establishment, the DNC, had planned to pay lip service to Bernie supporters, were planning to throw us a meaningless bone at the Convention to try to bring us into the “stronger together” camp.  The DNC, from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to Donna Brazile, the Clinton crew, and the Dem establishment had nothing but disdain for Bernie and his millions of faithful supporters, completely believed we were a clueless basket of deplorables, and thought that we’d be so grateful for a crumb or two that we’d get right on the Clinton train.  Thanks to Wikileaks, their train derailed:

    Bernie and his people have been bitching about super delegates . . . Why not throw Bernie a bone and reduce the super delegates in the future . . . So if we ‘give’ Bernie this in the Convention’s rules committee, his people will think they’ve ‘won’ something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn’t make any difference anyway. They win. We don’t lose. Everyone is happy.

    I guess they thought, who couldn’t refuse an offer like that?  We stayed demeaned, belittled, and tricked, while they happily gobbled up Bernie supporters – along with their donations – and gave Clinton a sweep.  And they were shocked we didn’t bite.  The thing is, I didn’t just read the Wikileaks emails, I devoured them whole.  The Dem establishment schemed about things I hadn’t even thought of, came up with new and clever ways to demolish Bernie, personally and politically, and stabbed every single Democrat in the back with their gleeful mocking.  And with that ringing in my ears, I heard my “friends” on social media tell me how wrong I was, how traitorous I was, how Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread, how she was the only thing that stood between us and Trump, who was the most dangerous demagogue, fascist, racist, homophobe on the planet.  But a funny thing happened on the way to election day:  I rejected those highly scripted fear tactics, rejected those disingenuous pledges to fight for and respect “all Americans,” rejected their forked-tongue rehash of party lines and attack lines and promises.  See, I was the one they dismissed, demeaned, belittled, insulted, disrespected, was the one they were going to pacify with a big basket of nothing, was the one they thought they’d fool, was the one whose intelligence they insulted every single day as they urged me to buy into their garbage.  Trump didn’t insult me; the Dems did.

    About a week before the election, after I’d done the mental wrestling, after I’d listened over and over to the absolutely arrogant, haughty, smug, entitled, rude Clinton cultists, I made up my mind:  The only vote of integrity for me, as someone who loathed Clinton and had stood my ground against her candidacy from the beginning, who believed she’d destroy pure progressive values for decades, and had been willing to take the incredible progressive blowback that came with it, was to cast a vote directly for Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump.  For me, a vote for Stein or Johnson, a write-in for Bernie, would have been the greatest form of cop-out.  I wanted – needed – to know that my vote would go directly toward defeating her, and there was only one way to be sure of that.  As a newly registered independent, I voted for Donald Trump.  And the moment I did, a wave of relief came over me, a wave of absolute pride that, regardless of the consequences, my integrity was intact.  I hadn’t folded, I hadn’t copped out, they hadn’t fooled me, and any victory would be a Pyrrhic one.

    But there was no victory for them.  They lost.  They fooled some deluded sycophants, but the lion’s share jumped ship.  A week before the election, I had been very vocal that, not only was I rejecting Clinton, I was voting for Trump. Heads exploded, insults rained down on me, I was condemned.  I had done nothing to any of them except exercise my right to vote as I choose, and reject the candidate they thought I should vote for – and yet, progressives I’d know for years blocked and unfriended me.  After the election, when I said, yeah, you assholes, you broke it, you bought it, I voted for Trump, the level of rage and vitriol and hatred directed toward me was beyond anything I’d ever seen in politics in my lifetime.  I literally got a death threat, was compared with Hitler.  The hypocrisy of the supposed progressives who’d been my staunchest supporters has been breathtaking.  And all because I rejected the candidate that they chose for me, they stacked the deck in favor of, they put their thumb on the scale on behalf of.  Nothing but that.  I voted my conscience – and have become a lightning rod for progressive hatred as a result.

    As Chicago/Atlanta rapper Mpulse said, “People love freedom of speech until you exercise your right of freedom of speech and they disagree.”  I always thought Dems were the good guys, until now.  I thought I’d be a lifelong Dem – but I Demexited.  Oh, I fought the good fight, all right – just not the one they wanted.  I didn’t fight their fight – and in their eyes, my rights didn’t, don’t, exist.  As Wikileaks exposed, I was never intended to be anything but a pawn, was never expected to think for myself, was never respected as someone who might have independent thoughts and beliefs, would have been just one more check box in their “fooled ’em” column.

    I was supposed to be a good soldier, but I put on a different uniform.  Clinton supporters, these fraudulent progressives I deal with every day, didn’t care about my rights or my values (in fact, they routinely mocked both) – they cared only about power and winning.  And that’s why they lost – and will lose again.  When you lose and don’t examine the reason for it, are completely clueless and couldn’t care less, if you’d rather heap hatred then figure out how to right the ship, you’ll always lose. But without the Dem albatross around my neck, going forward, I won’t feel keenly all the losses Dems are determined to sustain by their sneering, bull-headed, arrogant attitude.  Their losses won’t be mine – and in fact, this time I contributed to the greatest loss they could imagine, a potentially fatal, and well-deserved, body blow to the Democratic Party.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 9:55 pm on October 29, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    With Clinton, it’ll always be something shady – and yes, of course that’s disqualifying 


    The Clinton email leaks, compliments of Wikileaks, have been drip drip dripping daily for the past however long.  And then, this weekend, we learn that the FBI is re-opening (yes, re-opening, not resuming) its investigation into Clinton’s emails, after this:

    Newly discovered emails found on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner thrust the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server back into the presidential campaign less than two weeks before the election.

    Officials said the discovery prompted a surprise announcement Friday by FBI Director James B. Comey that the agency would once again be examining emails related to Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

    In a letter to lawmakers, Comey said the FBI would take ‘appropriate investigative steps’ to determine whether the newly discovered emails contain classified information and to assess whether they are relevant to the Clinton server probe.

    The emails, numbering more than 1,000, were found on a computer used by both Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    Immediately after this news broke, Clinton sauntered off her plane, ignored reporters, and jumped into a waiting SUV.  Her later, tossed-together, presser was astounding in its duplicity:  She was “deeply troubled” by this “unprecedented” act by Director Comey and demanded he release everything, stat.

    Oh, that’s rich – the candidate with the unprecedented status of being under two FBI investigations in the course of a presidential election, and who has so many deeply troubling secrets and backroom deals we can’t keep up, is grabbing the smelling salts and falling on the fainting couch with outrage at Comey sending a letter to Congress, a disclosure he promised under oath he would make if new information turned up.  I don’t recall the same level of outrage when Comey took the unusual step in July of sharing his findings about the Clinton investigation with the American public, and recommended no charges.

    From the private server and hidden emails, secret Wall Street speeches, the “public and private” positions Clinton admits to taking, the Clinton camp’s efforts to destroy Bernie Sanders, collusion with the DNC in 2014, before she even declared her candidacy, to State Department pay-to-play, renovating their New York house without the required permits (showing, again, they think they’re above laws we commoners have to follow), and a myriad of other things, the Clintons are toxic.  They’re a cancer on politics.  What people don’t get is that it isn’t just the emails, or just the Wall Street speeches, or just the Foundation or just the sleazy nature of every campaign Clinton runs – it’s the fact that, with the Clintons, it’s always going to be something.  They’re not victims of the Republican smear machine; they’re victims of the fallout from their own schemes, from their own secrets, from their own greed.

    As a lifelong liberal and yellow dog Dem, I registered independent this year.  I have always supported President Obama, and was a fervent Bernie supporter – but this, this candidate is beyond anything I can remotely stomach.  When the Dems colluded with Clinton before she even announced her candidacy, when they, along with the willing media, propelled her candidacy at Bernie’s expense, when they have proven to be, via Wikileaks, every bit as sinister and sleazy as we suspected, they crossed a line I’ll never cross with them.  I never intended to vote for Clinton; once Bernie left the race, I took a look at the third-party candidates.  But even if I had, at one time, debated voting for Clinton because her opponent was exponentially worse, the drip drip drip has turned into waterboarding now, and the fact that the Democratic powers that be, along with the media, continue to apologize for Clinton, defend her, and take swipes at those who don’t, has reinforced like nothing else can how nefarious her presidency would be, and how clearly a vote for her would violate my core integrity.

    Of course I’m aware that lending support to a third-party candidate could lead to a Trump presidency – but the fault doesn’t lie with me, it lies with the Democratic operatives who thought it’d be swell to operate outside the bounds of decency, ignore Clinton’s many disqualifying characteristics, and try to trick and swindle the public into thinking her unbelievably bad judgment and behavior were trifling things, and that she was the better option.  She’s not.  The past is the best predictor of the future, and her past points to a future rife with scandal, conflict, secrecy, deceptiveness, money-grubbing, political decisions and policy made with only her own best interests in mind, and perhaps even criminal conduct.  She operates outside the law, outside the rules the rest of us mostly try to live by, and that won’t change.  It’s baked into her persona – and it’s been remarkably successful in terms of financial gain and political power.  She has no incentive to change who she is; but we should have a very strong incentive to deny her the chance to drag us into her slippery orbit.

    More than half the country thinks Clinton is untrustworthy, and a whopping 7 out of 10 Americans think she acted unethically, if not illegally, around her private email server.  Those numbers alone are disqualifying.  I’d rather have a president like Trump, whose bad behavior hasn’t been hidden beneath umpteen layers of secrecy and who hasn’t been protected by a cabal of willing political and media sycophants, than a president like Clinton, who’s learned how to expertly game the system, and the deceive the public, for her own personal gain.  Her own closest aides have commented in the Wikileaks emails about her secrecy and poor judgment.

    Even after a lifetime of Democratic loyalty, voting for Clinton – essentially telling the Dem establishment that what they did during this campaign and how they operated was acceptable, and worse, giving them license to do it again – is a bridge too far for me.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 10:33 pm on July 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Confusing times for #NeverHillary and #BernieorBust folks – like me 

    Life got in the way of my blogging a bit, but, though I’m more than a little rusty, I’m also filled with a boatload of emotional reactions to Bernie’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president – and the spillover has to go somewhere.  So bear with me.

    Unlike a lot of Dem bloggers, pundits and media types, I’m still and will always be #NeverHillary – even to stop Trump.  My solution to that dilemma is still unclear; it’s either Jill Stein and going Green (which is most likely what I’ll do), writing in Bernie, or skipping the top ticket altogether and trying to turn the down ballot races into progressive (real progressive) victories.  I have a few months to make up my mind on that, but the one thing I’m crystal clear on is that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.  And I reject the cries of “party unity” – the Party will have no one but itself to blame if Donald Trump wins in November.  Its disdain for Bernie and his supporters, and arrogance now that we are required to fall in line, steels my resolve to steer clear of the DNC and its gang of hacks.  My only obligation is to vote my conscience, and I’m offended by those who tell me that I’m a traitor to progressives if I don’t vote Blue.  Truth is, I don’t consider Clinton “blue” – some random shade of purple, maybe, but who even knows that?  Transparency and honesty aren’t her trademarks, so it’s anyone’s guess how she’ll govern if elected. The bad news is that Bernie Sanders and his lovely wife Jane were up against a system that, in the end, revealed itself to be impenetrable.  They poured their hearts and souls into us and our causes – and the fact that he ultimately fell on the sword and endorsed Clinton is punishment enough. He doesn’t need us to turn against him and make accusations of “sell out” (which does, incidentally, apply to Elizabeth Warren, angling for a boost to her political career). Bernie is a man of integrity, fairness, intelligence and wisdom. I have faith that the decision he made was thrashed out thoroughly beforehand, and that his motives were pure.

    Having said that, it tore my heart out watching Bernie endorse Hillary Clinton, because I know, in my gut, how much that hurt him.  It was evident in every gesture, every word, and even his autonomic nervous system was screaming, “Noooooo!”  It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t love her to death and isn’t tinkled pink to add his support. As body language expert Dr. Lillian Glass noted,

    Bernie then says he wants to make it as clear as possible as to why he is endorsing Hillary Clinton. While she begins to smile, Bernie is definitely not smiling. Instead, he licks his lips and then purses his lips, as you see in the photo above. In essence,  the lip licking and swallowing reflects that  his autonomic nervous system has taken over and he is clearly doing something that he does not want to do. The lip pursing is the body’s way of saying ‘I really don’t want to say this.’ His lack of smiling when standing next to Hillary also reveals his true negative feelings towards her. It indicates that he is  not enthused to be endorsing her. Hillary clearly knows how he feels as she exhibits a teeth-clenched,  forced smile with her eyes not crinkling . . .

    . . . When Hillary began to speak, Bernie’s autonomic nervous system was working overtime as you can tell in the photos above. He was perspiring profusely, which appeared  to be an indication of his emotional state.  He wiped his forehead, both sides of his cheeks, and did it two different times. Apparently, giving this speech appeared to be one of the most difficult things he had to do as part of the campaign . . . He  literally had to catch his breath. He took a very deep breath whereby you could see his shoulders raising as he then deeply exhaled that breath. He was oxygenating himself to stay composed . . . He maintained that pursed lip appearance as his jaw jutted forth, which indicated that he was feeling anger at the situation of having to endorse Hillary.  As we have observed, his body language, while remaining in the background while she spoke, spoke volumes about what he was really feeling . . .

    Bernie Endorsement I


    I don’t think this is the look of a man who is “selling out,” or angling for an appointment in the Clinton cabinet.  This is a man in agony.  This is a man who feels torn and tormented and who made this decision for what he deems the good of the country:  To stop Trump.  I’m certain he feels he’s let his supporters down, and I’m even more certain that the last thing he wants is to endorse a person who epitomizes everything he fights against, and has fought for decades.  I get, though, the confusion, anxiety, sadness and, yes, anger, of Bernie supporters.  The pledge to take his fight to the convention appears to be off the table, although as some have noted, he hasn’t suspended his campaign.  Those planning a Philly trip are now second-guessing the usefulness of it.  I’m not a fan of the “fart-in” that Bernie supporters are staging (seems a little too frat-party’ish for my tastes).  But again, I understand – and share – the anger, feeling that Clinton has now gotten everything she wanted and none of what she richly deserved.  I console myself with the thought that there’s one thing she doesn’t have now, and (I’m hoping) won’t have when it counts:  Bernie supporters, in droves, campaigning for her, supporting her, re-tweeting her – and voting for her.

    We can continue to vote based on our own sense of integrity, and continue to stand behind Bernie Sanders and appreciate what he brought to the table during this election cycle. What he actually did – and it’s something she can’t erode – is let us know that there is nothing too great to strive for, that integrity matters, that standing up for what we believe in matters, and can change things. What he taught us was how to think and not just what to think.  We followed him because he made it simple for us: His message was clear, unequivocal, and built to last.

    I can’t be mad at Bernie; I’m too sad for him.  The ones I’m angry at are the “party unity” mouthpieces who derided Bernie and his supporters, who mocked his vision, and who now are going to pat him on the head, praise him for falling in line, and consign him to the dustbin of history.

    Bernie’s still out there, doing what he’s always done, and no endorsement of Clinton can take that away from him.  His pain was palpable.  And I share it.

    • Beth Ward 10:40 pm on November 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      When all this started I got a bumper sticker in the mail that said “ready for Hillary.” I stared at it a few minutes in confusion and thought ” Ewwwww I hate that woman.” After her treatment of Obama on the campaign trail, I still could not stand her. The nerve of telling me for whom to vote!! It is my vote and that war hawk hag did not earn it. I am a Bernie supporter too through and through. I still miss him and his lovely wife Jane. Now and then I still let out a whimpering “Bernieeeeeee.” I am glad she did not win the election. I don’t want WW3 to start.

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 1:02 am on May 29, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Clinton dodges questions about son-in-law’s Goldman Sachs-funded hedge fund 

    Lee Fang of the Intercept was the first person to ask Clinton to release her Wall Street speech transcripts (her response was to gaily laugh), and has done extensive research on Clinton’s lobbyist-delegates.  Last Thursday, his colleague, Henrik Moltke of the Intercept, caught Clinton at a rally to ask her questions about her son-in-law’s hedge fund, a hedge fund that Clinton’s pal, Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, invested in and helped market.  As Moltke reported:

    The investment did not turn out to be a savvy business decision. Earlier this month, Mezvinsky was forced to shutter one of the investment vehicles he launched under Eaglevale, called Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after losing 90 percent of its money betting on the Greek recovery. The flagship Eaglevale fund has also lost money, according to the New York Times.

    So that’s the back story (read the whole article here).

    Last week, Moltke caught Clinton leaving a campaign rally, and tried without success to get her to even glance his way to answer a question about her son-in-law’s Eaglevale hedge fund. Eventually Moltke was blocked by one of Clinton’s henchman (in this case identified as a “spokesman”), who promised to get the information to Moltke by email, “right now.”  As far as I know, Moltke is still waiting.




  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 1:08 am on May 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    THIS is the revolution Bernie Sanders has led us to – and neither he nor we will stop it 


    The media narrative these days seems to be that Bernie Sanders is “defiant” and going “scorched earth” in his primary battle – but I read something today about the DNC throwing Bernie a bone at the convention – appointing more of his people to the committees, maybe, or something – and as enticing as it sounded, for a minute, my ultimate response was, “Meh.”  Here’s the thing:  We no longer want, or need, or seek anything from the DNC, or the Clinton camp, or Debbie Wasserman-Elect-Hillary-Schultz, or establishment Democrats, or media pundits or “journalists.”  We’ve done all of this without any of them so far, and we’re willing to continue this journey without their 11th hour peace pipe.  We’re not stupid, and we all realize that any concession at this juncture is a not-too-subtle effort to lure Bernie Sanders’ supporters into their den of inequity.  An olive branch may be extended, but only until they’re fully assured that we’re all once again comfortably ensconced in the arms of the Democratic establishment that has brainwashed us for far too long – and then it will be yanked back.  They don’t want us any more than we want them, but there’s one difference:  They need us, but the reverse isn’t true.

    Many of us who’ve always claimed the Democratic Party as “home” perhaps began this journey with Bernie as a “Dem supporting Bernie Sanders” who would, of course, vote for whatever “blue” nominee the Democrats chose.  During the past year – for me, maybe six months ago – I became uncomfortably aware that that course wasn’t an option any longer.  It took me a little longer to publicly proclaim on social media the fact that I wouldn’t even be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton.  From there, it was a short leap to Bernie or Bust, and from there it was no leap to declare myself no longer part of the Democratic Party.  I’d been at that place, emotionally, for a year, but had only been willing to admit it, publicly, for about half that time – that’s how embedded I was – many of us were – in the Democratic Party.  That was then.

    As brilliant writer and Sanders supporter Shaun King wrote in the NY Daily News,

    Right now, the Democratic Party, which I have called home my entire life, is deeply in love with money. Consequently, its leaders have supported and advanced all kinds of evil, big and small, in devotion to this love affair . . . In essence, Hillary Clinton and the DNC each wants us to believe that lobbyists and SuperPACs don’t expect anything from them in return for their money. This is the most basic, foolish, offensive lie they could ever tell. Of course they want something in return. That’s the business they’re in . . .

    . . . The thing is, though, the Democratic Party isn’t really very democratic. It’s sincerely just a machine for Hillary Clinton . . . Debbie Wasserman Schultz will say or do anything to get Hillary Clinton elected, even if it means completely ignoring the political reality that nearly half of the people who’ve voted in this primary have declared that they want to see lobbyists and SuperPACs out of politics. Her words and her deeds throughout this campaign have not only been unethical, but are out of step with the future of the party. Voters under the age of 45 prefer Bernie because they trust him and his principles. Wasserman Schultz and Clinton represent a brand of politics that they know well, but we’re simply tired of it.  Another op-ed was just released calling on her to be replaced . . . Robert Reich, the famed economist who served as Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, went so far on Thursday to suggest that a new party should be formedif Hillary wins the election.

    I’ll start where I left off — the root of all of this is the love of money. In this campaign, Bernie Sanders, with a ragtag group of misfits, proved to the world that another way exists. He has created a blueprint for us on how we build a political movement without the money from billionaire class and their special interests . . . Don’t believe what anyone tells you — the ball is in our hand and we have more power than progressive people have had in a very long time in this country. I will fight for Bernie Sanders until he is no longer running for president.

    After that, this will be my last election as a Democrat. I’m moving on and hope you do, too.

    Frank Huguenard, writing for the Huffington Post, had these words of encouragement and truth for Sanders supporters:

    . . . pandering doesn’t work on the kinds of people who support Bernie Sanders because more and more these days, people are waking up to the reality that the only thing we can be truly certain of is that there is no such thing as certainty.  Change is inevitable and Bernie supporters are fearless. People are understanding that in the past, when we’ve sold our own personal truths to purchase someone else’s political rhetoric, the country and the world have suffered for it . . . Whatever the DNC-RNC-MSM complex is selling, we’re no longer buying . . . This is the simple reason why Bernie is going to win.  There is a mass awakening happening on the planet right now and enough people have become immune to the pandering and lies of politicians that we are no longer susceptible to their manipulations and deceit . . . In spite of all the voting irregularities, illegal activities, purging of databases, Main Stream Media’s blatant bias towards Hillary as the presumptive nominee, Bill Clinton campaigning at Massachusetts polling stations, an incredibly lopsided democratic apparatus and mass numbers of voters having their party affiliation switched, it looks like Bernie is still going to win the pledged delegate count.  This is astonishing.

    Bernie is going to win because the number of people willing to embrace the illusion of certainty is no longer the majority.  You can see it on the faces of Bernie supporters at his rallies, you can see by the vast number of crowds at his speeches, you can feel it on social media, you can see him running the table for these last 10 contests (including New Jersey).  You can see it in his campaign out-raising his opponents without being financed without super PACS and you can see it with both Trump and Clinton starting to take his potential nomination seriously.  This is our time.

    More and more Democrats and pundits are now seriously eyeing Bernie Sanders as a better bet than Hillary Clinton – and why shouldn’t they see what we see?  But it’s too little, far too late.  During a time when the playing field should have been level for both candidates, they collectively retrenched to tilt it.  During a time when all Bernie and his supporters were asking for was fairness, the media and the DNC scoffed and mocked and insulted.  During a time when a man of integrity was drawing tens of thousands to hear him, see him, support him, the media yawned and ran reports on spawning salmon or Trump.  During a time when the nation was just getting to know Bernie Sanders, the DNC in the form of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz intervened to relegate him to the sidelines by fixing debate schedules, cutting him off from important campaign data, and funneling money and influence toward his rival.  Arrogance and ego have known no bounds in the collective quest to fix Clinton as the only viable candidate.

    But olive branches and peace pipes and white flags are meaningless symbols of their fear, now, when we don’t care, won’t forgive and when it really doesn’t matter to us.  Article after article in the mainstream media has proclaimed that Bernie has overstayed his welcome and it’s time he went home (but hey, they remind him, don’t forget to leave your millions of supporters and donations at our doorstep on your way).  Democratic leaders are slightly more subtle, but the message is clear:  Get in line, Bernie, corral your supporters, be a good little soldier, because we’re gonna need all of you come July when the Anointed One receives her coronation, and you don’t want a Trump presidency on your conscience.

    I take the liberty of speaking for millions of us when I say, We are sick to death of all of you, mainstream media, the DNC, establishment Democrats, sick of all your scorn, your mockery, your lies, outright lies, your refusal to see what polls and millions of voters are telling you, your refusal to do the jobs you’re being paid and trusted to do, your refusal to even permit a Bernie Sanders candidacy, and your inability to conceal your disgust that you are forced to tolerate Bernie’s ascendancy with millions of American voters.  You thought you could ignore us and we’d go away.  Dead wrong.  You thought you could shame us, deride us, and we’d shut up.  More wrong.  You thought, in the end, you could do whatever the hell you wanted and we’d all fall in line behind your chosen candidate at the convention.  Epic fail in that calculation.

    They can call it mission accomplished:  They’ve effectively alienated millions and millions of Democrat and independent voters, and the cocky little gamble that they’d get us back in the end for the sake of “party unity” will no doubt go down as one of the worst political calculations in political history.  This is our time, as Frank Huguenard wrote.  This will be my last election as a Democrat, wrote Shaun King.

    Clinton can declare herself the Democratic nominee on CNN if she chooses, can dismiss Bernie Sanders as a viable opponent if that’s what lets her sleep at night, but she does so at her own peril, because THIS political revolution will have something to say about that particular edict.  THIS political revolution is staying the course with Bernie Sanders until the convention.  THIS political revolution has no more alliance to the Party or the powers that be, and as Huguenard noted, Bernie supporters are fearless.  We are, and we’re determined, and what’s more, we’re fully pissed.

    Clinton isn’t winning the popular vote as she claims (one of her many “misspeaks”), her negative ratings are as high in some polls as Trump’s, and a majority of the country doesn’t consider her trustworthy (because she isn’t).  That kind of candidate isn’t someone the majority of Bernie supporters, who find integrity and honesty to be critically important character traits, are ever gonna get behind.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 9:50 pm on May 18, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie’s rallies of 20,000 get no media attention; Nevada, on the other hand, is on a 24/7 news cycle 

    Nevada cops

    Watching this high drama play (or, more accurately, play-acted) in the mainstream media about the Nevada convention – and watching high-ranking Democrats who are all Hillary hacks make statements about fearing for their safety (Barbara Boxer), gloom-and-doom’ing about a repeat of 1968 Chicago (Dianne Feinstein), and condemning Bernie for not flying straight to Nevada, righting the chairs and profusely apologizing to deplorable Lange (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) – is a sickening study in partisan politics and a reinforcement of what Bernie supporters have always know about the bias the DNC has shown in favor of Hillary and against Bernie.  And all of this just boils down to high drama, designed by the powers that be in the Democratic Party to put the bothersome issue of Bernie Sanders and his supporters to rest once and for all.

    Bernie hasn’t gotten this much media attention at any point since he launched his campaign.

    CNN has swallowed whole the narrative of Bernie supporters disrupting the Nevada convention last weekend simply because Bernie didn’t win.  They and others in the mainstream media have brought on Roberta Lange to talk about the death threats (note:  prove that those calls were actually from Bernie supporters and not Clinton trolls), without once asking the million-dollar question:  What did you do and why did you do it?

    As CommonDreams.org reported,

    According to several individuals, who were present, the Nevada State Democratic Party, led by chairwoman Roberta Lange, engaged in the following during the 15-hour convention:

    • Lange and an executive board secretly voted on rules two weeks before the convention to give Lange “exclusive control” over the convention and strictly limit motions, as well as challenges to rulings by the chair
    • Voted on “temporary rules” for the convention and cheated by calling the vote for the “yeas” when the “nays” clearly had larger numbers. The vote happened early at 9:30 am before all the delegates had arrived. [Video here.]
    • The State Democratic Party was provided with petitions from twenty percent of the delegates in attendance to challenge the adopted rules. Signatures were collected ahead of the convention because there were activists well-aware of what the Party would try to do with the new “temporary rules.” In fact, one of these people, Angie Morelli, was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Party, which was partly dismissed a day before the convention. The leadership pretended to accept the petitions and then ignored the fact that proper procedure had been followed, blocking any challenges, which effectively disenfranchised a subsection of people attempting to have their voices heard.
    • Lange granted herself the authority to have the final decision on all the delegates excluded from the convention. There were 56 Sanders delegates and four Clinton delegates, which were deemed to have improper or inadequate registration information. The number of Clinton delegates outnumbered Sanders delegates by only 33 delegates.
    • When one of the members of the state party committees attempted to read a “Minority Report,” reflecting what had happened with the decision to exclude 56 Sanders delegates, Lange tried to take the microphone out of the hand of the person, who was about to read the report.
    • Multiple attempts were made to bring motions in order to remove Lange as chair of the state party convention because it appeared to be Lange who was responsible for eruptions of disorder. Congressional candidate Dan Rolle hopped on a megaphone to make a motion and had the megaphone confiscated. Then, Rolle tried again later when he had access to the microphone to make a motion for a “no confidence” vote. The leadership cut off his microphone.
    • Nina Turner, one of the most prominent and well-respected Sanders surrogates, was there to represent his campaign at the convention. Yet, abruptly, the leadership switched the order and had Senator Barbara Boxer go on stage to speak for the Clinton campaign. Her speech riled up supporters, and as she was booed, she kept riling them up by berating them.
    • Lange moved to adjourn the convention when there was a motion made for a recount on the floor late in the convention.
    • State Democratic Party leadership refused to acknowledge delegates from the Sanders side, who were following the rules to make motions, and effectively sowed chaos in the process. As they fled the convention after abruptly adjourning, Las Vegas metro police lined the stage. Sanders delegates contemplated a civil disobedience action in response, but eventually, most left the room as it was cleared. This image of police in the room helped the Party spread propaganda in the hours after that it was the Sanders people who were “violent,” and brought the convention to the point of chaos where it was not safe for people anymore.

    Unfortunately, all of this conduct has been drowned out by a narrative that somehow Sanders supporters were sore losers . . . .

    Bernie surrogate Nina Turner, who was present, denied the media accounts vehemently; however, Clinton backers – only one of whom was actually present – have continued to spin the narrative that Bernie supporters are violent, unruly, and a potential threat to a civil convention in Philadelphia.  Barbara Boxer, who was at the convention, and who now says she feared her for personal safety (tough as old boots, that one – hard to believe a few protesters rattled her to that extent) claimed to have attempted to instill calm over the proceedings; however, her post-convention claims belied her actual words to Bernie supporters in Nevada:

    Let’s hear it for Hillary Clinton! . . . Keep on booing and boo yourselves out of this election.



    Dianne Feinstein, another Hillary hack, issued an ominous warning of what could ensue at the Philadelphia convention.  As CNN reported,

    California Sen. Dianne Feinstein warned that Bernie Sanders’ intention to take his candidacy to the Democratic convention in July could spark unrest similar to the chaotic 1968 convention in Chicago and the riots surrounding it.

    ‘It worries me a great deal,’ Feinstein told CNN’s Manu Raju. ‘You know, I don’t want to go back to the ’68 convention, because I worry about what it does to the electorate as a whole — and he [Bernie Sanders] should, too.’

    Harry Reid, another Hillary hack who wasn’t present at the convention, didn’t like Bernie’s tone in his response to the Nevada convention, and derided and insulted Bernie:

    Bernie should say something and not have some silly statement. Bernie is better than that. He should say something about this [and] not have some statement someone else prepared for him.

    Bernie supporters need to get on board with THIS?  When Boxer taunts and mocks them, Feinstein condemns them, Reid insults him, and Wasserman-Schultz claims to want to “unify” the party (translation:  Support Hillary) and yet fails to examine what happened in Nevada, and condemns Bernie, personally, without having a single conversation with him?

    Bernie Sanders supporters, as he succinctly pointed out, are not violent; out of all those rallies of 20,000 people (few of which the mainstream media even reported on) there were no incidents of violence (the fact that the mainstream media largely ignored those rallies tells you all you need to know about their serenity; as we’ve seen, the first chair that gets shoved, and it’s all over the news).

    None of these “leaders” has yet given Bernie or Bust’ers a good reason to get on board with the Democratic establishment, with the DNC, to support Clinton or head to the convention in July with a sense of fairness and justice having been served.  If these people hoped to unify the party, the words that pop into my head are “EPIC FAIL.”  Instead, they’ve steeled the resolve of millions of us that this is an institution that has unilaterally rejected our agenda, and that we will not be well served by joining it, endorsing it, or in any way supporting it.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 8:37 pm on May 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    HA Goodman: An irreparable Dem Party shakeup if super delegates unaccountably stick with Clinton (video & transcription) 

    HA Goodman is part of a small minority belonging to what’s known as the “mainstream media” who has rejected the Clinton Kool-aid – and is a staunch, reasonable supporter of Bernie Sanders’ campaign.  He applies logic, common sense and, yes, principle and integrity to both his critiques of Clinton and his support of Bernie Sanders.  You can follow HA Goodman on YouTube or check him out on hagoodman.com.  One of his more recent YouTube segments issues a strong warning to the Democratic establishment, and particularly to super delegates, whose “system of corruption” will be derailed if they don’t recognize the peril in continuing down the path of supporting Clinton despite her negative polling, her many, many losses to Bernie, and her current legal travails.  Says Goodman:

    This segment is a very important segment, especially for Democratic super delegates, because I’m doing them a favor.  And I’m doing the Democratic establishment and all the people who benefit from the honest graft within the Democratic Party a very huge favor.  I’m going to explain to you Democratic super delegates what will happen to your system of corruption, and honest graft, and political appointments, voter suppression, and election fraud, I’m going to explain what will happen to this system if Bernie Sanders is not the nominee during the contested convention that should never have taken place because Hillary should have wrapped it up already [conventional wisdom] . . . if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, you are looking at a 3rd party formed from the anger, frustration and frankly hate of many Progressives toward you, super delegates, all 714 of you – and there are journalists who know your ties to lobbyists and they know why the majority of you have sided with Hillary Clinton – it’s not because of value system, it’s because of other reasons.

    So number one, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic nominee and you go with Hillary Clinton in a contested convention that the world is watching, that young people, millennials, people in high school, will be watching, what takes place is this . . . first off, number one, 25-33% of Bernie Sanders supp will never ever ever ever ever vote for Hillary Clinton.  This is not just HA Goodman talking – I have a lot of fans who are Hillary supporters, they love me, and they find me very credible . . . you can look at the polls that you used as the basis of why Clinton was going to win – which she won’t win, she’ll get indicted; the FBI doesn’t do security reviews and that Washington Post article was meaningless, okay, because scant evidence doesn’t mean no evidence . . . and you don’t need malicious intent to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, all you need is gross negligence, and President Obama already said she was careless . . . 25-33%, and it’s still ongoing . . . she’s facing indictment, or her top aides are facing indictment . . . 25-33% of Bernie Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary Clinton ever . . . these people are principled.  These people do not want a president, a Democrat in the White House advised by Henry Kissinger and Bush’s neocons . . . why are you voting for somebody who’s advised by Henry Kissinger? . . . 33% of Bernie Sanders supporters will never vote for  Hillary Clinton . . . there are 714 super delegates, 522 have already . . . supported Hillary Clinton.  This is even when Bernie has won states and according to basic common sense they should go with Bernie if their state goes to Bernie, but nonetheless these super delegates still flock to Hillary Clinton – so 522 for Hillary Clinton, 39 for Bernie Sanders.  When you look at the pledged delegates, it’s 1701 for Hillary Clinton, 1411 for Bernie Sanders.  The pledged delegates alone should explain to you the weakness of Hillary Clinton as a candidate because you have Bernie Sanders, who was an independent his entire life . . . and already he has 1411 pledged delegates.  The super delegates are still holding tight because they can’t switch for fear of retribution from both Clintons.  But that should show you super delegates and that should show you Democratic party officials how weak your system is . . . if a man who’s principled and honest like Bernie Sanders . . . can go ahead and raise enough money to compete against you after decades . . . of both Clintons building a political machine, what does that say about you, what does that say about your political machine?  It says that you’re weak and it says that Bernie Sanders is on his way to winning a contested convention . . . the FBI doesn’t give parking tickets and they don’t care about Washington Post article headlines . . . .

    . . . Trust me, not everyone in the Democratic Party feels that Hillary Clinton is trustworthy . . . don’t even think she should be a Democrat . . . the reason she evolved was because of polls, not principle . . . .

    . . . Then there’s Lee Fang, a journalist at the Intercept . . . Mr. Fang has documented the lobbyist ties to all you wonderful super delegates, so if the 714 super delegates know what’s good for them in terms of a political future, you’re going to nominate Bernie Sanders . . .

    Goodman describes the term “honest graft” – back in the Tammany Hall days, and in other countries today, it was overt bribery, pay to play.  Nowadays, it’s not so obvious – Clinton is supposed to give money to “down ticket Democrats” but “she keeps most of the money.”  Such corruption is ever-present, and “principles and values go out the window.”

    Goodman notes that if the Democratic Party splits, the ability to “anoint” a candidate will be gone.  What he and many of us believe is that the future of the Democratic Party is “what Bernie Sanders stands for, what you should have stood for and what you gave up for political power.”  In just one example of this type of political corruption, Goodman notes that the Atlanta mayor’s op-ed was written by Clinton’s attack dog, David Brock.

    Concludes Goodman,

    The political ramifications are that you will lose your power . . . Don’t nominate somebody under FBI investigation and somebody who is going to hand Republicans eight years of the White House . . . the GOP will never, ever let her govern without continual attempts of impeachment . . . .

    I’m only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016 . . . and listen to me, because I’m telling you what will happen if Bernie Sanders is not nominee.




    • Chris 8:19 am on May 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      OK so what this Jackass is saying is that even if Hillary wins more votes and more pledged delegates, Bernie’s supporters will form a third party. Fine because you won’t have Bernie in your party he is not as much of a wack job as you are and the fact is that most of the 33% of people that say they will never vote for Hillary who are Bernie supporters will never vote for Bernie either. In fact 30% of West Virginia “Democrats” that voted for Bernie said they will vote for Trump in the general election. Fortunately there will be no contested convention because Hillary is going to win New Jersey going away and will probably win California too. Enjoy your moment in the sun as Bernie will probably win in the rest of the States that will go for Republicans any way. Your veiled threat against the super delegates of a third party is laughable because Hillary will have more pledged delegates and more votes going into the convention any way. If Bernie could show that he can add some Latinos and African Americans to his coalition he might have a ghost chance in hell of actually winning the nomination, but do date he has not been able to do that. There just aren’t enough angry white people in the country to get him over the top. Besides most of those angry white people are going to vote for Trump anyway so don’t tell us real Democrats whats good for us Jackass! You are truly clueless.

      • Basalat Raja 12:06 pm on May 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        You don’t seem to understand what a contested Convention is. Perhaps you do not yet understand what a weak candidate she is. Even if she wins all of the remaining contests, never mind just New Jersey and probably California, she can still not do so with a significant enough margin to avoid a contested Convention.
        What Bernie needed to show was that he can win over enough of the 43% of the Independents. He has done that. Mrs Clinton has lost most of the open primaries and causes, and only wins important places like New York by closing out the Independents and purging likely voters off the rolls. Beyond that, he also needs to show that he can beat Trump decisively, and he does so by about 10% points. Mrs Clinton is about even with Trump, and now he is rising. The simple fact is that if you believe in math and statistics, Bernie is the only chance the Democrat party has to gain the Presidency, the Senate, the majority of governorships and a lot of the House seats. Do they want to do that? You are saying that, no, they don’t. Maybe you are right.

    • Laurel Kornfeld 12:38 pm on May 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      David Brock masterminded a mass trolling of Bernie Sanders Facebook groups by paid writers who pretended to be Bernie supporters, joined these groups, then posted porn on them–even child porn–and complained to Facebook, leading them to be shut down. We don’t need or want this kind of trash in the White House.

    • Chris 11:33 pm on May 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      WTF?! Bernie won the Caucus in Washington state by 73 to 29 but now that the Primary votes are in it turns out Hillary wins the popular vote by 5% points. So should Hillary supporters be issuing death threats to the Democratic leaders in Washington state. No. They both play by the same rules it’s just one is a more gracious loser than the other. Votes that were purged in NY would have gone for Hillary, but don’t worry you can all vote for Trump after all we democrats are not going for your BS. Probably Bernie won’t either but he is clueless as to the true nature of his so called movement.

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 11:13 pm on May 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie in Maddow interview: DNC’s pro-Clinton deck is “outrageously” stacked against us (Video) 

    I was never a huge Rachel Maddow fan.  Used to read Steve Benen’s Maddow Blog daily, though, until his in-the-tank-for-Clinton rhetoric drove me away.  Rachel made some effort in this interview with Bernie Sanders at his Vermont home to stifle whatever pro-Clinton bias she has, though (suddenly, as a clear Clinton backer, MSNBC has the Fox problem of being forced to appear “fair and balanced”).  Of course, this is the same Rachel Maddow who mocked Bernie’s path to the nomination and told detractors where to send their hate mail, so . . . you decide, I guess.  She’s in the Clinton camp, but for the sake of “real” journalism and scoring the interview, behaved herself fairly well.

    Maddow started the interview by telling Bernie Sanders that she would have gone to Guam to meet with him – and she tended toward the respectful during the course of the interview.

    Said Bernie,

    We think we’ve got a shot in West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon, which are the next three states . . . I think we have a good chance to win California  . . . we’re going to fight as hard as we can to win the largest state in this country . . . we are going to spend a modest amount of money in West Virginia and in Kentucky on ads . . . we would like to win a majority of the remaining states.  And by the way, if we do that, it is possible that we can end up having won half of the states in this country, some 25 states . . . .

    He acknowledged that it is a very steep climb to get the pledged delegate majority, and when she asked what he’d do if he doesn’t have a pledged delegate majority after DC, he responded,

    We’re going into the convention . . . if we do not win the majority of pledged delegates . . . we will go into the convention with who knows, 45, 48, 49% of the pledged delegates . . . and if that happens we’re going to wage a very vigorous fight at the convention for a progressive agenda . . . I think we can win those fights . . . .

    Maddow mentioned his letter to the DNC in which he said he feels like he is being underrepresented, but Bernie denied that it was just a “feeling,” saying,

    . . . That is the objective fact.  I think she [Wasserman-Schultz] selected 3 of our delegates and I believe the total number is 60 there. What we want is a fair representation at the convention.  We want our people to be in a position to help shape the document of the Democratic platform and the Democratic party.  When we have 3 delegates and Clinton and the Democratic establishment have far far more than that, that is simply unfair and we don’t accept that . . . .

    As for the “or else” tone of his letter, Bernie was clear:

    We will use the rules of the Democratic convention to make certain that there is a vigorous debate on the important issues facing the American people . . . right now the deck is outrageously stacked against us . . . .

    If he doesn’t get sufficient delegates, his fight at the convention is two-pronged:

    . . . Let me say this in terms of the nomination, we’re going to try to get the majority of pledged delegates . . . but we’re also going to appeal to super delegates . . . well over 400 of the super delegates who are supporting Clinton today came on board her campaign before I was even in the race, before the first vote was cast . . . take a look at the polling, national polling . . . in virtually every instance Bernie Sanders does better against Trump than Hillary Clinton . . . you’re gonna need independents to win the general election . . . we are going to make that point to the super delegates.

    Asked whether the Democratic party should get rid of super delegates, Bernie said what many of us think – that the super delegates have too much power:

    I don’t know if you get rid of super delegates . . . I think there is a role for established people to play.  But as I mentioned a moment ago, it is absurd that you have 400 establishment Democrats on board Hillary Clinton’s campaign before anybody else was in the race . . . that stacks the deck in a very very unfair way for any establishment candidate and against the wishes of the people . . . we’re gonna think it through.  There should be a role for super delegates . . . today they have much too much power and it makes it very difficult for an insurgence campaign . . . .

    Maddow’s questions were good, and Bernie’s responses were clear and concise.

    Well, here it is – take a gander (#FeeltheBern):




  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 11:04 pm on April 22, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bernie blackout, Clinton paid internet trolls, paid Clinton operatives   

    A former paid “Internet troll” for Clinton speaks out: It was “nasty” and “left a very bad taste” (UPDATED) 

    UPDATE:  As my website partner brought to my attention, and ReverbPress and other sites have reported, there has been no verification of this Reddit post’s accuracy, no such user has come forward as the author of the piece, and the validity of it has been debunked by some sites online.  However, in the interest of transparency, I have left this post up with the above disclaimer.

    Astroturfing launched by the Clinton camp, on the other hand, IS real and is confirmed – Correct the Record, a Clinton Super PAC entity, has launched to the tune of a million dollars Barrier Breakers 2016, a digital social media pushback movement to combat Bernie Sanders supporters, and on its own website confirms that it “currently combats online political harassment, having already addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter.”      


    As she peers at the trolling of her paid minions . . . .

    As she peers at the trolling of her paid minions . . . .

    I’d like to first admit I am fairly clueless about how Reddit works – the ins and outs, sub-reddits, up-posting – but it’s an intricate system and there’s a lot of good info out there if you can navigate it.

    I stumbled on this tonight, and even though, as my husband pointed out, “This is so Clinton’esque,” it still came as a little bit of a shock that the Clinton campaign – yes, the same campaign that’s scolding Bernie Sanders for negativity, the candidate who’s playing the victim card and gender card at every stump stop – has strategically unleashed a bunch of paid trolls (the term has been upgraded by the Clinton camp into “digital media specialists”) to the tune of a cool mil onto social media with instructions to annihilate Bernie Sanders and his supporters, .

    “Confessions of a Hillary Shill” was evidently deleted, but as is the wont of all things social media, someone captured it and re-posted it.  Here’s the link and here’s the post (emphasis mine):

    Good afternoon. As of today, I am officially a former “digital media specialist” (a nice way to say “paid Internet troll”) previously employed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign (through a PR firm). I’m posting here today as a confession of sorts because I can no longer continue to participate in something that has become morally-indigestible for me. (This is a one-time throwaway account, but I’ll stick around for this thread.)

    First, my background. I am [redacted] … and first became involved in politics during the 2008 presidential race. I worked as a volunteer for Hillary during the Democratic primary and then for the Democratic Party in the general election. I was not heavily involved in the 2012 election cycle (employment issues – volunteering doesn’t pay the rent), and I wasn’t really planning on getting involved in this cycle until I was contacted by a friend from college around six months ago about working on Hillary’s campaign.

    I was skeptical at first (especially after my experience as an unpaid volunteer in 2008), but I eventually came around. The work time and payment was flexible, and I figured that I could bring in a little extra money writing about things I supported anyways. After some consideration, I emailed my resume to the campaign manager he had named, and within a week, I was in play. I don’t want to get bogged down on this subject, but I was involved with PPP (pay per post) on forums and in the comments section of (mostly-liberal) news and blog sites. Spending my time on weekends and evenings, I brought in roughly an extra $100 or so a week, which was a nice cushion for me.

    At first, the work was fun and mostly unsupervised. I posted mostly positive things about Hillary and didn’t engage in much negativity. Around the middle of July, however, I received notification that the team would be focusing not on pro-Hillary forum management, but on “mitigation” (the term our team leader used) for a Vermont senator named Bernie Sanders. I’d been out of college for several years and hadn’t heard much about Sanders, and so I decided to do some research to get a feel for him.

    To be honest, I was skeptical of what Sanders was saying at the beginning, and didn’t have much of a problem pointing out the reasons why I believed that Hillary was the better candidate. Over a period of two months, I gradually started to find Bernie appealing, even if I still disagreed with him on some issues. By September, I found myself as a closet Bernie supporter, though I still believed that Hillary was the only electable Democratic candidate.

    The real problem for me started around the end of September and the beginning of October, when there was a change of direction from the team leader again. Apparently, the higher-ups in the firm caught wind of an impending spending splurge by the Clinton campaign that month and wanted to put up an impressive display. We received very specific instructions about how and what to post, and I was aghast at what I saw. It was a complete change in tone and approach, and it was extremely nasty in character. We changed from advocates to hatchet men, and it left a very bad taste in my mouth.

    Just to give you an idea, here are some of the guidelines for our posting in October:

    1) Sexism. This was the biggest one we were supposed to push. We had to smear Bernie as misogynistic and out-of-touch with modern sensibilities. He was to be characterized as “an old white male relic that believed women enjoyed being gang raped”. Anyone who tried to object to this characterization would be repeatedly slammed as sexist until they went away or people lost interest.

    2) Racism. We were instructed to hammer home how Bernie supporters were all privileged white students that had no idea how the world worked. We had to tout Hillary’s great record with “the blacks” (yes, that’s the actual way it was phrased), and generally use racial identity politics to attack Sanders and bolster Hillary as the only unifying figure.

    3) Electability. All of those posts about how Sanders can never win and Hillary is inevitable? Some of those were us, done deliberately in an attempt to demoralize Bernie supporters and convince them to stop campaigning for him. The problem is that this was an outright fabrication and not an accurate assessment of the current political situation. But the truth didn’t matter – we were trying to create a new truth, not to spread the existing truth.

    4) Dirty tactics. This is where things got really bad. We were instructed to create narratives of Clinton supporters as being victimized by Sanders supporters, even if they were entirely fabricated. There were different instructions about how to do it, but something like this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/31/1443064/-Dis-heartened-Hillary-Supporter) is a perfect example. These kind of posts are manufactured to divide and demoralize Sanders supporters, and are entirely artificial in nature. (The same thing happened in 2008, but it wasn’t as noticeable before social media and public attention focused on popular forums like Reddit).

    5) Opponent outreach. There are several forums and imageboards where Sanders is not very popular (I think you can imagine which ones those are.) We were instructed to make pro-Sanders troll posts to rile up the user base and then try to goad them into raiding or attacking places like this subreddit. This was probably the only area where we only had mixed success, since that particular subset of the population were more difficult to manipulate than we originally thought.

    In any case, the final nail in the coffin for me happened last night. I was on an imageboard trying to rile up the Trump-supporting natives with inflammatory Bernie posting, and the sum of responses I received basically argued that at least Bernie was genuine in his belief, even if they disagreed with his positions, which made him infinitely better than the 100% amoral and power-hungry Hillary.

    I had one of those “what are you doing with your life” moments. When even the scum of 4chan think that your candidate is too scummy for their tastes, you need to take a good hard look at your life. Then this morning I read that the National Association of Broadcasters were bankrolling both Clinton and Rubio, and that broke the camel’s back. I emailed my resignation this morning.

    I’m going to go all in for Bernie now, because I truly believe that the Democratic Party has lost its way, and that redemption can only come by standing for something right and not by compromising for false promises and fake ideals. I want to apologize to everyone here for my part in this nasty affair, and I hope you will be more aware of attempts to sway you away from supporting the only candidate that can bring us what we need.

    What this former Clinton hit-person didn’t mention was how fervently the mainstream media bought into all of the above, and how fervently the Democratic establishment did as well.  It’s no coincidence that we saw calls for Bernie to drop out after Super Tuesday; after Arizona; after New York; and the mainstream media and Dem operatives are again scolding Bernie for his “tone,” accusing him of party disloyalty and calling on him to back off his criticism of Clinton because the complete truth of what he says about this horribly flawed, unlikable candidate is frustrating them beyond belief because he’s risking “party unity” in the fall.  His “attacks” on her, they say, could weaken her as a candidate in the general election.  Memo to Every-Fucking-Body:  We, his supporters, are absolutely not conceding she will be the nominee in the general election, and neither is Bernie Sanders.  We will fight to the convention; whatever “party unity” they’re trying to convince us exists is only on behalf of their chosen candidate, not our chosen candidate.

    When Clinton higher-ups say, in no uncertain terms, “fuck Bernie,” they effectively solidify the resistance of, oh, about 4 million Bernie supporters and registered voters to never vote for Clinton.  So note the above, the pay-to-play operatives of the Clinton camp – but remember one thing:  Bernie doesn’t have to pay a million dollars to get people on social media to tout his record and defend him from biased attacks.  We do it for free – in fact, we pay him.  $27.00.


    • James Myers 7:41 am on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Let’s not forget that it is unprecedented to have a Democratic frontrunner under criminal investigation by the FBI in the middle of a primary season: if news breaks on this front it could shake up the entire race and change normal superdelegate behavior.

      BUT…..If Sanders conveniently steps aside,
      and then the FBI announces criminal proceedings against HRC?
      …..The way will be cleared for Obama to issue a preemptive pardon…..

      Maybe that’s what these calls for Sander’s premature withdrawal are really all about.

      • Josh Greenberg 4:04 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        1) She’s not under a criminal investigation.
        2) There is no such thing as a preemptive pardon. That subverts due process.
        Please go learn something.

        • DK 7:42 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          LOL WTG Josh!

        • Ashley 8:26 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          You are actually delusional if you think she’s not under criminal investigation. President Obama literally called it an FBI investigation and said he wouldn’t let politics dictate the outcome.

        • Robert Goldberg 1:18 am on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          You mean like the pre-emptive pardon Ford didn’t issue for Nixon? Please go learn something before you tell people to go learn something.

        • Kevin O'Keeffe 1:13 pm on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          She IS under criminal investigation. I don’t know whether you’re a liar, or a fool, but its difficult to imagine a third scenario. President Obama has discussed the investigation himself, for crying out loud!

        • Faceless Commenter 12:43 pm on May 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          1) If Hillary isn’t under a criminal investigation, someone else is. That thing the FBI is doing is not a routine “security review.”

          2) There IS such a thing as a preemptive pardon. That’s exactly what Jerry Ford gave to Richard Nixon. Look it up.

        • Mtbwalt 10:04 pm on May 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          What kind of investigation are the 100+ FBI agents conducting?

          A courtesy review, perhaps? An academic analysis for suitable publication in the Federal Register?

          Negligent breaches of confidential government information are indeed a criminal issue. The computer guy who set it up for her has been GRANTED IMMUNITY. Sounds like a criminal investigation to me.

    • joshua 10:52 am on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      You should write an article about how Hillary’s corruption can bring American unity as opposed to party unity if Hillary steals this election we already have lot of people dedicated to #BernieorBust. We will assemble and March on the DNC followed by Washington on July 28. Her corruption has created a bad taste just in the mouths of many democrats, republicans, and independents. If she steals this you could see people stop letting invisible party lines separating each other exist and we will all unite against a common enemy, because no matter your party affiliation, global elite are against the 99%

    • Rich McGinnis 11:03 am on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you for Honesty of what was suspected.

    • Doc Darlin 11:45 am on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      #BernieOrBust supporters are now overrunning the CTR facebook page unopposed. I guess the $1M didn’t buy admins, or there’s some kind of agenda at work (#EnemiesList ?) Anyway, just a heads up, it looks like it would be an interesting follow-up story.
      #OccupyCorrectTheRecord #OccupyCTR

    • Leo 1:36 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I had this conversation with my friend last night. He said what are you doing? Cause I was scrutinizing my computer. I was in a conversation about phone banking in Bernie Believers. And I go, “I”m trying to figure out if this is a hillary troll.” He goes ,”What do you mean.” And I say, “Well, Hillarys campaign pays people to infiltrate social media.” He says, “Dang this is getting nasty.” He’s a Bernie supporter by proxy of knowing me 😛 And I said, “Yeah it’s kinda sad that she has to pay people to support her on social media. Bernie has an army that will do it for free.”

    • Andy 2:56 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Never voting for that witch Clinton. If Bernie doesn’t win we blew are last chance to take our lives back. Clinton or trump is the end of us. Maybe we are too dumb to have a good president. Too many people don’t know how to critical think or are too lazy to even look anything up. The bought out media loves spoon feeding their advertising to us.

    • Dr. Syn 2:56 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I love how you assume all of this is true.
      Could be a very clever fiction. That’s the problem with anonymous postings found online.

      • Dr. Syn 2:57 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Also, if you don’t think the St. Bernie is also doing some underhanded shit in order to win, then you don’t know politics.

        • Steve Magruder 8:46 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Evidence of “underhanded shit” by “St. Bernie” please.

          • DK 7:45 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

            Illegal campaign contributions for once. Check out USA Today. https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/bernie-sanders-pac-hit-with-fec-violations-again/

            • Bastet 4:52 pm on April 26, 2016 Permalink

              That’s kind of funny….a $hilary supporter questioning Bernie’s campaign contributions. Good laugh.

            • Joe 11:09 pm on May 1, 2016 Permalink

              First: Bernie 2016 is not a “PAC allied with Bernie Sanders”, it is a principle campaign committee of a candidate. They are totally different kinds of political committees, with different reporting requirements and different contribution limits.

              Second: Bernie 2016 was not “hit with violations”. The letter from the FEC is an RFAI – “request for additional information”; which is exactly what it is. The letter is produced by the Reports Analysis Division, which does preliminary reviews of reports and asks questions. This is not even an enforcement matter, and as long as Bernie 2016 takes appropriate action in response, it won’t be.

              Third: The preponderance of itemized contributions “$250, $500, $1000 and more” is because only donors with aggregate contributions over $200 are itemized. This is also why Bernie 2016 had $23 mil in unitemized contributions; they fall below the reporting threshold.

              Fourth: “Under campaign finance laws, individuals are allowed to contribute a maximum of $2700 per election year” is a nonsensical statement relative to election law. There is no “election year”. For presidential fundraising; there is a 4 year election cycle. Within that cycle, there is a primary election and a general election to which the $2,700 cap is applied separately. So an individual could give a total of $5,400 total to the campaign committee per cycle. A campaign can accept general election campaign funds prior to the general, but when Bernie loses, he will have to refund general election contributions (this is one reason why many failed presidential campaigns have millions in campaign debt).

              Inaccuracies of the author aside, the RFAI identifies extremely common issues, and pretty innocuous. Excessive contributions are 1) common among campaigns, 2) almost impossible to prevent with even hundreds of donors to track and 3) easily remedied via refund or reattribution. There is no issue if the Committee takes action within a statutory period of time (30 or 60 days, I forget). My guess is that the Committee already has refunded many of these prior to the RFAI, but the refunds fall into the next reporting period.

      • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

        Julie Driscoll 8:15 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        If you notice, I didn’t say one way or another if it were true. HOWEVER, given that it’s a fact that the Clinton camp is spending a mil on pushback on social media, it has a more likely probability of being true than not.

    • Anne 3:58 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Wow, No instead of saying you had to change your mind on an issue to get votes, but you’re actually lying out your bleep…to get them…candidates can say they have “evolved” on an issue…How Hip…How with it…How much bullbleep do they think we can swallow?…I’m up to my ears already…

    • indienyc 6:56 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      That troll who claimed to be a Hillary troll was debunked last year. It’s FAKE people!

      • k 3:22 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply


      • Steve Magruder 8:47 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Link to the debunking please.

      • Richard Mead 1:11 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        cool story any way 🙂

      • Mtbwalt 10:05 pm on May 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        indeinyc, nice work, have you gotten your $100 check yet?

    • Chris 7:57 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      And who is this so called Clinton Hit Person? Has he/she come forward to show that they even exist? Is there ANY evidence that this is not just another pile of steaming horseshit dished up by the anti Hillary People because nobody is paying me to respond to this crap and you can clearly see who I am so if you want to come after me and slander me go ahead nobody is paying me nothing. Hey don’t get me wrong I like Bernie fine but just think Hillary is better. I just don’t understand why every time I stand up for her I face personal attacks like the kind I would expect from right wing internet trolls, not fellow Democrats. But if you think this BS is helping Bernie keep telling yourself that. Oh and BTW the voters that were purged in Brooklyn and other parts of the City would more than likely have voted similarly to the other voters in those areas which went for Clinton by a margin of 20 points. Unless of course you would like us to believe that Hillary’s evil elves went and interviewed all 120,000 of them before they were purged to make sure the were Bernie supporters.

      • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

        Julie Driscoll 8:17 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        What’s your proof it’s NOT? You can’t deny the Hillary camp is spending $1 mil for social media pushback against Bernie – hell, they’re bragging about the 5000 Bernie supporters they slayed. So why is THIS hard to believe?

        • Zet Subo 11:01 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Uh… Aren’t you forgetting someone else who might want to see democrats fight among each other? pretty cheap way to sow discord

        • Kyle 2:42 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          “What’s your proof it’s NOT?”

          I don’t know if you’re an idiot or a troll, but that fallacy destroyed your credibility.

        • DK 7:49 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Julie, you don’t realize that Bernie’s campaign is spending millions on “digital internet media?” BOTH Bernie and Hillary’s campaigns learned it from the Obama campaign of 2008, i imagine.

        • Chris 10:36 am on May 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          So you obviously have proof that Bernie isn’t doing the same thing.
          Also it’s a bit rich for someone that is obviously an internet blogger and submits regularly to on line magazines such as LA Progressive that it’s Hillary that has the internet trolls working for her. Is LA Progressive non profit? It doesn’t really say on their site but then again they are actively selling advertising at 300$ bucks a pop monthly so it’s all good for you guys but god forbid us Hillary supporters would actually try to respond to your tirades. BTW Bernie is going to win the next few states so that should make you feel better after all he does quite well where there is nothing but angry white people that are going to vote republican anyway. When Bernie shows that he can appeal to some Hispanics and African Americans may be he can get a few super delegates to come his way but so far he hasn’t.

      • Kerry 12:33 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Chris, I am always interested in why people like Hillary better than Clinton. Explain how her position on making college education more affordable is better than Bernie’s and as I can’t find a place that explains how she wants to pay for it can you explain that as well? And then maybe you can tell me Bernie’s position and how he is going to pay for it.

        • Kerry 12:35 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Whoops, I meant better than Bernie of course and I can’t find an edit here.

      • Steve Magruder 8:52 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Of course, I could go on about how Hillary is a neocon warmonger and Bernie is not, that Hillary is a neoliberal corporate centrist and Bernie is a Keynesian progressive populist, and… well you know the drill. On just about every issue, Bernie’s full background and positions exceed Hillary’s. If you want to believe Hillary’s current positions after her Olympian-grade flip-flops from her real positions, go ahead and vote for that. Real progressives have a conscience and will not for vote for her. Ever.

        • DK 7:53 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Steve, I like Bernie and will vote for him if he is the nominee. That’s what we do to make sure a Republican does not win the White House. That would be a worse thing than for Hillary Clinton to be your president.

      • Richard Mead 1:10 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        just assume it’s true in good faith. Unless you know something about this guy personally?

      • Rob 2:12 am on April 26, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        “I just don’t understand why every time I stand up for her I face personal attacks like the kind I would expect from right wing internet trolls, not fellow Democrats.” Think of it this way. You’re in an apartment building that is on fire. It’s the middle of the night and most of the tenants are asleep. You start running down the hallways, banging on doors to wake people up. Someone opens the door and says, “What the hell is going on?” You reply, “The building is on fire! You need to get out now or you’re going to die!” The person in the doorway stares at you blankly and says, “Do you have any proof that the building is on fire? This building has never caught fire before. I don’t hear any sirens. There’s nothing about it on the news. Why are you yelling at me?” And you say, “Because I’m trying to save your damn LIFE, you fool!” Inside you can see children behind the person in the doorway, rubbing the sleep out of their eyes. “Stop it! You’re scaring my kids! Leave us alone!” They slam the door in your face. Meanwhile, smoke is starting to seep through the cracks in the doorway and you can feel the heat rising from below. Imagine how helpless you’d feel. What would you do? That’s what it feels like to be a Bernie supporter in this primary. I had a friend who is a Hillary supporter say to me on Facebook, “I hope we can still be friends after this silly primary is over”. I was like, “SILLY PRIMARY???” Are you kidding me? This is the most important presidential election of our lifetimes! Our planet is choking to death on fossil fuel, our black and brown brothers and sisters are being murdered and locked up by systemic racism, Martin Shkreli is laughing all the way to the bank while sick people are dying because they can’t afford to buy his medicine for $750 a pill, meanwhile, our politicians from coast to coast are too drunk on money and power to do anything about it. So if it seems like we’re a little upset, it’s because we ARE! This is not a “silly primary”. The building is on fire and if we don’t wake up and put it out right now, we’re not going to make it out alive. You can choose to close the door on that reality if you want. But I’m going to keep on banging and sounding the alarm because that’s how important this is.

      • Mtbwalt 10:06 pm on May 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Chris if you are being PPP (paid per post) you need to shorten them down. Think, man, think!

        • Chris 10:58 am on May 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Nobody is paying me shit! The question is who is paying Julie Driscoll? BTW it looks like Rob is the one that needs to think man! His post is like four times as long as mine. The idea that internet trolls are favoring HRC is the biggest pile of BS I’ve ever seen. It’s quite clear that the trollls are mostly in Bernie’s camp. You know like you and 90% of the people that have responded to Ms Dricolls little tirade here.

    • Thomas 9:51 pm on April 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      “I hope you will be more aware of attempts to sway you away from supporting the only candidate that can bring us what we need.”. Of course I am – I am clearly smarter than you.

    • Kara 5:35 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply


    • Angie 8:28 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      What a bunch of hogwash. If anything this is just another Sanders troll…..bunch of arrogant followers thinking they know it all. This was so fake.

    • Joye 9:05 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Not new practice, This has been a common practice by BOTH parties before the internet. Public records research for scandelous purposes was a job pre-election and many… many marketing students interned doing it… it has always been this way…. it is how dirty politics earned the name.

    • Ana 9:47 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Where’s the link debunking the article then?

      • Hamelo 6:36 pm on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        How much did you get payed for that post?

    • john lehnert 11:41 am on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Regardless of how true any of this may be, anonymous reports, especially those containing psychological manipulation, deserve the most skepticism.

    • Richard Mead 1:08 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I’d add “Ya dumb shits” to the last sentence.

    • Debbie 3:15 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      ” Apparently, the higher-ups in the firm caught wind of an impending spending splurge by the Clinton campaign that month and wanted to put up an impressive display. We received very specific instructions about how and what to post, and I was aghast at what I saw. It was a complete change in tone and approach, and it was extremely nasty in character. We changed from advocates to hatchet men, and it left a very bad taste in my mouth.”
      Sounds like the PR firm made the decision to do this to line their pockets. Not directly from campaign.

      • franklin judah 3:56 pm on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        yep it does , but if u had too, where would u put ur money ? thankyou very much, its all a big shame and I grew up being tought how great my country was only to find out we are no different.

    • Mary 3:52 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      If I may ask, how much are you few Hillary supporters here being paid per hour by her? Are you getting benefits? We love America, we love freedom and democracy and we Love Bernie! We watch and listen carefully and actually PAY BERNIE TO FIGHT FOR US. So before you make many other paid posts on behalf of Hillary, realize we can detect similar wording and writing styles on various sites and I’d like to ask 2 of you here: please don’t muck up our America’s future to get a small income from Hillary. Join us! We’ll get you respectable jobs.
      JUST SAY NO TO MONICA’S EX-Boyfriend’s WIFE IN 2016. We need real leadership now. Thank you.

      • Chris 12:11 pm on May 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Nothing. You are just condescending and that is what i was saying before. It may be that you Bernie supporters are more passionate about your hate for Hillary than you are for your love of Bernie. If that is the case then i am sorry for you. BTW Monica’s Ex-boyfriend was president when 23 million new private sector jobs were created as well as new innovative technologies like……the internet ,so I guess that must have just been another Clinton conspiracy to allow her evil trolls to help the hegemonic monsters exert their influence. The 500m billion dollar budget surplus which we had when Bill Clinton left the white house was also clearly a mistake since they never wanted to help anybody but themselves.

    • Marlene 4:05 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I’m just mortified that Hillary supporters know nothing at all of her background, her history and support this evil conniving blood-stained creature without that.
      America you will get the candidate you well deserve.

    • Tosi 5:03 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Why does every damn thing have to be prevaricated if its in the public eye – because it is.

    • Talya Bass 5:05 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      At this point $hillary is the ugly kid the DNC has to tie pork chops too for the dog to play with her…no thanks we don’t want any #uniteforBernie

    • sam bass 5:13 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I wonder if a wave election which destroys these right wing trolls will shut the bastards up. I’m paying attention to see how they react. They’re nasty nazis. Trump is an appropriate fuher for them. What fun.

    • Angie 7:19 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Nutcase. Let’s think about it. If anyone is being payed to post here, it is likely the rabid BS followers…the kool-aid drinkers. You might pay attention to the fact that Hillary has more pledged delegates, more popular votes, and will be the Democratic nominee. He would be the person most in need of drumming up the illusion of greater support.

      Bernie has done a lot to being attention to important progressive ideas to the party. Nice job Bernie. Now move on over.

      • Hamelo 6:38 pm on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        vacuous comment, paid Hillary staffer

      • Mary 11:01 am on April 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        1. Every Bernie supporter I know is not rabid, and if we are drinking kool-aid it’s because its awesome.
        2. Hillary Clinton only has more DEMOCRATIC popular votes. If primaries were OPEN in all states, Bernie would be beating Hillary because he has more INDEPENDENT voters supporting him. Oh, and guess what – independents now are the largest voter segment in America. So don’t be duped into thinking Hillary would get more popular votes than Bernie in a presidential election.
        3. So, no, actually he doesn’t need us to drum up the illusion of support. I can tell by your comment that you don’t really do much research, you probably just listen to corporate media (which favors HRC because of $$$$).
        4. “Bernie has done a lot to being attention to important progressive ideas to the party.” – Maybe you should check your grammar before posting because that sentence makes absolutely no sense. What I think you are saying is that Bernie has done a lot to bring important progressive issues to the forefront of the democratic debates and this race. It’s a shame Hillary supporters have their blinders on and can’t see that she has switched most of her positions in order to pander to voters, because if you think that Hillary shares the same personal convictions as Bernie, I honestly pity you.
        5. If you haven’t been able to see the corruption of the Clinton machine by now, I have little hope you will. Whether this story is fact or fiction, there is truth behind social media strategy. If you don’t believe that they have people working for the campaign that are using negative tactics online to try and shut down the Bernie campaign then you don’t understand politics.

    • Scott 7:49 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Nixon was pardoned by Ford.

      Note also that Biden is in the background also. The last thing the billionaire backed Democratic Party want is their nominated candidate to be is anti-establishment, anti-billionaire.

    • Scott 7:52 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Progressive ideals? You mean like standing against trickle down economics, corporations rights superseding the rights of the individual, Wall Street over main street, the expansion of war through more US military interventions that enrich those corporations that are involved in the military complex, the removal of a democratically elected leader so that US businesses can benefit? Those are all positions that Hillary stand for.

    • Dan mazzoli 8:36 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      When someone puts something like this out there anonymously it can only mean that it is fake
      If I was this person who allegedly worked for any campaign and was told to do this crap I would save all the evidence I had and go public
      If it real there is proof
      I am a dem. I am not supporting Hilary unless she gets the nominee but please give me the proof for all I know this is a fox news brain dead trolbot

    • Em Hess 9:50 pm on April 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      This is such a load of hooey. I am not employed as a troll by either camp and do support Hillary. Anytime I post anything positive I am attacked, called troll, delusional among other names… I would like to know who paid this person to write this piece of tripe? Because while there are ignorant people on both sides, it is the Sanders supporters who constantly attack Hillary supporters.

    • Emunahnoa 5:01 am on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      If you’re really feeling remorseful, you should donate all of the income you received from being a troll to the Sanders campaign. It would be the right thing to do.

    • Kevin O'Keeffe 1:11 pm on April 25, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      In the event Hillary is the nominee (and tragically, I think that issue was decided at the time of the New York state primary), I invite Bernie supporters to support Donald Trump’s general election campaign. Yes, obviously there are many issues with which you disagree with Trump, but is not the same true of Hillary? And at least Trump gives some sort of a damn about the ordinary American people, whereas Hillary only cares about Wall Street, and the military-industrial complex. Hillary says she opposes TPP, but she was one of its principal negotiators, and surely everyone with half a brain knows she’ll change her mind on Inauguration Day. Trump actually does oppose the TPP, and while he’s not as focused on the issue of income inequality as Bernie, he actually wants to enact some policies that are anathema to the Wall Street crowd. He will shake things up. Hillary will just double-down on more wars, and more catering to the multinational corporate gangster class. Frankly, I find it odd that any Bernie supporter would even consider voting for Hillary in the general election, but I know that crossing the blue-to-red line, as it were, can be a very difficult step to take. And most years, I wouldn’t bother suggesting you do it. But this year, it makes sense. Hillary is unambiguously evil, and Trump (while sometimes acting like a bit of a boor, I freely admit), does possess some modicum of Humanity. It should be any easy choice to make.

      And let’s be honest – won’t it be positively delightful, to deny that mean, lying, horrible old woman the Presidency? You know you want to! And there’s only one candidate who can beat her in November.

      • Chris 11:11 am on May 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Nice try Kevin but Bernie’s supporters aren’t that stupid. Oh and BTW if you want to save some Manufacturing Jobs Trump style get ready to pay double for everything you buy at Wallmart or anywhere else for that matter. From your tone I’m guessing that you really dig Wallmart.

    • Len 5:41 am on April 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I like Bernie Sanders because he never has to appear in a Fire Retardant Double Knit Pants suit to speak publicly.

    • Ehnyah 7:47 am on May 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      They all hire digital do gooders. Just so this post isn’t attacked as partisan, I will point to a man serving jailtime in another country who has been hired globally for this kind of stuff. Well worth the read just to get a sense of how deep these guys go. Fake websites, click farmers, astroturfing, phone hacking, etc.

      No true believer really wants to know about their own candidate, but they all hire digital gurus who promise to deliver…bernie, cruz, trump, hillary, rubio, all of them.

      The article below, is about none of them, so you won’t turn into a pumpkin if you read it. 🙂


      How to Hack an Election

      Andrés Sepúlveda rigged elections throughout Latin America for almost a decade. He tells his story for the first time.


    • Pro-Trump German 12:35 am on May 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Bernie Sanders should run a campaign as an independent candidate, even if it’s just to prevent Hillary Clinton from taking the White House.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Skip to toolbar