RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Taibbi writes: "Even if you think the election was stolen, any Democrat who reads this book will come away believing he or she belongs to a party stuck in a profound identity crisis. Trump or no Trump, the Democrats need therapy - and soon."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)

Yikes! New Behind-the-Scenes Book Brutalizes the Clinton Campaign

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

21 April 17


'Shattered,' a campaign tell-all fueled by anonymous sources, outlines a generational political disaster

here is a critical scene in Shattered, the new behind-the-scenes campaign diary by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, in which staffers in the Hillary Clinton campaign begin to bicker with one another.

At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign's exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem.

"All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it," they wrote. "Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn't really have a rationale."

Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton's real motivation:

"I would have had a reason for running," one of her top aides said, "or I wouldn't have run."

The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology – "I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason" – into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: "I seek re-election, therefore I am... seeking re-election."

If you're wondering what might be the point of rehashing this now, the responsibility for opposing Donald Trump going forward still rests with the (mostly anonymous) voices described in this book.

What Allen and Parnes captured in Shattered was a far more revealing portrait of the Democratic Party intelligentsia than, say, the WikiLeaks dumps. And while the book is profoundly unflattering to Hillary Clinton, the problem it describes really has nothing to do with Secretary Clinton.

The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway.

In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters' need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem.

In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry.

This passage describes the mood inside the campaign early in the Iowa race (emphasis mine):

"There wasn't a real clear sense of why she was in it. Minus that, people want to assign their own motivations – at the very best, a politician who thinks it's her turn," one campaign staffer said. "It was true and earnest, but also received well. We were talking to Democrats, who largely didn't think she was evil."

Our own voters "largely" don't think your real reason for running for president is evil qualified as good news in this book. The book is filled with similar scenes of brutal unintentional comedy.

In May of 2015, as Hillary was planning her first major TV interview – an address the campaign hoped would put to rest criticism Hillary was avoiding the press over the burgeoning email scandal – communications chief Jennifer Palmieri asked Huma Abedin to ask Hillary who she wanted to conduct the interview. (There are a lot of these games of "telephone" in the book, as only a tiny group of people had access to the increasingly secretive candidate.)

The answer that came back was that Hillary wanted to do the interview with "Brianna." Palmieri took this to mean CNN's Brianna Keilar, and worked to set up the interview, which aired on July 7th of that year.

Unfortunately, Keilar was not particularly gentle in her conduct of the interview. Among other things, she asked Hillary questions like, "Would you vote for someone you didn't trust?" An aide describes Hillary as "staring daggers" at Keilar. Internally, the interview was viewed as a disaster.

It turns out now it was all a mistake. Hillary had not wanted Brianna Keilar as an interviewer, but Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, an excellent interviewer in her own right, but also one who happens to be the spouse of longtime Clinton administration aide Peter Orszag.

This "I said lunch, not launch!" slapstick mishap underscored for the Clinton campaign the hazards of venturing one millimeter outside the circle of trust. In one early conference call with speechwriters, Clinton sounded reserved:

"Though she was speaking with a small group made up mostly of intimates, she sounded like she was addressing a roomful of supporters – inhibited by the concern that whatever she said might be leaked to the press."

This traced back to 2008, a failed run that the Clintons had concluded was due to the disloyalty and treachery of staff and other Democrats. After that race, Hillary had aides create "loyalty scores" (from one for most loyal, to seven for most treacherous) for members of Congress. Bill Clinton since 2008 had "campaigned against some of the sevens" to "help knock them out of office," apparently to purify the Dem ranks heading into 2016.

Beyond that, Hillary after 2008 conducted a unique autopsy of her failed campaign. This reportedly included personally going back and reading through the email messages of her staffers:

"She instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. … She believed her campaign had failed her – not the other way around – and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who,' said a source familiar with the operation."

Some will say this Nixonesque prying into her staff's communications will make complaints about leaked emails ring a little hollow.

Who knows about that. Reading your employees' emails isn't nearly the same as having an outsider leak them all over the world. Still, such a criticism would miss the point, which is that Hillary was looking in the wrong place for a reason for her 2008 loss. That she was convinced her staff was at fault makes sense, as Washington politicians tend to view everything through an insider lens.

Most don't see elections as organic movements within populations of millions, but as dueling contests of "whip-smart" organizers who know how to get the cattle to vote the right way. If someone wins an election, the inevitable Beltway conclusion is that the winner had better puppeteers. 

The Clinton campaign in 2016, for instance, never saw the Bernie Sanders campaign as being driven by millions of people who over the course of decades had become dissatisfied with the party. They instead saw one cheap stunt pulled by an illegitimate back-bencher, foolishness that would be ended if Sanders himself could somehow be removed.

"Bill and Hillary had wanted to put [Sanders] down like a junkyard dog early on," Allen and Parnes wrote. The only reason they didn't, they explained, was an irritating chance problem: Sanders "was liked," which meant going negative would backfire.

Hillary had had the same problem with Barack Obama, with whom she and her husband had elected to go heavily negative in 2008, only to see that strategy go very wrong. "It boomeranged," as it's put in Shattered.

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation – i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

They were determined not to make the same mistake in 2016. Here, the thought process of campaign chief Robby Mook is described:

"Mook knew that Hillary viewed almost every early decision through a 2008 lens: she thought almost everything her own campaign had done was flawed and everything Obama's had done was pristine."

Since Obama had spent efficiently and Hillary in 2008 had not, this led to spending cutbacks in the 2016 race in crucial areas, including the hiring of outreach staff in states like Michigan. This led to a string of similarly insane self-defeating decisions. As the book puts it, the "obsession with efficiency had come at the cost of broad voter contact in states that would become important battlegrounds."

If the ending to this story were anything other than Donald Trump being elected president, Shattered would be an awesome comedy, like a Kafka novel – a lunatic bureaucracy devouring itself. But since the ending is the opposite of funny, it will likely be consumed as a cautionary tale.

Shattered is what happens when political parties become too disconnected from their voters. Even if you think the election was stolen, any Democrat who reads this book will come away believing he or she belongs to a party stuck in a profound identity crisis. Trump or no Trump, the Democrats need therapy – and soon. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+59 # mashiguo 2017-04-21 09:26
Hillary ran for one reason only: her overwhelming ambition to be the first woman president.

Of course she couldn't admit to that.
But everyone should beware that she is already trying to rehabilitate herself for yet another run.

The refusal of the DNC to move beyond her outmoded and unpopular model is worrisome in this regard. They all seem to believe she was the correct candidate and if it weren't for (x) she would have won.

Hillary is a fatally flawed candidate and a fatally flawed human being with abysmal judgment. The danger of her possible re-emergence must not be underestimated.

Next time we won't have the luck of an incompetent buffoon running against her.
A Pence or a Ryan will really flush US down the toilet of history with ease, grace and no compunction whatsoever.
+7 # wrknight 2017-04-22 07:08
"Next time we won't have the luck(????) of an incompetent buffoon running against her."
+2 # reiverpacific 2017-04-22 09:40
Quoting wrknight:
"Next time we won't have the luck(????) of an incompetent buffoon running against her."

But maybe you'll have the "luck(????)" of a decent candidate for a long-time change.
As Monty Python said "Always look on the bright side of life -tara,tara,tara aaa--!"
+17 # Moxa 2017-04-22 09:43
"luck": in other words, if there was ANYBODY that she could have beaten it would be an incompetent fraud like Trump. She couldn't even beat him. Next time there will likely be someone much harder to beat.
+14 # mashiguo 2017-04-22 09:45
Trump's greatest asset is his incompetence. Quite a lot of what he tries to do gets short-circuited at every turn.

The same wouldn't happen with a Pence or a Ryan. They will stab you in the back an turn the knife and smile and make you like it while they do it.
+2 # Caliban 2017-04-24 12:03
Pence or Ryan would "Stab you in the back"? Absolutely.

But "make you like it"? Not me ,,, and not many people I know, either.
+27 # deadhead 2017-04-21 10:01
That which sounds flabbergasting, turns out to be true.

And even more flabbergasting is how a handful of current, close tiny local races are being seen by many optimistic Dems as "proof! Proof, I tell you!" that the Repugs are somehow falling apart after this disastrous, past presidential election.

Hate Trumps hope every time.
+24 # wrknight 2017-04-22 07:22
And yet the DNC is failing to offer support in those races in which non-establishme nt Democrats have a chance of defeating long held Republican seats (e.g., Thompson (D) vs Estes (R)).
+58 # Saberoff 2017-04-21 10:03
"Even if you think the election was stolen,...

I think the election was stolen.

If the Democrat Party does not see itself as a party of cunning, devious crooks then yes, they are "stuck in a profound identity crises."
-4 # Cassandra2012 2017-04-21 18:53
Quoting Saberoff:
"Even if you think the election was stolen,...

I think the election was stolen.

If the "Democrat Party" does not see itself as a party of cunning, devious crooks then yes, they are "stuck in a profound identity crises."

The DemocratIC party of FDR and JFK seems dead, dead, dead, alas, or at the very least, dying.... . Which would make the Teapugnicans and and Tealiban trolls happy, no doubt.
However, if you insist on taking the Karl Rove bait to frame the discussion like those trolls would have us do, it is hard to see why one would follow along with you this way.
+1 # deadhead 2017-04-22 09:25
+51 # bdeja 2017-04-21 10:25
So on target. If the Party doesn't change now it will be much too late for all of us.
+65 # Richard Martin-Shorter 2017-04-21 10:28
"Shattered is what happens when political parties become too disconnected from their voters."

Could there be any more accurate a criticism of the Democrats today? Or any more compelling reason to push their old guard aside, and regain our rightful representation?
+30 # Anonymot 2017-04-21 10:33
Eventually the smart people with a public voice will realize that Hillary ran for the reason I've said here before: when Deep State and its voice, the CIA, realized that no member of the Republican party could hope to win in 2008 they had to do something drastic. The Republicans had been their vehicle since the Dulles brothers 60 years ago.

We don't yet know how they scrambled into the Democrat's driver's seat, but no doubt through Bill who they had made a Deep State member with promises of great wealth back in '92. So, they said, we'll put up 2 candidates, including your wife who'll also earn a fortune, and another daring choice, how about our first black candidate? Whichever one wins the primary will be the follow-on President.

You know the rest.

They had made a good choice in Obama (from their point of view,) but they had not realized what a disaster Hillary would be nor had they anticipated the 2 renegades: Sanders & Trump. The CIA always forgets at least 1 link in their chain which explains their losing all wars.

That explains why Hillary could not say why she should be President. She couldn't say the money, my ego, or the CIA.

That also explains why Deep State is scrambling desperately to regain control of the Republicans and Trump.

Think about it.
+8 # Cassandra2012 2017-04-21 18:56
They 'scrambled' into the Democrats' driver's seat through methodical unethical gerrymandering and propaganda ads 24 hrs. a day bought with and by bad actors like the Koch Bros. and the Mercers et al.
0 # Caliban 2017-04-24 12:08
"Think about it"?

I think you should send this fantasy to an agent before Dan Brown steals it.
+30 # economagic 2017-04-21 10:52
"Hillary wanted to do the interview with 'Brianna.'"

"This 'I said lunch, not launch' slapstick mishap underscored for the Clinton campaign the hazards of venturing one millimeter outside the circle of trust."

It also underscores the extent that Ms. Clinton fails to communicate clearly, even when she has a specific and coherent idea in mind, which clearly she often does not.
+43 # JayaVII 2017-04-21 11:35
Does it get more corporate and insular than this, people? It sounds like an account of Louis XIV or the last king of Ethiopia. PR is not politics, marketing is not democracy, consumers are not citizens, messaging is not purpose, and Clintonism is not a viable long-term political ideology.

The book sounds like must reading, together with Thomas Frank's updated "Listen, Liberal!"
-8 # Cassandra2012 2017-04-21 18:58
Quoting JayaVII:
Does it get more corporate and insular than this, people? It sounds like an account of Louis XIV or the last king of Ethiopia. PR is not politics, marketing is not democracy, consumers are not citizens, messaging is not purpose, and Clintonism is not a viable long-term political ideology.

The book sounds like must reading, together with Thomas Frank's updated "Listen, Liberal!"

Enjoy the rise of Trumpistic fascism then.
Enjoy the lies, deceit, self-serving narcissism, the bilking of the American taxpayer, the takeover of the state by flagrant nepotism, Enjoy the kiss-a$$ Putnism that Trumpolini seems to require to stay in 'business', etc.
+80 # jimallyn 2017-04-21 12:01
Ah, but Hillary did have a reason for running: she wanted to be president. But a lot of us couldn't support her just because she wanted to be president, so we supported Bernie Sanders, who also had a reason for running: he wanted to serve the people and make this country and the world a better place.
+56 # librarian1984 2017-04-21 12:46
So Bill Clinton worked against Dems who weren't loyal enough to the Clintons, and in autopsying two failed presidential bids, Hillary has never once managed to uncover the possibility that she herself is even partly responsible?

The authors have stated that since the book has come out the Clintons have started a 'witch hunt' to discover who dared to talk to them.

The Clintons have been a disaster for the DP.
+18 # Wally Jasper 2017-04-22 08:50
"The Clintons have been a disaster for the DP."

And for this country and for the world.
+70 # Wise woman 2017-04-21 14:19
The election was not stolen. It was given away by a democratic party steeped in "doing what it's been doing for years" and beholden to big money. The way they ignored Bernie was pitiful and mean and as it turns out, disastrous. By doing so, trump had his way with the so-called deplorables. If their strategy was bad in 08, it was futile in 16. The only good to come out of this scenario is that the Clinton's power seems to be on the wane. The party needs Bernie. Bernie doesn't need the party. When and if they come to understand that, they might survive intact with bruises that are fixable. Otherwise it seems that a third party is inevitable.
+16 # librarian1984 2017-04-21 18:45
Generational Feminist Battle Brewing

The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, an excerpt in The Guardian of the book by Susan Bordo in which she blames sexism, Bernie Sanders and millennial feminists for Hillary's loss. It is a rather bitter and dishonest account of the nomination race and election in which she says Clinton is just as progressive as Sanders, and as much of a feminist, but undermines her credibility by repeatedly offering misleading and dishonest alt-facts and smearing Sanders and younger women:

And here is the interesting response from a millennial feminist, Katie Halper:

And finally, here is author Katie Halper discussing the article with Jimmy Dore:
+13 # bevin 2017-04-21 19:44
"The party needs Bernie.'
Its not Bernie the party needs, it is the people who supported his campaign and approved of his ideas. Or most of them. Plus the people who would have voted for him, because of his ideas and policies.
The last thing that the Democrats need is to get caught up in another personality cult. Stick to principles-'com e the hour come the man or woman.'
+25 # Wally Jasper 2017-04-22 08:59
Bernie absolutely does not promote a "personality cult" in any way shape or form. People are enthusiastic about Bernie because he is completely authentic and passionate about the upliftment of all people. Personality cults, e.g. the Clintons, are studiously nurtured and tended to by these narcissists to fulfill their inflated amibitions for themselves. Personality cults are all about "Me." Bernie is the opposite and people instinctively know that. And so we are drawn to him like bees to fragrant flowers. No personality cult there. Just true being.
+4 # Caliban 2017-04-24 12:14
You are certainly correct that Bernie himself would despise the whole notion of a personality cult.

But it is hard for those (like myself) who believe that the Sanders philosophy and governmental style is essential to the health of the Democratic party and the country not to also feel an intense admiration for the man behind the politics.
+9 # JohnWeiss 2017-04-21 21:02
"the Democrats need therapy"
-- The Democrats need to GTFO. We don't need them
+29 # Vermont Grandma 2017-04-21 21:09
Ten Democratic Party and those high up in it, including my own VT Senator Patrick Leahy, betrayed the people by insisting that a dishonest, unelectable individual HRC, be the Dem nominee. They continue to work against populist candidates even now.

Until the democratic Party and those in the hierarchy acknowledge their mistake and apologize, long time Dems like me will not have anything to do with the party.

The Dem party and its hierarchy is responsible for DT being president. Given its and HRC's ties to Wall St. and big $$$ one wonders whether they care at all. As we watch the Dems in the Senate vote to confirm DT's horrifying nominees, and maintain silence as DT moves to dismantle consumer and environmental and banking protections, it's pretty clear that the Democratic Party and its hierarchy don't have a clue and don't care.

The Dem Party also seems disinterested in how quickly fascism can take root and become the culture and practice of a nation.
+22 # Doc Mary 2017-04-21 22:37
About a month ago Ingot what should have been an encouraging fundraising email from the DNC, but was actually quite appalling. They said they were going to support every candidate who ran in a district that CLINTON had won. uh, guys, hello? SHE LOST. I could see a strategy where they focused on districts that OBAMA had won. Better yet, the 50-state strategy.

But it's just plain stupid to focus on a set of districts that, even if you win them all, you'd lose the bigger picture. Did they learn nothing? (My conclusion was no, they did not.)

I would like to see the book about how Clinton became the ONLY alternative in the Democratic Party. As the author concludes, they were clueless then and they are, sadly, still clueless. (And please, please quit running to the right!)
+18 # futhark 2017-04-21 22:58
Any candidate for public office must have a mission of some sort and be able to rally supporters for it. President G. H. W. Bush's admission that he lacked "the vision thing" was perhaps the biggest factor in his 1992 defeat by Bill Clinton. The Democratic Party needs leadership with a vision of a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world and a program to realize these aspirations. Otherwise, we end up with campaigns that are all sound and fury, but signify nothing.
+13 # Time Traveller 2017-04-22 02:55
Having lived through eleven presidents, by 2016 I had heard it all from the candidates - indeed way too much - for any mind attempting to remain sane to digest. The huge gaps between words and actions of presidents were unbridgeable. Any rational mind attempting to span them would snap. So I refused to listen to any political speeches by the candidates in 2016.

I casually read some analyses and skimmed articles and found that Bernie was my man. I trusted my intuitions about the man. He had an aura you could see with your eyes closed. Of course his wish list/agenda was impossibly long, hopeful, and naive, but he was whip-smart and he might actually succeed with some of his ideas.

I trusted him completely. Too bad others here didn't. I think they got caught up too deeply in the political maelstrom that I so assidiously avoided, taking to heart the maxim, "Don't sweat the small stuff... and its ALL small stuff."

Now we have a much longer uphill battle for 2020. The band plays on but I have gone deaf, pretty much. I just read auras now.
+9 # relegn 2017-04-22 06:38
This article (and presumably the book) show the great need for the grassroots of the Democratic Party to start driving the ideas and policies that the Party is going to need to stay relevant into the future. One already sees what we can expect to have in terms of governance if the Party continues to be driven from DC.
+18 # kath 2017-04-22 07:18
In the pre-primary stage, Hillary was like a big broody hen, sitting all over the process and preventing most alternative candidates from emerging. When they did emerge (Martin O'Malley for instance) the corporate media ignored them as they did Bernie until his appeal became too huge to ignore. And, of course, the DNC was rigging everything for Hillary, starting with the debate schedule. It apparently never occurred to them that a candidate who couldn't win her own primary without cheating might have a problem in the general.
Now she is trying to do the same thing...looming all over the Democratic coverage, trying to prevent new leaders from emerging. In this she again has help from the DNC, who, as Bernie said, don't care if the party sinks like the Titanic, as long as they are in first class.
The Clintons should shut up and go away. Surely they have enough money.
Whenever I look at them I think of a (I think) Mark Twain saying: they came to do good and did right well.
+18 # librarian1984 2017-04-22 09:44
There is an article out saying that Bill Clinton told Tom Perez that he doesn't want the DP "to be simply the party of Bernie".

I'm with you. The Clintons should be quiet and go away. They have totally destroyed the party of FDR and I don't thin k they care about that, or anyone else, at all. Some are speculating they're trying to cut progressives off in order to pave the way for Chelsea to run.

One Clinton consultant has called the Sanders-Perez Unity Tour a "Bernie Band-Aid tour: We'll slap him over our problems but fundamentally change nothing", while the Daily Kos and other neoliberal outlets are quite busy demonizing Sanders right now, even though he's the only person holding the party's head above water.

I trust Sanders is using this unity tour to keep progressives motivated and perhaps to show establishment Dems the way forward -- but has there ever been a more arrogant, clueless bunch?
+6 # rural oregon progressive 2017-04-23 04:04
clearly not!
+2 # frances_morey 2017-04-22 09:43
Thinking Inside the Beltway is like having a political-philo sophical lap band installed around a portion of the stomach. It doesn't work that well, causing situational bulimia. It does cause the enclosed space to be limited in its usefulness, cut off from the body politic and a waste of the health care dollar.
-17 # ericlipps 2017-04-22 10:46
"Big broody hen"?

Say, rather, that she was the candidate everyone recognized as plausible, having nearly won the primaries in '08. Who in the Democratic establishment had ever heard of Martin O'Malley, to say nothing of St. Bernard of Vermont? Who, therefore, would have wanted to throw the party's resources behind one of them?

One doesn't need to see an evil plot in the fact that one's favored (adored, really) contender didn't get the party's enthusiastic support.
+13 # librarian1984 2017-04-22 19:13
I remember the mood in 2015. No one was excited that it was going to be a Bush-Clinton matchup. People were wary of establishing political dynasties, too close to monarchy for US tastes. That's one thing that puzzles me about this past year. Very few were fervent admirers of Hillary in the beginning but by the end many acted as if their universes were falling apart.

At the beginning of the cycle I was resigned to HRC. I had done my fair share of defending the Clintons over the years. They sure talked a good game and who could believe the rabid nonsense coming from the GOP? But the more I found out about Hillary herself, the less willing I was to vote for the LOTE .. yet again. Hillary was a moral compromise too far.

Then, when it became apparent that the DNC was cheating, the little loyalty I had for the party crumbled away .. and my eyes were further opened by the blatant corruption of our 'free' press.

That is a lot to digest, eric, that the richest country in the world lets half its people be poor, lets infant mortality increase. We know how many people suffer or die unnecessarily while these m-f-ers vote themselves raises and think up reasons our last crumbs need to go to the wealthy, helping the oligarchs fleece us and taking their cut, and the MIIC psychopaths running amok no matter who wins.

We FINALLY had a chance to vote against politics-as-usu al. Why do you so vehemently ridicule believing we can have a better world?
+11 # librarian1984 2017-04-22 22:23
The DNC is supposed to be UNBIASED, support each candidate EQUALLY, give them equal access to data, etc. They couldn't even do that, and they are still up to the same abuses, like not giving support to Thompson in KS and shutting down progressives at the state and local levels -- 'cause everything's going so great, right? They've done such a rip-roaring job?

You seem ready to attribute flawed thinking and blind loyalty to everybody but the neoliberals, who've been selling us all out for 40 years.

There WAS an evil plot and it is available in black and white at Wikileaks and in the EJUSA report, as you well know, having been told MANY times.
+7 # Texas Aggie 2017-04-23 21:25
You do remember that Mr. Sanders smashed drumpf in all the polls but HRC won only by a few percentage points or else lost. That should have given the DP the idea that Mr. Sanders was their best bet.*0
+16 # yolo 2017-04-22 11:03
What is also interesting is how our media is trying to blame the fall of Hillary and the rise of Trump on Putin and the Russians. Not the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and based on the bad advice she gave Obama advocating for regime change everywhere she would have been an even worse president.
+6 # RFurley 2017-04-23 03:27
This has MOVIE written all over it.
-2 # laborequalswealth 2017-04-23 08:57
Since when does ANY politician have to "explain" why they are running? It's a stupid question.

I loathe the Clintons and voted Bernie, but this is really too much.
+1 # Texas Aggie 2017-04-23 21:27
Since people need to know why their motives to gauge whether they are worth voting for.
+9 # Adoregon 2017-04-23 11:07
"Most don't see elections as organic movements within populations of millions, but as dueling contests of "whip-smart" organizers who know how to get the cattle to vote the right way. If someone wins an election, the inevitable Beltway conclusion is that the winner had better puppeteers."

This is the salient paragraph in this article. Too many campaigns rely on professional propagandists (aka Public Relations firms) to manipulate voters into voting against their own self-interest by pressing the "buttons" of the electorate with lies and emotionally charged language.
This is what set Bernie Sanders apart. He said what he had to say without spin.

Dump the overpriced propagandists.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.