Sunday, May 22, 2016

The hypocrisy of American democracy and the presumed Democratic nominee

I came across this meme just this morning:

You would think that in this modern day and age of smart phones, cloud computing, that we wouldn't have to check. But irregularities at elections across the country have forced many people to re-register to be sure they are registered to vote. They shouldn't have to check on this over and over to be sure they can vote for their candidate of choice.

This uncertainty about voting rights is a result of an apparent effort to suppress the vote for Bernie Sanders. All such efforts belie the strength of Hillary Clinton as a candidate and are an affront to everything we stand for as a democracy.

There are numerous articles popping up like this one, that describe a systematic effort to disenfranchise voters that are likely to support Bernie Sanders. Here some of the highlights:
  • There are no notable groups of Hillary Clinton supporters complaining of missing registration records or changed party preferences.
  • Election results have demonstrated statistically significant deviations from exit polling results and suggest a clear pattern of rigging in the Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. We use exit polling verify if elections are fair in developing countries, and apparently, we need to use it here, too.
  • Most significant, there are no reports of Republicans who have had their party preferences changed, no reports of missing voter records or purges, and last but not least, nearly perfect matches between election results and exit polling results. If you're a Republican, you would not have had any problems voting.
Here is the irony and hypocrisy. Some very powerful Americans, people like Hillary Clinton and her supporters, pride themselves on invading...I mean, assisting, other countries to establish democracy around the world. They like to give that effort a euphemistic name, like "regime change", to make the process more palatable, easier to sell to the voters. The Iraq War is a great example of regime change, and was sold as an attempt to build a democratic nation through a long and very expensive war. Hillary Clinton voted for that war. Bernie Sanders did not.

There are technological solutions that can be put in place to prevent election fraud from happening, but the political will simply isn't there yet to make the changes. If we want to make those changes, we need to act and act quickly to secure the right to vote, or our republic will be lost.

Friday, May 20, 2016

The blind spot of the Clinton Campaign: a lack of conviction behind the message

The other night, I was watching CNN to see the caption, "Clinton loses polling advantage over Trump". This was startling for a couple of reasons. First, CNN's parent company, Time-Warner has been a big contributor to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Second, this is Anderson Cooper's 360 show. Instead of talking about a plane crash for 24/7, he's talking with a panel about how Hillary Clinton is losing her polling lead to Trump.

It's hard to say exactly why this is happening, but I'd guess there are many reasons. I'd say that the biggest reason is that we have witnessed the best prepared candidate for the Democratic primaries in history being unable to vanquish her last opponent from the primary race. With every setback to the Sanders campaign, we see renewed determination to make sure he gets to the convention.

Plenty of ink has been spilled to show that despite her enormous advantage over Sanders, Hillary pissed away a 60 point lead in national polling to a virtual tie in Kentucky and a loss in Oregon. Seth Abramson at the the Huffington Post wrote a long essay about how even if Sanders loses the nomination, he has already won the debate. He is right to say that this election is more than just about electing Sanders as president. This election is all about the fate of the middle class.

Where Hillary Clinton pays lip service to the middle class, Sanders means every word of what he says. Abramson says that Clinton has stolen much of Sanders message to win the election. She has adopted most if not all of his platform to appease Sanders supporters, to "bring them back into the fold".

But Sanders supporters are right not to trust her, given her enormous backing from commercial interests and her long history of "we'll take what we can get from the Republicans" leadership. We are right to think that much of what she says will not make it to her desk as president by her own initiative.

In 2008, Obama was right about her. "She will say anything and change nothing". He would still be right about her if he said the same thing today. There are numerous reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. In fact, someone has put together 150 reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Most of those reasons relate to money she's received from special interests intent on receiving special treatment. Obama knows this well. He received substantial funding from the banking industry and the result is that not a single executive from the banks has been prosecuted after the financial crisis from 2008.

Clinton seems to think that with her extensive and deep political network, a compliant major media, national name recognition, more than 300 superdelegates who expressed loyalty to her before even the first vote was cast and overwhelming funding, that she should prevail. She has had everything going for her to win the primaries, and yet, Sanders is still there. But she still doesn't see what is missing from her campaign to finish the job.

Now Trump is starting to overtake her in some national polls. She's meeting enormous resistance in places like the Nevada Democratic Convention. And no, there was no violence at the convention. One reporter who wasn't even there, relied upon another reporter with some very poor reporting, and that compliant major media network ran with it as if all hell broke loose. Even NPR moderated their message.

The Clinton campaign would love to see Sanders bow out now before their own campaign unravels. But all Sanders supporters need to do is to maintain their support of Sanders until the last ballot is cast at the convention. We need to keep holding the fire to the feet of Clinton and her allies. The message to both campaigns is simple. You can have the best campaign, the best political network and the best funding that money can buy. But if we don't trust you enough to follow through on your promises, we'll vote for someone else. Sanders really gets this. Clinton has no clue.

Now we see that Clinton has declared the primary race over with more than a month and a half to go to the convention. She must know something the rest of us don't because there are still 6 state primaries to go, including California. It's almost as if she's trying to will her way to victory, regardless of the reality of the situation.

That unwillingness to even acknowledge Sanders and his supporters is the blind spot in the entire Clinton campaign and that is why I will never vote for Clinton. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton both deserve to lose the primary in both of their respective races for the way they have conducted themselves during this campaign.

It is now time for the superdelegates to do their job and voice support for and vote for the better candidate. Where Sanders polls at an average of better than 13 points against Trump, Clinton is averaging around 6 points lead. Sanders is the candidate that has consistently polled better than Trump by double digits throughout this campaign season. He is the candidate that was consistently and continues to be foiled by major media from the beginning. The candidate that suffered voter suppression in favor of Clinton. The candidate who really means it when he says he wants to save the middle class.

But none of that really matters to Clinton or Debbie Wasserman Schultz because Sanders doesn't fit their agenda. Unfortunately, without any conviction behind her words, Clinton will not be able to convince the people that matter the most, the rest of us, that she's the right person for the job.

There is no better candidate than Bernie Sanders to beat Donald Trump. This is not a game and this sure as hell isn't a coronation for Hillary. It's not her turn to be president and it never has been. This is a contest to decide who should hold the most powerful political office in the world. Maybe the third time is the charm to finally get that message through to Clinton and her campaign.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Hillary Clinton's social class essentialism

It is astonishing to see what lengths the Democratic elite are taking to ensure that their precious candidate, Hillary Clinton, will secure the nomination. They have engaged in many of the same tactics that Republicans have used in the past and more to discourage Bernie Sanders supporters. From the Nevada Convention where chairwoman fled after denying a recount and a vote, to the voter purges in New York (video), it is hard for me to believe that I am being asked to support Hillary Clinton.

But Bernie reminds us that even if he doesn't win the nomination, the revolution must go on all the way down the ballot. The revolution is not carried out by one man, though it can be fomented largely by one man. No, as Bernie says, he's not a savior. He's a man who saw that the time is right for change and decided to run for president.

If Hillary wins, she will not be greeted by throngs of supporters as her motorcade trundles towards the White House on Inauguration Day. No, the street will be lined with protesters like we saw with George W. Bush in 2001. They will hurl expletives and wave their signs at someone who demonstrates, probably better than anyone I can think of, what social class essentialism looks like.

Hillary Clinton, and many of her elite supporters are sincerely deluded by their own social class essentialism. They believe that because they have the power, they are right. They have the power because they are backed by fantastically wealthy corporations. They have the power to change the rules at will. They have the power to disenfranchise their opponents at will. They have the power to control the narrative in the mainstream media. Hillary can still pretend to be proud of her victory after all the help she got from elite Democrats and perhaps a few Republicans to get the nomination, if she should prevail.

But they don't have the power to change our minds. No, we will not vote for Hillary. No, we will not get in line. No, we will not go quietly. Sanders supporters will be there, at the convention, some are talking more than a million strong. More than a million have attended rallies for Bernie. It is entirely possible that more than a million will show up at the convention, ready to make their voices heard.

What exactly is social class essentialism? Slate has a very nice article on the subject. In a nutshell, it is the observation that rich people think that they're different than everyone else. They're above everyone else due to their social status and money. They have a sense of entitlement that is beyond their own sense of reproach. Naturally, there are exceptions. But study after study has borne out one simple trend: wealthy people think that a different set of rules applies to them.

Hillary Clinton is wealthy. With a personal net worth estimated to be somewhere around $31 million (Bill is worth $80 million), she is well insulated from the rest of us. Multiple houses, chauffeurs, fine dining with personal chefs, world class vacations and the finest health care money can buy, she has it all. That wealth can buy insulation from the consequences of her decisions.

A great example of how Hillary thinks that a different set of rules applies to her is her email scandal, soon to come to full boil. She was assigned an email address to use upon her first day of work for her business email as Secretary of State. Never activated that email. She signed a Non-disclosure agreement (NDA), that requires her to follow certain rules about government information. She didn't. She may not disclose classified information to people who may not see it. She did. She may not transport classified information off of secured networks. She did.

Experts in the field are pretty sure she was negligent with her handling of classified information on her watch. Despite what the news says about lack of intent on her part, proof of negligence does not require proof of intent.

Hillary Clinton felt so entitled, that she bought her own email server and begged the authorities to let her bring her own phone into secure sites while everyone else had to check their phones at the door. She did not even want to view her own email on a government terminal like everyone else had to do. Remember, she is above it all.

There is a very clear path to indictment in front her, something that she is studiously ignoring. The investigation is anything but routine and some observers say that an indictment is all but certain. Do you really need to worry about her emails, dear Hillary supporter? Yes, you do. She will be indicted. It's not a matter of if, but when. Some say that the decision makers on indictment (who happen to be Republican) are waiting until after she wins her nomination, you know, so that we will be stuck with her.

When I see her giving speeches about the rest of us, about how she intends to unite the party, I am mindful of her sense of entitlement. When I see her talking about breaking down barriers for the rest of us, I am thinking about her insistence that she be able to use her own Blackberry phone at the State Department. I am thinking about her support of NAFTA, the 1994 crime bill and private prisons. I am thinking about her support of welfare reform, her stances on immigration and how her husband Bill, helped the Republicans reach 5 legislative goals in the 1990s.

So while she is hosting dinners for the maximum contribution one person can make directly to her campaign ($2700 per plate), Alice Walton is sneaking in $350,000 through the Hillary Victory Fund. George Clooney is hosting dinners to bring in more. She can rub elbows with all of them. Does it make her happy? I honestly don't know. Will that win her the election? Probably not.

She is the opposite in many respects, to Bernie Sanders. He flies coach in the tiny seats like the rest of us. When he announced his campaign, he drove his own car to the podium to speak. While he is packing stadiums, Hillary has had to shut down a few rallies due to protests.

Yet, the Democratic elite insist she is he better candidate. They are sincerely deluded to believe that Hillary is the better candidate, despite most polls showing that Sanders beats Trump by double digits, double the spread of Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Hillary, you may win the nomination, but you will not win our hearts. The revolution will go on without you, if it must. Stay in your bubble, feel secure, and know that all those people shouting at you are not your people. Those people out there will just get busy with the work of a peaceful revolution for radical change. A change for the better.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Clinton, WalMart, NAFTA and the trade deficit

For some time now, I've been thinking of the relationship between Hillary Clinton, WalMart and NAFTA. All of this plays a part in why we have a $560 billion a year trade deficit. In my review of the documentation over the years, I see essentially the same story being told now as it was then. Hillary's ties to WalMart, though helpful in Arkansas, may prove to be an Achilles Heel for her.

Even if she didn't have an email scandal brewing (the other heel) I think that the entire affair with WalMart belies her progressive posture in politics. My searches show that the majority of articles concerning this topic are on conservative sites and have conservative talking points. To the critics who suggest that I shouldn't be using conservative talking points, note that if Hillary can't sustain that criticism now, she won't sustain it in debates with Donald Trump if she wins the nomination.

Besides, my point is not that Hillary isn't conservative enough. It's that she's not working to make the markets progressive enough. I find it somewhat ironic that I'd be using conservative talking points to show that Hillary is not all that progressive. Here is a case in point from the Washington Times:
A 2007 New York Times article found Mrs. Clinton failed to advance union causes during her time on the company’s board, and a 2008 ABC News review of videotapes from Wal-Mart meetings found that “Clinton remained silent as the world’s largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.”
Mr. Clinton defended Mrs. Clinton’s Wal-Mart seat, telling ABC News that they “lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement She knew there was no way to change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas.”
Granted, The Washington Times is a right-wing outlet. But they do have a point in bringing this up. She was nominated and appointed to the board of directors for WalMart because she's a woman. She claimed to work hard to advance union causes, but she could not move the culture to support her.

If she has always been a progressive, then she might be hard pressed to explain why she worked the trenches in Congress, organizing and running strategy meetings to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement we now know as NAFTA. I recall the acrimony of the debates well, but at the time, I was not aware of her work in getting that agreement ratified. Now that I know, I find it hard to trust Mrs. Clinton on the issue of trade.

Her work only set the stage for the next assault on the working class: the Asian financial crisis in 1997. During that time, Asian currencies were losing value due to rather poor economic policies. To resolve that crisis, The largest Asian governments sought relief from the International Monetary Fund and the United States. One of the terms for relief was a requirement that Asian banks held greater reserves. The reserve currency of choice was the dollar.

As Asian countries accumulated reserves of the dollar to support their currencies, a curious thing happened. Their currencies became weaker relative to the dollar, encouraging exports, and lo and behold, dramatically raised the US trade deficit. Much of this was engineered by Robert Rubin, then Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, as noted by Economist Dean Baker, here, here and here. Rubin managed to amass $110 million for his efforts, but so far, hasn't thanked the middle class for their support.

What does all this have do with Hillary Clinton now? WalMart would like to keep the gravy train rolling. Last December, Alice Walton, one of the richest women in the world, donated $353,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund. She also donated $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary Fund. What exactly do they want? A strong dollar.

Keeping the dollar strong means that WalMart can continue to bring in cheap imports and keep those manufacturing jobs overseas with lower labor costs, lower overhead, and far less union power. They don't seem to mind a trade deficit that blows a $560 billion hole in the economy. That's a lot of economic pressure to keep wages down, and that only means profits for WalMart. But every time we make a purchase at WalMart, we are increasing our own tax burden. That's because WalMart pays so little, that their employees must apply for government benefits to supplement their income. I guess that's the part where Hillary plays a progressive.

If Hillary Clinton is truly the progressive she claims to be, her history belies her progressive posture. Given her history and her ties to WalMart, there is little reason to believe she will ever change course. Given the choice between Hillary and Bernie, I think I'd rather see a more transparent candidate in the White House.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Open Data: The Freedom of Information Act, on steroids

Techdirt has a great little article on how open data in New York found about $1.7 million in parking tickets that were issued to cars parked legally. That's great money if you can find it. As the article notes, the findings by an analyst working with a database of parking tickets were communicated to the city. That led to policy changes at the policy department and the city. 

When citizens have access to data to show how agencies make decisions in response to current policy or policy changes, we can see how our government works over time. We can find patterns of behavior on the part of people who work in the government, people who work for all us. We can see if current public policy works or if it doesn't. And if public policy doesn't work, we can change the policy.

I'm a big fan of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act, as well as their analogs at the state level. I've filed more than 300 requests for documents myself at both state and federal levels. You can learn a lot about how government works when you ask for the documents they create to do their work.

FOIA is great if you want to learn about one particular issue or one particular person. It is common for people to send personal requests - requests for their own records. Other requests include documents about how a law is enforced, how agency decisions are made, and records of the decision making process. But one thing you with FOIA can't do is ask an agency to compile records in a format like a database.

Open data laws make that possible. Open data laws require agencies to make certain sets of information available to all of us. Free for the asking. These are databases cleaned of any personally identifying information, but provide enough information to tell us how an agency carries out its work.

While it is easy to bemoan the ability of the government to watch us, they still work for us, and if we're careful, we can still tell the government how to do its job. Open data laws are proof that it's still possible. Databases are sort of a double-edged sword. But once you have one in hand, it's only a matter of putting that database through a few queries to see if any patterns emerge.

There are entire websites and organizations (like this one) dedicated to collecting and curating collections of databases retrieved through open data laws. The United States government has an overarching policy of making data available to anyone who wants to see how they are doing their job. The result of that policy is, the home of open data for the federal government. Granted, the public data available doesn't have any personally identifying information, nor should it, but with it, we can get a high level view of how they are doing their jobs.

Voting is just one aspect of being a citizen.  We vote to decide who writes the laws and who cuts the checks. We engage in rulemaking processes when an agency proposes regulations to interpret and enforce the laws. We determine if a law is good or bad when we go to court, when we sit in a jury, or sue for redress of grievances.

When we get open data from our governments at all levels, we get the results of our actions and are in a better position to make the government responsive to all of us. Even if we may believe that the government only listens to 1% of us, when used effectively, open data makes the government more responsive to all of us.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Bernie can't do it alone - so an army of candidates are running for Congress to help

Bernie Sanders has done something no other politician in recent memory has done: he beat the money primary. Instead of holding lofty fundraisers with wealthy patrons, instead of dialing for dollars for up to two thirds of his time in Congress, he came to us for help. He's filling stadiums and parks with his rallies. He's set up a website to accept campaign contributions from ordinary people like you and me. How much has he raised?

Just 0.02% of his money came from sources other than regular folks like you and I. His average contribution is about $27. He's raised 182 million without a single $2700-a-plate fundraiser. Without a single corporate bundler. The only people who've got his ear are the rest of us.

Now lets look at Hillary Clinton:

For Hillary, 30% of her funding comes from SuperPACs and 70% comes from the rest of us. That's respectable. But I have a fair amount of confidence that those other groups have a far greater influence on her decision making than the 70% of the contributions she's received otherwise. Nearly $80 million of that money comes from large financial interests.

I'm not saying that she's evil in doing this. I say that she's doing this because she believes she has to. Like many high level Democrats, she believes that she needs the corporate money because the Republicans are going to take it if she doesn't. It doesn't have to be that way. Here are a few candidates to prove it.

Tim Canova is one of them. He's running against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida and he's set to announce that he's expecting to have raised $1 million by this weekend for his campaign in the House. Wasserman Schultz complains that he's raised more money from out of state than in the state. But Canova counters that he's raise more in-state money thanWasserman Schultz. He's doing it all on small donations.

Zephyr Teachout wrote a book on corruption. She's running for a seat in New York and she's doing well, very well. Here's her bio at Wikipedia:
She is a tenured Associate Professor of Law at Fordham Law School and previously a Visiting Professor of Law at Duke University and a lecturer at the University of Vermont.
Teachout is an antitrust and media expert who served as the Director of Internet Organizing for the 2004 Howard Dean presidential campaign. She cofounded A New Way Forward, an organization built to break up big banks,[8] and was involved with Occupy Wall Street.[9] Teachout was also the first national director of the Sunlight Foundation.
She is also featured at as a candidate dedicated to fighting corruption, public funding of campaigns and doesn't take big money from SuperPACs. She's already raised more than a half million from small contributions alone and if elected, will be one more member of Congress who will not be dialing for dollars.

There's a veritable army for Bernie growing among the ranks of candidates running for Congress. Along with Zephyr Teachout, we have Lucy Flores in Nevada, John Fetterman in Pennsylvania and of course, Tim Canova. Even more can be found here, on the leaders page in the website. More than 36 candidates are running for Congress with the intent of breaking the grip of corruption upon the members of Congress.

The fight against corruption is growing. We're living in it and we can see the results. From fracking to neglected infrastructure to medical bankruptcies and Wall Street bailouts. The tide against corruption is growing. It is up to us to push the wave of corruption fighting candidates onto Congress and our statehouses. I will leave you with one relevant quote to sum it up:
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it…  --Judge Learned Hand

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Circling the wagons at the convention

Seth Abramson at the Huffington Post has made some interesting observations of the planning process for the Democratic National convention:
1. The press is counting the superdelegates, despite being told numerous times by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other DNC officials, they don't count until the convention in July.
2. Clinton courted hundreds of superdelegates long before even the first primary was held to secure their loyalty.
3. The press is calling Sanders' determination to stay in the race until the end of the convention, until the last vote is cast, "awkward". As if somehow, he should bow out now, before the biggest prize is awarded, California.
4. Clinton and Wasserman Schultz are already stacking committees to keep Sanders and his delegates silent on the Democratic Party platform. Remember, they want to keep the changes incremental so as not to upset the relevant funders.
The Clinton team can hardly wait to declare Clinton the winner of the Democratic primary race, winning in a fairly undemocratic way, despite a few notable facts:
1. It is now very unlikely for either Clinton or Sanders to come up with the majority of pledged delegates before the convention.
2. It is now a near certainty that the convention will be contested.
3. It is estimated that 33% of Sanders supporters will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.
4. 45% of American voters are independent and they support Sanders in the polling by clear majorities.

The press is now openly gloating about how much fun it will be to witness the coronation of Clinton. They are telling us that it's OK to declare the winner a month and a half before the convention. They are telling us that it's OK stack the committees to exclude Sanders delegates from the rules making process.

I know, most of us haven't figured out that the convention isn't just for electing nominees for president, it's also for modifying the rules of the Democratic National Party. Apparently, there are some big changes in store for us, and the Sanders crowd probably isn't going to like being shut out of the process.

See, the Hillary camp and their supporters have displayed vitriolic anger at the Sanders campaign. They would really, really like us to sit down and shut up. I guess they want us to stay home in November. Is that what you want? Are you sure about that?

Many of us can write in Sanders. if not, we can vote for Jill Stein in the Green Party. Clinton supporters keep telling us a vote for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. No, it's not. If I vote for someone besides Clinton, and I don't vote for Trump, my vote is not for Trump. I will cast my for vote for someone I want. Believe me, I don't think my vote will be wasted. Besides, there are many in the Clinton camp who really don't think they need me. You know, like Hillary Clinton.

Given the way Clinton is now 'pivoting" towards the general election, she doesn't seem to think she needs voters that support Sanders. She's going to woo Republicans and accept money from big GOP donors, Republicans who want to stop Trump. A million here and a million there, pretty soon, you're talking about real money. But not a word about Sanders, mind you. She's courting Republicans who don't want Trump, independent voters be damned.

The press has played a big part in this. They gave Trump 10 times the coverage that they gave Sanders. They gave Clinton far more coverage than Sanders, too. But now, finally, he's showing up on the Sunday morning talk shows. So sorry, we had to cover Trump and Clinton first. But now you can't say we didn't give you free press time like we did with the others. At least now we can work with the Clinton camp to say that she won already. Now go be quiet and paint.

Even RealClearPolitics is so certain that Clinton will win the nomination, they have an electoral map showing how she will beat Trump. So far, it's 227 for Clinton, 143 for Trump with 168 toss ups. Hillary doesn't fare well in battlehground states or with independents, so it's still theoretically possible for Trump to win. 143 plus 168 is 311. 168 electoral delegates is a big chunk of uncertainty for Clinton. I wonder why Politico didn't put up a map for Sanders against Trump.

Oh, I think I know why. In national polling, Sanders is polling on average, 13 points ahead of Trump. Clinton is polling only 6 points ahead of Trump. Isn't that getting down close to to the margin of error? This trend has been going on for months, but that doesn't fit the narrative the press wants to give us. I guess we're not supposed to notice that.

I've seen bullies on the internet with regard to my support for Sanders. They tell me I haven't done my research. They tell me that Clinton has already won. They tell me that they'd vote for Sanders if he won. That's not the point for me.

The point is, Clinton represents a brand of politics I no longer want in America. I'm tired of the pay-for-play. I'm tired of living under one set of rules while people like Clinton live under another. I'm tired of playing find the ball with you guys. If can still support her after all the research, be my guest. I won't have it. Any of it. I want Sanders for president.

If Trump wins the White House because millions of Sanders supporters voted for someone else, it's not on us. It will be because the DNC was not listening to us. We were listening. We did our research. We came to the conclusion that Sanders is the better candidate. The single biggest reason why? He defied the money primary. While other members of Congress were spending up to two thirds of their time dialing for dollars, Sanders was working for us. All of us.

That is why I want him in the White House. Go on, circle your wagons, Clinton fans. Just remember that Clinton is part of that dialing for dollars club. You know who's got her ear and it's not you.