Monday, July 25, 2016

Puzzled by DNC bias? Completely explained by the weakness of Hillary Clinton as candidate for president

First, take a look at this picture:

The latest release of emails from Wikileaks is getting the full scrutiny of the world to show just how much Hillary Clinton colluded with the DNC to rig the election against Bernie Sanders. A clear pattern of collusion and deception has emerged in the emails released by Wikileaks, so much so that now, an interesting question has been raised:

Did Hillary Clinton win the delegates she has fair and square?

I think, based on the available analysis of the emails so far (meaning there is more to come), the answer is no. The Sanders campaign was treated with hostility and venom in the emails, attitudes that were not communicated openly to Sanders campaign officials. The extent of the candor in these emails is breathtaking.

Have a look here at a sample of items from a list compiled by at least one researcher already:

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.

DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.

DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.

DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.

DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.”

Why would the DNC have any pull at all with the media? Shouldn't the media be able to make its own mind about what stories to run or not? Isn't our free press supposed to be independent and unbiased, free of the influence of the people they investigate and report on? What do they have to gain by colluding with the Clinton campaign?

Here's an email where they wanted to get someone in the press to ask Sanders about his belief in God. He's already stated that he is of the Jewish faith, but apparently they wanted to embarrass him on TV to sway Southern Christians:

See for reference. Seems ironic that someone from the DNC would try to introduce a religious test for a candidate for president. Why is the DNC looking for proxies to ask embarrassing questions of Bernie Sanders?

Why is the DNC doing opposition research on Bernie Sanders? Shouldn't opposition research be reserved exclusively for members of other political parties? You know, like Donald Trump?

What we can see yet again, is that party unity was *never* a priority with top DNC officials. They seemed to think of Sanders as a trespasser rather than a legitimate candidate. The same can be said of our national news media. They treated Sanders as a trespasser, denying him the free coverage they gave to Clinton, denying access to Sanders surrogates and accepting planted stories from the DNC.

Impartiality must come before unity.

To summarize, they infiltrated Sanders' campaign, fed stories to reporters and news agencies, and generally, sandbagged his campaign. All in the name of what? Electing the first woman president of the United States before the Republicans do it? Does anyone seriously believe that the GOP even wants a woman as president of the United States?

Now there have been calls for accountability. Respondeat superior, "let the master answer', is appropriate here. So far, we have seen Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) be removed from the speakers list for the Convention. Then she announced her decision to resign after the convention. But she is not the master. Lucky for her, she got a job with the Clinton campaign as honorary chair on the same day she announced her intent to resign. How convenient. I guess the corrupt take really good care of their own, don't they?

How about Hillary Clinton? Well, she had the gall to hire DWS the same day as campaign manager. That is how Hillary has answered. But she is not the master.

Now there are calls for President Obama to answer. He did. Obama and Biden issued glowing statements professing the virtues of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

There is also talk of an illegitimate nomination. The DNC was supposed to be impartial, fair and balanced in terms of service to the candidates. They were not. People are beginning to seriously question the legitimacy of the presumption that Hillary Clinton is indeed the nominee.

What we see now, with the evidence at hand, is an enormous effort to assist Hillary Clinton with her campaign, assistance which was not provided to any other candidate, including Bernie Sanders. This assistance, at the expense of all the other candidates, shows how little confidence that the DNC had in Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

Despite enormous opposition from the Democratic Party, Sanders managed to win 23 states, raise more than $220 million, and won 1900 delegates, more than anyone had ever imagined. Is it reasonable to think that with a level playing field, he would have easily won 2383 delegates before the convention? I think so.

The superdelegates now have something else to think about. Clinton had an 11 point lead in national average polling before "the endorsement". Now that lead has shrunk to a rounding error of 0.4% according to Real Clear Politics. Check out the graphic below:

Where are the polls for Sanders? They seem to have stopped doing them at the end of May. I guess that free and independent press wouldn't want us to know how other people feel about seeing Sanders as nominee now, would they?

Any superdelegates out there still willing to tar their name and reputation with a vote for Hillary at the convention? If so, I've got a mid-term election to sell you. We have a sale on them right now straight from the 132 people who financed 60% of the superPAC spending for the 2012 presidential election. All you have to do is pass laws you won't follow anyway that place people you don't even care about at a disadvantage to you. We'll call it "neoliberal economics" so your voters will have no idea what you're talking about when you run for office again.

There is a very well written petition circulating for the delegates and superdelegates, requesting their help to nominate Bernie Sanders. I urge you, dear readers, to sign and share that petition. Hillary Clinton's campaign is engulfed in scandal, intrigue and corruption. I just don't see how any voter could now, in good conscience, vote for her. I know that I won't. I'm #neverhillary and #stillsanders.

In the next 3 days, we'll see if there are any "faithless delegates" who would rather vote their conscience and vote for Sanders. We will see if the superdelegates who pledged their support for Hillary long before the first primaries were even held are still determined keep their head in the ground. We may well see if they have the courage to change their mind in a very public way. It is up to us to sway them. If we want to see Sanders as the nominee, now is the time to apply the pressure.

Bernie or Bust.

No comments: