Home | About | Donate

The Most Politically Savvy Thing Democrats Can Do


It’s politics and progressive heroes play it too, including Sanders. Have you read at all about how he benefitted from the party in his first Senate run? Bet you didn’t know that the party worked to keep him from facing real opponents, such as the former state attorney general, who would have given him a tough election. The pretense that you can take the politics out of politics is just that, a pretense, and our heroes engage in it too (I have more examples if you need them).

On the issue at hand, sorry, there is zero evidence Clinton “ordered” the press to do anything, and no journalists have said they were ordered to cover anybody. Read the Politico article Libwing linked to, it provides context. Moreover, what exactly is wrong with making things harder for your likely opponent (Jeb Bush in Hillary’s case) during a primary anyway? Is it a politics-is-icky thing? What makes it unethical? You are probably a fan of open primaries. Do you know why a lot of people and organizations, like California’s Green Party, don’t like them? Lots of opportunity for unethical behavior, right?


Yes I’ve heard his story from you before. It isn’t analogous because a) you haven’t even said that Sanders was involved, and b) he or the Democratic party isn’t pushing a buffoon who might get elected in the opposing party which is the behavior that really burns me up. First of all it’s the stupidity to be so sure that you know this other person is going to lose, and second of all it is fundamentally anti democratic. People should get to chose from the best that all parties have to offer. If I could talk to Bernie and he told me - no you’re wrong, we must manipulate our opposition, we must bring knives to a knife fight, I would be pretty surprised. I am not surprised to hear Clinton was that stupid or unethical though.


Not a single journalist has said Clinton or her people ordered coverage of anything. Why don’t you read the Politico article cited for context? What they did do was withhold opposition research—totally standard—and withhold criticism of other candidates to keep their campaign focused on Bush because they thought he’d win. Their whole point was to put Bush in an uncomfortable spot and tie him to the hard right. The article clearly spells this out. Campaigns do this all the time, by the way. That’s a lot different than telling CNN “we are ordering you to carry all of Trump’s speeches live” which is what occurred. There’s zero evidence the campaign ever did that, none.

And, I didn’t just talk about stuff, I sent you a news article from 2006 about other candidates pissed off because they felt Sanders and the party pushed them out. How is that not unethical or manipulative by your standards? Because Bernie is progressive equals good? Are you really going to pretend the Sanders campaign didn’t know what was happening? Hell, the guy had been a professional politician longer than HRC by that point. Prior to a single vote being cast, he said he’d accept the nomination, but decline it. The whole point was to keep other candidates from challenging him. Other candidates were angry at this special deal and said so.

My point is this idea that you can take the politics out of politics is silly. Politics is an ugly game, tactics work and don’t sometimes. Even “good guys” manipulate voters and that’s why I bring up Sanders (not to criticize, but to be real about Sanders the politician). I can give more “good guy” examples if you need them.


So you’re saying that rump:
Supports sanctuary cities
Wants to abolish ICE
Fund abortion
Repeal tax cuts for the rich
Makes nasty comments in public about people he doesn’t like
And remember how conservatives just kept shouting “Impeach Obama”?
And rump supports socialism?

You really are mixed up in the head. Either that or your communication skills suck the ass you keep kissing.


Next chance you get to learn Reading for Comprehension 101, my advice? Take a seat in the class room instead of joining your buds outside to get blasted.

That’s no way to go through life.


“…electoral necessities. Campaigns are expensive…”

That’s crap. Television advertising rates are expensive.

You want money out of politics? Talk to the media conglomerates. As long as the networks are raking in billions of dollars every four years, nothing is going to change.

Of course they’ll never talk about it…


I don’t remember the particular link to the 2006 election, so I read the US News and World Report story (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/foes-past-and-present-say-sanders-uses-same-tactics-he-criticizes), it brought up some things I don’t recall that I do think are problematic if deliberate such as deceptive and false advertising related to who had endorsed Sanders. I still don’t view the actual party politics of the Vermont Democratic party (letting him compete in the primary, win, and then run independent with no Democrat on the ballot) as being in the same league as trying to influence a more inept Republican to win (I realize you are denying Clinton did this).

As far as how an actual conversation between a Clinton aid and someone from a network like CNN or MSNBC could go (I realize we don’t have a record of such a conversation - no one has come forward, we only have the email leaks discussing the desire to have such a conversation): we’ve been thinking it could be a win-win for you guys to give more Trump coverage, he’s a celebrity and you’ll get more viewers and for us he’s a terrible candidate that will illustrate how bankrupt the Republican party is … and then it could go on to deals like interview preference or something, who knows. But ordering as if Clinton had some screws she could turn to always get the more ‘liberal’ media to do her bidding - no I don’t thank that happened.


So has anyone informed MSNBC (Maddow specifically): "… the extreme right-wing government of Israel has tried to help the GOP in the last two presidential elections. … if they’re going to meddle in American elections." Nah, she’s still steaming over Hillary’s loss and blames Russian meddling. Anyone in the real world knows that we’ve been interfering in (or torpedoing) elections and/or unseating leaders around the globe since the CIA was created in 1947.


My understanding was that Bernie is beloved by his constituents in VT. The democrats know they’d lose a general election or worse, throw it to a repuglican, since as an Independent, he doesn’t need to participate in the democratic primary. So they choose not to waste resources running against him. As his voice has, his whole political career, been about equal access under the law, which they support half-heartedly. Hell, I remember Bernie getting arrested in Chicago protesting that bussed-in black students should have the same classrooms and treatment as the white suburban kids got.

That doesn’t make him a bad guy in any way. Not in my book. Certainly he is not as loathesome as the New York Democrats using their money to try and elect more business friendly corporate Dems or Repuglicans instead of a Progressive. Or as those who say: re-elect me and I’ll tell you what I think about this-or-that; or who tell you what they think you want to hear in order to get our votes.


He may be beloved, but if we are against machine politics, his 2006 run and re-election were the definitions of it. We like him, so it’s okay if he does it, but it’s not okay if it’s done by people we don’t like seems to be the rule around here.

Look, my point is that you can’t take the politics out of politics. You can fund politics differently, but it’s always going to be an ugly game. Politicians aren’t all bad, many are good people, but they want to win too.