Support NeoGAF

[The Albatross]

Shit like this, combined with the Kaine VP pick, just show us all that she believes she'll beat Trump no matter how badly she fucks up in the interm.

The Democrats are that confident. Hopefully, that confidence is warranted.

Kaine is not a fuck up at all. He might not inspire you, but he's a level-headed progressive who appeals to far more people than those that he doesn't inspire.

The DWS debacle, though, is embarrassing and just fits the corrupt-clinton narrative too easily. I've been a Clinton apologist for this primary season, but it is just head shaking how much side-eyed semi-corruption follows Clinton family politics... It's nothing new too, it's followed this family all the way back to Arkansas.

Doesn't mean they're necessarily bad leaders, but it's just incredible that in over 30-years of accusations of corruption to varying degrees, they don't do a better job stamping this stuff out.

 

[Macam]

No, the're not both equally shit. Their platforms re utterly and completely different, and you know that. So honestly, I think it's very petty, and sad, and you convince yourself you're "voting your consicence" while writing in a candidate, instead of rationally voting for one based on the facts. There's absolutely nothing noble or commendable about your false equivocation or cowardice.

Oh, this trope again. Who knew "voting your conscience" was mutually exclusive to rationality and facts?

surejan.gif

 

[RDreamer]

Shit like this, combined with the Kaine VP pick, just show us all that she believes she'll beat Trump no matter how badly she fucks up in the interm.

The Democrats are that confident. Hopefully, that confidence is warranted.

Kaine was the most logical and best choice for VP. Not from an emotional standpoint, but from what should really be done. It gave me confidence in how Clinton will govern.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Kaine is not a fuck up at all. He might not inspire you, but he's a level-headed progressive who appeals to far more people than those that he doesn't inspire.

The DWS debacle, though, is embarrassing and just fits the corrupt-clinton narrative too easily. I've been a Clinton apologist for this primary season, but it is just head shaking how much side-eyed semi-corruption follows Clinton family politics... It's nothing new too, it's followed this family all the way back to Arkansas.

Doesn't mean they're necessarily bad leaders, but it's just incredible that in over 30-years of accusations of corruption to varying degrees, they don't do a better job stamping this stuff out.

The thing is, 30 years of accusations lead to zero actual convictions. It's all a lot of smoke, but no fires that anyone has found.

At some point, you start to feel like it's chicken little or something.

 

[SenorArdilla]

How do you fuck up this badly against someone like Trump? I am horrified.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I'm all on-board the Tillary Claine train, but one thing that really pissed me off about HRC in 08 and irks me now is this stupid loyalty to bad pols/incompetent people. DWS is disliked for good reason by many people (including Obama) and she should be owed nothing. Just turf her and hide her away, that's good politics.

Isn't that specifically what an honorary position as the head of Clinton's 50-state strategy (which is, at best, pie-in-the-sky) is?

DWS is weird. If you try to get rid of her, she can go off like a bomb. Regardless of what you think of her, she can raise lots of money and has a strong infrastructure key to winning Florida that otherwise would be stymied with a Republican governor there. Obama tried to get rid of her before and she accused him of being sexist and anti-semitic. According to today's Politico article, Clinton tried to get rid of her last fall but it didn't take.

There is a genuine danger that, if not given a golden parachute, DWS would turn around and blame everything on the Clinton campaign. Whether there was any basis or not, it would stick, and it's probably better to hide her away in an emeritus position than worry about what she might do on a bad day.

 

[Macam]

Anyone surprised by the DWS move -- which I personally don't find surprising or, frankly, upsetting -- hasn't been following the Clintons that closely. They have a talent for self inflicted political wounds (and, usually, eventually rolling past them).

 

[Suikoguy]

What did DWS do wrong? She wanted Clinton to win, but did that manifest into anything of actual substance?

People always have favorites, it's whether you are capable of staying neutral when it matters.

 

[Iksenpets]

I'm all on-board the Tillary Claine train, but one thing that really pissed me off about HRC in 08 and irks me now is this stupid loyalty to bad pols/incompetent people. DWS is disliked for good reason by many people (including Obama) and she should be owed nothing. Just turf her and hide her away, that's good politics.

Yeah, she's overly loyal to the most random people. Like, DWS is going to be fine with or without this campaign. Just tell her to keep her head down for the rest of the campaign, and if it really means that much to her Hillary can hook her up with some position or another out of the public eye once the election is done.

 

[BokehKing]

What did DWS do wrong? She wanted Clinton to win, but did that manifest into anything of actual substance?

People always have favorites, it's whether you are capable of staying neutral when it matters.

That's the problem she was supposed to be neutral

 

[Apathy]

Why would Clinton take her on board?! Holy mistakes Batman.

 

[Suikoguy]

That's the problem she was supposed to be neutral

"but did that manifest into anything of actual substance?"

"People always have favorites, it's whether you are capable of staying neutral when it matters."

 

[SenorArdilla]

"but did that manifest into anything of actual substance?"

"People always have favorites, it's whether you are capable of staying neutral when it matters."

"Hillary is a foregone conclusion. Let's attack Bernie by calling him an atheist."

 

[EatinOlives]

I love how Russia and Putin's influence on something only becomes ridiculous and prosperous when the topic of subject becomes Trump and his backed up by considerable amount of evidence.

Doesn't matter. Just shout "conspiracy theory!!" and you don't even have to have an actual argument!

 

[Suikoguy]

"Hillary is a foregone conclusion. Let's attack Bernie by calling him an atheist."

Oh, when did that happen? I must have seriously missed a huge story.
Or do you mean the stolen emails that they talked about the possibility of going that direction?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

If DWS decides to say that bringing Sanders' religion into it came from the Clinton campaign, that becomes a much bigger deal.

 

[SenorArdilla]

Oh, when did that happen? I must have seriously missed a huge story.
Or do you mean the stolen emails that they talked about the possibility of going that direction?

Even if they never went through with it, the intent was there.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Even if they never went through with it, the intent was there.

So? The only thing that matters is actual action. Someone floating an idea and getting shot down is not a scandal.

 

[brochiller]

What is the Clinton campaign doing? Do they want Trump to win?

 

[Suikoguy]

Even if they never went through with it, the intent was there.

So are we prosecuting people for thought crimes now?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Even if they never went through with it, the intent was there.

Conspiracy requires more than mere intent.

 

[BowieZ]

Oh, when did that happen? I must have seriously missed a huge story.
Or do you mean the stolen emails that they talked about the possibility of going that direction?

LOL "Possibility".

The spin!

 

[KingKong]

So are we prosecuting people for thought crimes now?

seems like the Hillary campaign is the one that's doing that

 

[Formless]

This is not ok. But I guess I'll still vote Clinton anyways, so in the end it is?

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

seems like the Hillary campaign is the one that's doing that

By what, having someone outside the campaign privately email and idea to someone else outside the campaign?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

LOL "Possibility".

The spin!

So it actually happened? Can I see the video of it happening?

 

[Suikoguy]

LOL "Possibility".

The spin!

Oh, so they put plans into motion? Care to link a source to validate your claim?

seems like the Hillary campaign is the one that's doing that

I'm confused. Are you referring to having her resign?

 

[KingKong]

By what, having someone outside the campaign privately email and idea to someone else outside the campaign?

by having DWS fall on her sword. I don't see anyone being prosecuted, do you? unless peaceful protests are now considered prosecution

 

[Angry Chair]

DWS is whack man. I'm guessing Clinton is just taking her on because it was the only way to convince her to quit.

 

[Vinsanity.]

In regards to influencing SuperDelegates to vote for HC instead of BS - I wonder how much DWS and the other DNC members that were part of the leaks coerced them to vote for Hilary? If at all?

I mean, the SuperDelegate count was like 600 - 48...and if that number flips exactly the other way, Bernie has more delegates overall. Is it possible that the conspiracy of DWS and others influenced the SuperDelegates? If so, she single-handedly handed Hilary the nomination over Bernie, correct?

 

[The Flop]

Clinton keeps on making bad decisions this election cycle. Seriously the moment they announce DWS is stepping down you add her to your campaign. You couldn't even wait a few days?

Trump has a lot of ammo now.

 

[Suikoguy]

DWS is whack man. I'm guessing Clinton is just taking her on because it was the only way to convince her to quit.

We don't know the extent, "Honorary Chair" is ambiguous.

I wonder if the plan all along, assuming Hillary won the primary, was to have her join the campaign. It seems quite obvious that neither Clinton or Obama wanted her to stay as Chair of the DNC.

 

[Cagey]

Other potential candidates didn't want to run against Clinton and risk losing. They'll save their efforts and money for now.

Of course, which is a byproduct of the seeming inevitability of a Clinton nomination for a few years prior to Summer 15.

This understanding that it was Clinton's turn doesn't require belief in a cloak and dagger Democratic Party cabal meeting preordaining this election as Hers as voted on by the Council. An understanding throughout the Democratic Party that it's Hillary's run in 2016 -- whether because she earned the shot, or her campaign is so powerful and well funded that she'd win so why bother, or that the majority of party members believe it's her time so don't alienate yourself from the rest of your colleagues, or what have you -- was apparent when the stage at the first debate for this party had two nobodies, a Govenor polling at 1% just happy to be there, a socialist-lite Independent, and Hillary Clinton.

America undeniably deserved more (and I'd certainly argue better, but that part is opinion) options than Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party. Bernie's run at least provided one alternative, even if it wasn't one I was personally interested in. Without the temerity from that uppity old man from Vermont, she'd have had an unchallenged incumbent sleepwalk to the nomination in 2016.

This is admittedly a tangent.

 

[JustenP88]

So are we prosecuting people for thought crimes now?

I don't think anybody is talking about literal "prosecution" in this context. DNC staffers were kicking around ideas of how to paint one of the Democratic candidates in a bad light. That's a bad look. That is the opposite of neutrality. Whether we end up following the email trail down to an actual CNN article that says "Bernie is a fake jew" or not doesn't matter all that much, does it?

The fact that they had fostered an environment in which someone thought it would be appropriate to postulate those lines of attack is bad enough. Couple this with the bullet pointed email that talks about PACs paying to push back against Sanders supporters online and the admission that Sanders being in the race forces hillary to "try and appeal to young liberals" instead of pivoting to the center. Terrible terrible optics.

 

[Biske]

God... The Democratic Party are unprecedented top tier bunglers.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

DWS is whack man. I'm guessing Clinton is just taking her on because it was the only way to convince her to quit.

This, considering the reporting is the likely reason. DWS is out for reelection too so I think she didn't want to resign in disgrace and have that hurt her as a congressman.

Clinton keeps on making bad decisions this election cycle. Seriously the moment they announce DWS is stepping down you add her to your campaign. You couldn't even wait a few days?

Trump has a lot of ammo now.

From all the articles about this her camp was the one who spearheaded DWS stepping down. I agree the position should've been announced post convention but it looks like this position was to get her out of the chair.

 

[SenorArdilla]

If you have staff members discussing ways to discredit a rival candidate, you can't call yourself neutral.

 

[Suikoguy]

If you have staff members discussing ways to discredit a rival candidate, you can't call yourself neutral.

Well, the argument can't go any further then. It's up to each person to decide if discussing things in private is enough to sway the primary election.

 

[JP_]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...erman-schultz-booed-off-stage-in-philadelphia

She needs to just stay away from this cycle, jeez.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

If you have staff members discussing ways to discredit a rival candidate, you can't call yourself neutral.

Do they have to be neutral though? Must all candidates, despite what they say about the party publicly, be treated the same, or can members of a private organization have preferences?

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Not worried about her, I'm sure President Hillary can make her Ambassador to Antigua and Barbuda when it's all said and done.

 

[diablos991]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...erman-schultz-booed-off-stage-in-philadelphia

She needs to just stay away from this cycle, jeez.

DWS must have some wicked dirt on the DNC or Clinton if they are sacrificing so much to keep her pacified.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

If you have staff members discussing ways to discredit a rival candidate, you can't call yourself neutral.

Look at when it was, this was far into the impossible dream part of Bernie's campaign where was openly against the DNC and calling Clinton corrupt every rally. If one of the candidates becomes a detriment to the nominee without any chance of winning should the party remain neutral?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It amazes me the bullshit people latch onto, even in the face of the fact that Trump is currently leading in the polls. What kind of privileged asshole doesn't understand this? Get your priorities in check.

 

[Maxim726X]

Kaine was the most logical and best choice for VP. Not from an emotional standpoint, but from what should really be done. It gave me confidence in how Clinton will govern.

I don't disagree with this, but she needs to win an election to ever see her ability to govern.

Again, this is all calculated by the Clinton campaign, so I hope they are justified in their confidence.

DWS must have some wicked dirt on the DNC or Clinton if they are sacrificing so much to keep her pacified.

It's loyalty above all else, I'd imagine. Don't think there's anything nefarious to this.

 

[Jeels]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...erman-schultz-booed-off-stage-in-philadelphia

She needs to just stay away from this cycle, jeez.

If she dares to go on stage during primetime, the boos will be even louder and the implications and detriment to the party even stronger. They need to keep her away.

 

[Ray Wonder]

DWS must have some wicked dirt on the DNC or Clinton if they are sacrificing so much to keep her pacified.

I was actually thinking something along the lines of this as well. What sane person in Hillary's campaign would invite her along, with her baggage, without her having some dirt on them?

I can't think of another reason they would take this risk. Even if they wanted her on the campaign, they obviously knew that it would look bad to do that. There's no logic behind it, unless it's for the best for their campaign, and we don't know what the worst was because of it.

But, conspiracy theory, etc. They could just be making terrible decisions.

 

[Macam]

Clinton keeps on making bad decisions this election cycle. Seriously the moment they announce DWS is stepping down you add her to your campaign. You couldn't even wait a few days?

Trump has a lot of ammo now.

Trump doesn't need ammo (there's plenty as is and he just makes stuff up anyway), and isn't going to peddle this in-house DNC stuff beyond, at best, making some brief, futile overture to Sanders voters, as he has in the past.

It's more corrosive to HRC's image within the party, especially to those who follow these sorts of internal developments. The bigger risk is just further dampening enthusiasm for a very underwhelming candidate. But the campaign will probably try to paper it over with the usual platitudes and shift to focus on Trump.

It'll all get lost in the next mass shooting.

 

[Mully]

I wish Howard Dean would come back for the chair, but it seems like he's not interested.

 

[JP_]

Sure, except whether or not you think it was a crooked system, Clinton is now the nominee. It is not important that the incoming chair be neutral on Clinton-Sanders or Clinton-Obama or Dean-Kerry-Edwards or Gore-Bradley. It is not important that Kucinich supporters be represented. Like, to some extent whatever criminal corruption that deserves double execution occurred, the damage is done. What's most important going forward is in fact that the DNC chair has a good relationship with the nominee and the caucus. There's not going to be a re-run of Hillary v. Bernie even if the first time around was RIGGED.

I guess Sanders supporters probably want to enact structural reforms to the party, but the DNC chair's role at this juncture, especially before the election, is about maximum synergy between the candidate and the party. There'd actually be a stronger claim to put a Sanders supporter as DNC chair if DWS had stepped down after the election, where the chair needs to pivot to party revitalization, paying off election debt, and the midterms.

Sanders got over 43% of the primary vote -- these people didn't just disappear after Clinton won. DC chair needs as much of that support as possible to help Clinton win and that'll be tougher if they don't trust the chair to represent their interests. Unifying the party depends on reaching out to the progressive wing.

And can you not try to paint me as some conspiracy theorist? Unnecessary. Don't think I've ever described it as crooked or rigged.

Also

Aren't we talking about her because she's the interim replacement for DWS? She's being asked to fight for the party, and that includes Sanders' progressives -- they want to feel represented. Surely you can see how it'd be hard to trust that she'd have your best interests in mind if she spoke so poorly of you in the past.

I don't personally care much about this whole DWS thing, but I do care about disillusioned progressives being disengaged in this election and I think Clinton camp has made some poor decisions with outreach. Platform/superdelegate compromise was ok, but people feel betrayed by the VP pick and I bet this is received very similarly. The endorsements from Sanders surrogates are good and I'm glad they aren't being antagonistic but endorsements have never been enough.