Recent Updates Page 2 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • 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 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.


  • 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  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.

  • 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):




  • 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 ( 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.

            • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  • Julie Driscoll 9:31 pm on April 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bernie superdelegates, Clinton superdelegates, Superdelegate List   

    Clinton groupies are gloating about locking in even more unearned superdelegates 


    Okay, y’all – here’s how this goes:  Since Clinton and her supporters are clearly not interested in democracy or fairness (after all, as noted here, many superdelegates cling to Clinton even in states where Bernie creamed her), and are gloating about the 33 superdelegates Clinton has recently picked up, then they surely won’t mind if Bernie goes to the convention and does his level best to flip those same folks to his column.  Of course, that’s not exactly how the Clinton camp sees it:  They call it not playing fair, a threat to “party loyalty,” that Sanders will destroy the party if he takes his fight to the convention, that those are her superdelegates and he better not try to “poach” them, that, according to Clinton’s campaign manager, Sanders must decide if he wants to “make casualties” of Clinton and the Democratic Party.  Shit, the party is already a casualty – a casualty of Clinton greed and avarice and ambition and a ruthless single-minded quest to win, at whatever cost.  If anyone has cost the party loyalty and support – and money – it’s been Clinton and her campaign, her dirty campaigning followed by a wide-eyed “who me” when busted.

    As we noted earlier tonight, the Clinton camp isn’t concerned a whit with “party unity” – they just want the legions of Bernie Sanders supporters to support her, and the sooner the better.  They’re furious and frustrated that Bernie isn’t going to run out of money and isn’t going to run out of loyal supporters and she’s drowning in negative poll ratings and he gets 25000 at rallies when she’s lucky to get 250.

    So they want to snatch all the superdelegates, regardless of how these supers’ states voted – okay by me.  Just don’t be surprised at the convention when Bernie and his people run a full court press on elected officials who kind of depend on millions of voters to keep their jobs – voters who are with Bernie and have an enormous amount of clout via social media and grassroots activism.  When superdelegates ignore the voting power of their states and vote for the candidate who better greases their palms, they in actuality are permitted to cast two votes in the primary.  Call us crazy, but we don’t think that’s a good look.

    I ask you this:  What has the DNC or the Democratic Party done for Bernie lately that would encourage him to abandon his supporters and his progressive ideals to lend a hand to an over-the-hill hack whose list of accomplishments inure only to her own benefit?  Here’s the real talk on this:  Establishment Dems have done nothing to support Bernie Sanders, and will continue to try to drive him out of the race.  Game’s on, and all bets are off.




  • Julie Driscoll 7:29 pm on April 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    So much for Clinton party unity: Senior aide says Sanders should tone it down or “fuck him” 


    Axelrod Unity

    Well, David, it appears that “destructive” was just a very mild way of saying what Clinton & Co. actually thought:  Fuck party unity.  An “anonymous” Clinton senior aide was a little more blunt – and did quite a bit more damage to that whole “party unity” thingy they pretend to be working on (and this from the same people who told Bernie to “watch his tone” or they wouldn’t agree to a New York debate).  As reported by TalkingPointsMemo:

    Reflecting on Clinton’s double-digit victory, the anonymous senior aide told Politico: ‘We kicked ass tonight . . . I hope this convinces Bernie to tone it down. If not, fuck him.’

    Well, Clinton, stay classy (and this from the people who condemn Bernie supporters as rough and tumble thugs and street brawlers).  The Clinton camp may be gloating today after her New York win, but there are still quite a few roadblocks ahead.  Let’s start with the obvious one:  That a New York win in this election cycle doesn’t mean a hell of a lot, considering the voter purging, voter irregularities, voting locations opening hours late, voting locations changed without notice, and a lawsuit filed against the Board of Elections that the judge is permitting to go forward.  There were just a host of things that got our spidey senses tingling.  As Ben Norton at Salon reported,

    Sanders won the vast majority of New York state, but Clinton won the densely populated urban areas, particularly New York City. In Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, the candidates were neck-and-neck, but Clinton pulled just ahead.  Voting day was plagued with enormous problems, leading to widespread accusations of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.

    Since last fall, the New York Board of Elections mysteriously purged more than 125,000 Brooklyn Democrats from the voting records without their knowledge.  Mayor Bill de Blasio acknowledged that there had been ‘purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists.’  The New York City watchdog, Comptroller Scott Stringer, said all of this happened ‘without any adequate explanation furnished by the Board of Elections.’

    There were also countless reports that residents were given wrong voting information, people were sent to wrong polling locations, voters were forced to fill out affidavit ballots that may not count, poll workers did not know how to operate the voting machines and voting machines were broken.

    So yeah, I wish Bernie had won New York – but given Clinton’s iron grip on the establishment, her old boy network in New York, and her willingness to play fast and loose to win, I’m more angry than sad today.  And Clinton, despite calls for unity in her victory speech, isn’t likely to practice what she preaches.  What “unity” means to her is control of Bernie Sanders’ supporters, and their millions of $27 donations.  What “unity” means to her is for Sanders to bow out, hand his people over to her, and let her take a nice little stroll to the nomination.  What “unity” means to her is for Bernie Sanders to quit contrasting their astonishingly polar opposite visions for America and quit making quite so much noise to quite so many people about her many, many flaws and vulnerabilities as a candidate.

    “Unity” my ass.  That’s about as real as the hot sauce in her bag.  Or her contrived southern accent when talking to black voters.  Or playing dominoes in Harlem.  Or caring about Flint, Michigan, water victims until she lost the state.  But Bernie’s not bowing out and he’s not going to be encouraging his supporters to support Clinton – because for one thing, we won’t, and for another, he knows she’s bad for this country.  As Lucia Graves over at The Guardian noted (in a snarky kind of “I’mwithher” way that I’ll ignore, because she makes some points I’ll address in a moment),

    . . . [H]e’s not ready to give up on his revolution because as soon as he throws his support behind Clinton, the movement he’s fought for is over.

    So instead, he’s blasting out statements about winning through adversity. He’s decrying the politics of closed primaries and talking up his chances in the upcoming primaries of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland. He’s unleashing his campaign manager on national television, to say things like that they’ll fight all the way to the Democratic convention in July, working to flip superdelegates rather than unite behind the Democratic nominee.

    These are not the noises of a man or campaign preparing for a hearty and imminent embrace of Hillary Clinton . . . Clinton has been desperately trying to pivot toward the general, but at this critical juncture anyway, Sanders seems utterly unconcerned with helping her do that. And while it may be a bad look for Democrats, that’s hardly been Sanders’ concern. Until he ran for president, he wasn’t even a Democrat. In fact, throwing her his support would be at odds with the ideological purity he stands for.  Sanders prefers not to get nasty, but he’ll go there to defend his revolution . . . Some would argue he’s already been heard. That he’s already pushed Clinton left on everything from Keystone to trade policy and the minimum wage. That he’s already helped fire up a grassroots movement that will continue to push for his message long after he’s ceased to be a viable candidate. But Sanders still isn’t satisfied. It’s part of his charm, and also, why he’s so dangerous for Clinton and the party – he’ll never, ever be satisfied.  He’s a good revolutionary that way.

    Here’s the thing:  Ms. Graves can mock Bernie’s revolutionary ideas all she wants, but she’s right on that Bernie doesn’t care about being a loyal Dem (what have they done for him lately?) and isn’t eating humble pie because of the loss of one state. All the blows that Clinton has aimed at Bernie have not landed because we don’t care that he’s not a Democrat – most of his supporters feel strongly that the Democratic Party has abandoned us, we embrace his “ideals” as the only way to aim high and get anywhere close to what this country needs, and we reject the establishment as something out of the old politico days where back rooms were filled with cigar smoke and deals were cut by 1%’ers without voter input – a place Clinton would feel right at home.  As Ben Norton at Salon wrote, Hillary Clinton represents the very worst of the Democratic Party:

    A new strategy has emerged in the Hillary Clinton camp: No longer even try to match Bernie Sanders’ left-wing politics — which the Wall Street-backed multimillionaire war hawk Clinton is fundamentally incapable of doing. Instead, appeal to authority and accuse the democratic socialist of disloyalty to the corrupt Democratic Party.

    Clinton’s campaign did just that this week, condemning Sanders for ‘trying to convince the next generation of progressives that the Democratic Party is corrupt.’  The notion that Sanders had to try to convince progressives of this in the first place is ludicrous. The warmongering, corporate-funded, pro-privatization Democratic Party leadership has long made it loud and clear that it is thoroughly corrupt and reactionary.  Yet Clinton and her supporters happen to be correct about one thing; they are just right for the wrong reasons.  Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. And this is a good thing.  What the Clinton camp appears to be incapable of understanding is that the Democratic Party is less and less popular among progressive Americans.

    And while Amanda Terkel and Sam Stein over at HuffPo would love to think that Bernie Sanders’ plan to capture superdelegates at the convention by convincing them he’s the stronger candidate will put his “progressive” voter base in a bind, that’s about as valid as saying Bernie was finished after Super Tuesday.  We’re not a “progressive” voter base, by common definition.  We are millions who want to see the status quo overturned, the establishment and everyone in it busted apart, the Democratic machine grinding to a halt, and the people who run all that and who benefit from all that driven out of town.  The HuffPo article implied that Sanders supporters are hypocrites – on the one hand saying that the superdelegates should support the winning candidate, and on the other saying that if Bernie can convince them to flip at the convention, even if he’s not winning in pledged delegates or popular vote, good for him.  It’s not a contrary position.  We know the system is rigged – against him.  We know Clinton had hundreds of superdelegates locked up the minute she declared, if not before.  We know that the DNC and mainstream media has done everything in its power to diminish Bernie Sanders as a candidate, and we know that Clinton and her groupies have worked hard to make sure he doesn’t get any benefit of what the establishment Dems offer her.  We know that, even in states he’s won by a landslide, superdelegates still cling to Clinton.  Given all that, we don’t care if he rocks the boat at the convention.  We want him to rock the boat at the convention.  We want him to make her sweat every second until July.  We want him to put pressure on the superdelegates who ignore their states’ voters and are in the bag for her regardless.  We don’t care if it sounds unfair, because there is nothing fair about this cycle and there has been nothing fair about the way Bernie Sanders has been treated by the Democratic establishment, from undermining his civil rights record to accusing him of all manner of dishonest and offensive policy positions (like supporting vigilantes).  We don’t care what the establishment thinks.  We want him in, we want her gone, and that’s the long and short of it.

    Millions of us won’t support her in the general if she gets the nomination – and no, we won’t budge.  Millions of us are no longer feeling any loyalty to the Democratic Party – and no, it’s not just “spoiled, petulant millennials.”  Millions of us are no longer willing to vote for the lesser evil out of party loyalty – we don’t have any.

    So let Clinton’s camp muddle about, courting Bernie supporters with one hand and insulting with the other.  We don’t care about that either.  We’re Bernie or Bust, and the verbal blows are just fly specks to him and to his legions of full-throated supporters.

  • Julie Driscoll 10:19 pm on April 16, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Clintons gave $15 mil to charity since ’07 – $14.8 mil went to the Clinton Foundation 

    2013 Clinton Foundation

    Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane released their 2014 tax returns today.  No sweet investments, no stocks, a couple of hundred thousand in income, the usual this and that for a family making a comfortable but not high-end living.  They gave $8,350 to charity.

    In the same USA Today story, I read about the Clintons’ tax returns:

    . . . They show the couple earned just over $28 million in 2014 and $27 million in 2013, more than double the $13 million they earned in 2010, when she was still serving as secretary of state. The 2014 total included $10.5 million in speaking fees for Hillary Clinton, $9.8 million in speaking fees for the former president, and $6.4 million he earned from ‘consulting.’

    In a statement, Hillary Clinton noted the family had given $15 million to charity since 2007. The tax returns show $14.8 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation . . . .

    What?  I mean, there are rescue shelters for pets to donate to, foundations for missing children, there’s pretty much a charity for everything.  But these people – they took their “charitable donation” out of one pocket and put it in the other.

    There’s a lot to talk about with the Clinton Foundation, but here’s a quick sum-up from in August 2015:

    While the Clintons do not receive direct compensation from the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, they do benefit from travel, and many of their longtime aides have served on its payroll.

    The foundation has come under fire for its unusual structure. Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its ‘Watch List’ earlier this year because it said the organization did not meet its criteria due to its ‘atypical business model.’

    The group is also under review from the Better Business Bureau, after failing to meet its transparency standards in the past.

    The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation was put on the Charity Navigator’s Watch List, designed to warn potential donors about the charity, but was later removed.  But as the Washington Post noted,

    Even so, the Clinton Foundation’s ranking on the list served as a black eye on the time, coming in the weeks just after Hillary Clinton announced she was stepping down from the charity’s board to run for president. Increased scrutiny showed overlaps between Bill and Hillary Clinton’s personal and political supporters and donors to the charity. In addition, The Washington Post revealed in February that the foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that came in violation of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.

    Does it ever end with these people?  Hillary Clinton is running for President – President! – and yet there are email servers in the basement leading to an FBI investigation, Wall Street speech transcripts that she absolutely refuses to release, the Clintons giving the lion’s share of their charitable donations to their own foundation which directly or indirectly benefits them, Hillary Clinton ties to the Panama Papers.  This resume would keep you from getting a job interview at Macy’s, let alone qualify you to be President of the United States.

    This is just crazy, unbelievably crazy, that she seriously thinks she can be President and that her supporters don’t seem to care about all this garbage they have to step gingerly around.


  • Julie Driscoll 9:54 pm on April 16, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    George Clooney agrees Clinton’s $350,000+ fundraiser is an “obscene” amount of money 


    There’s not much I can add to this.  In an interview with Chuck Todd, scheduled to air on Meet the Press on Sunday, George Clooney agreed that the amount of money involved in this fundraiser, and politics in general, is, as Bernie Sanders noted, “obscene”:

    The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right.  It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely . . . Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money . . . I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money.

    While this statement put George Clooney squarely back in the “good guy” category in my mind, the question remains:  Then why?  If it’s obscene – and it truly is – then maybe the better bet is to join forces with the guy next door, Howard Gold, whose family founded the 99 Cents Only store chain, who’s hosting the “99% Party” for Bernie Sanders, with tickets going for, yes, $27 each.  It would seem that, if you truly feel sad about the obscene amounts of money in politics, you might take a stand and try to push money out of politics, instead of inviting it in.

    Here’s how democracy should work:

    An email invite sent to Sanders supporters Saturday reads: ‘Swimming pools, Movie Stars, and merriment for all! This is happening right next door to Clooney’s party for Hillary!’

    The invite also notes that ‘no-one (will be) turned away for a lack of funds.’

    Once again, Bernie Sanders and those supporting him are on the right side of economic issues, while Hillary Clinton and her supporters are again on the side that says it’s perfectly okay for rich folks to buy elections.


    • Denice Smith 7:44 am on April 17, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Clooney just said that to try to stay in the good graces of his fans. Well sorry Bucko, as Tony Soprano would say ” you are dead to me”. He is no longer on my list of actors to see in movies. Bye

  • Julie Driscoll 8:21 pm on April 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie stands, literally, with striking Verizon workers, Clinton and her foundation take Verizon’s cash 


    New York is Feeling the Bern.  Bernie got the endorsement of the 60,000-strong New York Transit Workers union, and he also visited Verizon workers’ picket lines to lend support to striking Verizon workers.  As always, his words boosted the energy and momentum of these striking workers who are standing up to a rich corporation that thinks it’s being slick:

    Today, you are standing up not just for justice for Verizon workers; you’re standing up for millions of Americans who don’t have a union . . . On behalf of every worker in America, those facing the same kind of pressure, thank you for what you are doing. We’re gonna win this thing!

    Clinton’s response was a little less, well, heartfelt, and she didn’t hang out at picket lines.  Get back to the negotiating table, was about all she said.  After all, what’s she gonna do, bite another hand that feeds her?  As Salon reports,

    The Hillary Clinton campaign, meanwhile, has received tens of thousands of dollars from Verizon executives and lobbyists.  That’s not all. For a May 2013 speech, the corporation paid Clinton a whopping $225,000 honorarium, according to her tax records.  Verizon has also given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which investigative journalist Ken Silverstein has referred to as a ‘so-called charitable enterprise [that] has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.’  Moreover, the Clinton Foundation has partnered directly with Verizon, which is notorious for its vehement opposition to unions. The corporation is a partner in the Clinton Health Matters Initiative, and said it is ‘proud to partner with the Clinton Foundation’ . . . Journalist Zaid Jilani reported in AlterNet in October, when Sanders spoke in support of a Verizon strike, that the corporation’s executives and lobbyists had poured money into Clinton’s campaign or PACs.  Three Verizon vice presidents each donated $2,700 to Hillary for America. They were joined by a senior vice president and another vice president, who gave an additional $1,000.  A former Hillary Clinton operative who now lobbies for Verizon donated $2,700 as well, along with another Verizon lobbyist who pitched in $1,000.

    It’s no coincidence that Verizon’s CEO and Chairman, Lowell McAdam, is channeling GE’s Immelt and frantically publishing a push-back against Bernie Sanders.  As notes,

    The CEO of Verizon is not feeling the Bern. Lowell McAdam, who serves as both CEO and chairman of the telecommunications giant, posted an article to LinkedIn titled ‘Feeling the Bern of Reality — The Facts About Verizon and the ‘Moral Economy” on Wednesday.  In the piece, McAdam takes contention with Vermont Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ claims the company does not pay its fair share of taxes and doesn’t use its profits to benefit other Americans, as well as Sanders’ meeting with some of the 36,000 Verizon workerswho launched a major union strike this week.  ‘The senator’s uninformed views are, in a word, contemptible. Here’s why,’ McAdam wrote, noting Verizon paid $15.6 billion in taxes over the past two years.

    I suppose it’s possible that Verizon paid $15 mil over the past two years.  On the other hand, as Americans for Tax Fairness noted, between 2008 and 2011, Verizon paid nothing on profits of almost $20 billion (that’s with a “b”).

    Bernie Sanders will always get it right because his net worth is half of what Clinton made giving speeches to Wall Street and he doesn’t care.  Hillary Clinton will always be unwilling and, therefore, unable to get it right because her hand is always going to be shoved deep into the pockets of big corporations and Wall Street and every move she makes is going to forever reflect that largesse.

    This, folks, is what is commonly known as a no-brainer.


  • Julie Driscoll 7:55 pm on April 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    No mystery why Hillary’s camp took this video down: Watch 

    This week is Clinton’s one-year anniversary of the launch of her presidential run – and given that her opponent is drawing tens of thousands to rallies, has energy to burn and has his people pounding the streets on his behalf, you’d think she’d add a little spice to the self-congratulatory video.  But it’s Hillary.  Her idea of fun is delivering a diatribe on how a diesel engine works or the fine policy details that go into naming a post office.  Nah, I’m thinking the jack-in-the-box approach isn’t a keeper – and if she could be any more mundane, ridiculous and boring, I’m not sure how. But even her camp thought it was awful, because they took it down in about a minute.  Watch:



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