DNC offers Sanders “deep and sincere” apology for Wasserman-Schultz e-mails
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz herseld has not apologized, but…
Click here for reuse options!The DNC has offered its “deep and sincere apology” to Sanders, his supporters and the entire party for what it calls “the inexcusable remarks made over email.”
The statement from incoming interim party leader, Donna Brazile, and six other officials said the comments in the emails “do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”
The statement said the party won’t tolerate disrespectful language.
The statement wasn’t signed by Wasserman Schultz.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo
David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.
* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.
73 responses to DNC offers Sanders “deep and sincere” apology for Wasserman-Schultz e-mails
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hirightnow July 25th, 2016 at 20:08
Now ask yourselves; if this was the RNC, would another candidate receive an apology, or just an assurance that God forgave the chairman, and a reminder that party unity was everything?
(Still, a good thing she’s gone; Dems should be above this sort of thing.)
Suzanne McFly July 25th, 2016 at 20:09
We are above this sort of thing, but I believe DWS let the power take over her rational thinking.
robert July 25th, 2016 at 21:24
Or maybe dws demonstrated her lack of ability to run a fair campaign
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 25th, 2016 at 20:16
What does the RNC have to apologize for ? You want it to apologize for Trump?
This was an apology for what those in the DNC did.
BTW , it is “if this WERE the RNC”
Hirightnow July 25th, 2016 at 20:21
If referring to a committee as an entity, it is acceptable to use the singular.
(Gosh, you’re not right very often, are you?)
Mike July 25th, 2016 at 20:24
“Were” is the past plural…as in “these were”…”This were” is incorrect. Singular+Plural
“This was” is the preterite form and completely acceptable
Hirightnow July 25th, 2016 at 20:26
You’re more correct than I were.
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:06
Heh heh heh, good one, Mike!………can you help me with my dangling modifier?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 25th, 2016 at 22:15
geeezz do you need a link ?
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=if+this+were
When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood: If I WERE you… It will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since “the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true.”
You guys should go back to school for grammar classes :)
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:30
what if he wasn’t in doubt?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 25th, 2016 at 22:41
That may be your interpretation , but I believe that most honest people will know that is what he meant.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 03:01
Wow, so not only YOU, but most honest people, are able to read minds in order to determine what that person actually meant. Based entirely on YOUR interpretation. Kinda ironic how you deride somebody else’s interpretation and claim that everybody who isn’t a liar would buy your interpretation. Don’t see anybody upvoting your interpretation, so that would seem to indicate that you are claiming everybody here is a liar. You sure know how to win at arguments… tantrums! Mom likes me best!
Grammar lessons from a guy unable to distinguish between “to” and “too” and when to use each. Saying other people need grammar classes – that’s like Adam Sandler complaining about somebody’s acting. Hardly credible.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 26th, 2016 at 09:14
No. Honest people are willing to admit when others are correct rather than follow Hitler to the grave.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 14:56
hahahahah…
Say hi to Adolph. He’ll love your grammar lessons
Mike July 26th, 2016 at 08:30
No, RNC is singular … the subject of the conditional proposition
Margie Bateman Osgood July 25th, 2016 at 20:33
If they really wanted to apologize to Bernie, they would hold a Roll Call Vote.
Obewon July 25th, 2016 at 20:43
Margie you’re too good to deny primary voters democracy verses a redux. Thanks!
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:12
As far as I know, the naughty bits of these emails are mostly low level drones and outside consultants chatting about how the GOP might attack Bernie. So apologizing for negative comments made by those people would cover it.
How Democratic Party voters expressed their will during a long campaign is a different issue.
It’s over.
Hillary beat Bernie fair and square.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 25th, 2016 at 22:22
The results were that she won, for sure. That doesn’t mean she beat Bernie “fair and square” as that implies by the rules such as an unbiased DNC .
The large lead Hillary built up due to super-delegates could easily have convinced people to vote her giving her the win. But certainly not fair.
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:29
She won in votes, she won in delegates, she won in superdelegates -she won fair and square and she is going to beat the daylights out of Trump, fair and square, too.
tralara July 25th, 2016 at 23:15
“Hillary beat Bernie fair and square.”
Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.
robert July 26th, 2016 at 12:03
According to Bernie’s speech yesterday there will be a roll call today
robert July 25th, 2016 at 21:20
It’s like saying to an Olympic track runner Sorry for making you run for the gold in lead filled shoes but we wanted someone else to win
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:01
That would be a concrete action taken and so far I have not heard of a single email that confirms a concrete action taken by Wasserman Schultze to keep Bernie from winning.
From what I understand, most of them are chatter between low level staffers and outside consultants talking about how they expected the GOP to run against Bernie.
Given the way Bernie attacked anyone who supported Hillary, the way he behaved toward the DNC and his reneging on his pledge to raise money for other Democratic Party candidates, it is not surprising that Sanders generated some disapproval at the DNC.
Hillary won fair and square a long time ago by winning far more votes than Bernie did.
Suzanne McFly July 25th, 2016 at 22:14
No Burqa, DWS made sure the debates were held on days where the audience would be small, she did not give his campaign lists of democratic donors, the DNC had named Hillary the candidate before the Iowa caucuses, she was in the tank for Hillary and made sure Hillary would overcome any challenges. We vote in the primaries but our votes did not count to our own party, that is wrong on every level. Bernie voters have a lot of reasons to be pissed, but we need to focus our anger and change the process so this does not happen again. I will do all I can to beat rump, but Bernie did not lose this fight. Hillary had to go to him with her hand out and make amends for the wrongs that were done to him in hopes of giving her a win.
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:27
Bernie had the same voter roll info that Hillary did because his campaign hacked hers.
I doubt anyone interested in the campaign was unable to find out what happened during a debate in which they may have watched a ball game instead.
Bernie tied his own shoelaces together when he didn’t study the rules. Hillary didn’t do that to him, he did.
Bernie lost because he did not get enough votes to win. Hillary won because she did.
That’s where it was won by Hillary and lost by Bernie – she got the votes and the delegates and the superdelegates and Bernie didn’t.
Now we have the sorry spectacle of Bernie supporters trying to ruin speeches by people like Elijah Cummings, whom I happen to admire quite a bit.
I wish the Bernie supporters trying to ruin the convention had your far-sightedness and could see things in the perspective you have, Ms. McFly…
Suzanne McFly July 26th, 2016 at 08:29
His campaign hacked hers and that is how he found out he did not have the same voter rolls. They told her about the weakness in her software, they warned her. If they were dirty, they would of exploited that weakness. I love what Bernie stands for, the rich are robbing us blind and when people say we cannot afford to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour either don’t understand how the top 1% has taken in 80% of all the money in this country, or they are part of the 1% and don’t want to give it up.
I believe both of these leaders (Hillary and Bernie) bring a lot to the table, I will never turn my back on Hillary, but I loved the message of Bernie and I am so proud of how far left he has carried our platform. He has been fighting for the disenfranchised since day one and Hillary has come on the train now because she sees there is support there. You are using a very narrow form to judge Bernie and that is sad. People love to disparage the hard core Bernie voters (who have now said 90% are voting for Hillary) but I think the hard core Hillary voters feel their demonetization of the other is acceptable just because she won. I hate to tell you, but the platform we have right now shows that the democratic party is Bernie’s creation.
robert July 26th, 2016 at 11:59
It’s good to know your all for superdelegates and you have to clarify ” fair and square” if low level ( as you call it ) chatting is or should be allowable. Have you ever heard, Loose lips sink ships ? Don’t be surprised if this costs the DNC the election
Um Cara July 25th, 2016 at 22:14
“do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”
Hah! That’s rich. Even many of Hillary’s supporters will tell you the DNC not only pushed Hillary over Bernie but that they should because she has been a loyal soldier and Bernie is a Johnny come Lately to the party. (OldLefty – I’m looking at you, back me up on this one)
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:17
I don’t see how they would allow someone who was not even a member of the party to run in the first place.
Given the way Bernie behaved toward the DNC and his failure to keep his word to fundraise for other Democratic Party candidates it is no surprise that Bernie would generate some unfavorable comments at the DNC.
Um Cara July 25th, 2016 at 22:22
So you agree her statement is a bunch of baloney, eh? Of course they did what they could to get their dude the nomination.
I don’t see how they would allow someone who was not even a member of the party to run in the first place.
They wanted some folks to run against Hillary to avoid the ‘coronation’ charges – and they figured he’d be easy to beat. I suspect. Don’t you?
burqa July 25th, 2016 at 22:35
We-ell, Brazille had to say something to try to put out the fire and DW-S had to step down, taking the fall for what others did. Trouble is, the crybabies won’t stop squalling.
On the last point, I think it gives more power to the DNC that they have. I don’t think they selected Bernie at all.
The one I wanted was Jim Webb, by the way, but I’m not getting all petulant about it the way these Bernie folks are, trying to ruin the convention because they don’t know how to take a ass-whuppin’…….
Um Cara July 25th, 2016 at 22:40
trying to ruin the convention because they don’t know how to take a ass-whuppin’
It wasn’t an ass-whuppin, but I agree Hillary is acting like it was. We’ll see in November if alienating many liberals is a good strategy, I suppose.
Have a good night, I’ve got some research to do on the Green Party…
Gina Bousquet July 25th, 2016 at 23:10
:)
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 25th, 2016 at 23:22
While I certainly disagree with Stein, I certainly believe she is far more honest than Hillary.
Suzanne McFly July 25th, 2016 at 22:17
Yeah, they are sweeping that dirt hard and trying to get the rug over it quickly. We are fixing this so it won’t occur again.
William July 25th, 2016 at 22:53
Just sayin’
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 25th, 2016 at 23:18
The difference is that Putin has no actual control over the system of election itself or the system of delegates that select the eventual nominee as the DNC (“once” headed by Schultz) itself has.
It comes down to whether you only worry about the ends ? Or the means too.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 12:04
Neither does the DNC chair.
robert July 26th, 2016 at 12:13
Enter Ed snowden by the way,what is he up to these days ?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 26th, 2016 at 15:32
Still fighting for freedom of speech https://twitter.com/Snowden
robert July 26th, 2016 at 15:37
And asking the USA for a more then fair trial or he’s not leaving Russia. I wonder who asked him to make the trip ?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 26th, 2016 at 17:45
Snowden was convicted BECAUSE he wasn’t a government employee who would have been covered under the Whistle Blower law for what he did. Snowden was working under a company that contracted with the government.
I support he be pardoned or whatever. Snowden’s crime is violating his contract with his employer.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 17:56
Snowden was charged. Not convicted.
robert July 26th, 2016 at 18:41
All I can say is John Kerry strongly disagrees with you and sadly snowden’s trial conditions have either been denied or the DOJ is still laughing at him.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 26th, 2016 at 20:03
Like I said. Snowden would have been covered by the Whistle Blower law had he been a government employee.
Doesn’t seem that this mere fact would turn a person from innocent into a traitor as many claim.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 02:55
Hey, sorry we were planning on how to f*ck ya, Bernie! Our bad. How ’bout them Marlins?
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 12:03
How exactly did they do that?
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 14:54
Remember hearing about emails discussing characterizing him as a atheist with the express intent of hurting his candidacy? In a court of law, that would be considered a conspiracy.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 14:58
That was shot down by the top of the DNC.
Since it is a private organization, people within the organization can say whatever they want.
the DNC leaks provide strong evidence that the DNC did nothing to influence the outcome of the primaries.
Much of the bad blood started with the NGP-VAN brouhaha.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 15:09
“…we were planning…”
That’s how I put it. Never said that they DID it, just that there was planning going on. If you’re going to “correct” me, at least correct me where I am inaccurate. Would you be so forgiving if it were planning by the RNC that never came to fruition?
To me, it sounds like there was animus against Bernie that you wouldn’t expect from the Party organization whose sole purpose is to get Dems elected. And it seems to have been pretty accepted since they felt OK with including it in emails. Party officials may have shot it down, but I don’t remember hearing about any brouhaha about the disciplining of the person who suggested it. As if they were saying “Yeah, it’s a great idea, but we really can’t be seen doing that kind of thing.”
Just so you know, I didn’t believe the “they are against Bernie” sentiment until the email leak.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 15:25
Someone merely suggested it in private correspondences.
One email among the thousands of internal DNC messages showed DNC CFO Brad Marshall questioning Sanders’ Jewish faith, and suggested that painting the candidate as an atheist “could make several points difference” in several late primary
The EXACT message was;
“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
First off, there are many in the party who’s job it is to worry about weather or not this guy could win a general election if nominated.
They had the same concerns about the first black nominee.
That is not unreasonable. If he is afraid that an old Jewish man with a Brooklyn accent could not win a general election, is that anymore unreasonable than those who worried about Obama??
(Nobody, hacked their emails,(or the RNC’s) so we will never know.
Secondly, again much of the trouble started when the Sanders staffer breached the Clinton campaign’s data (remember that?) The campaign apologized for it, and fired the staffer responsible, but then cried foul when its access was suspended for 24 hours while they investigated how it had happened.
Thirdly many local Democrats who the people who have consistently done the grunt work (copying and pasting from before now) Those whose kitchens are full of file cabinets with forms for county and district ballots, instructions on how to get on the ballots, not to mention receipts for paper and toner??? Those who are blown off contemptuously as “the establishment”?… and assume they mean them, because THEY are a bigger part of the”Dem establishment ” than Debbie Wasserman Schultz who has no influence over how state parties and elections are run, or their rules.
So, I know this woman mentioned above with the kitchen full of file cabinets, who said there was resentment about this guy who “was always too good to be part of the party until he needs the machine that WE built, then is welcomed in only to call us “the establishment” and tell us we have to change the machine that WE established.
Basically the states run the elections and the national party has very little influence.
I think it is a tempest in a teapot.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 15:38
I tell ya what. I work with vets. If I, using internal email, brought up the suggestion of screwing over a vet (who I am ostensibly there to support,) there would be repercussions. There is NOT a culture there that would find that even a remotely acceptable suggestion, and is in DIRECT conflict with the entire goal of the organization. That WOULD go into my personnel file.
Whether or not this is a tempest in a teapot, it shows that the culture in the DNC was such that someone felt OKAY with screwing over one of the people whose candidacy they are supposed to be there to support. Sure doesn’t inspire faith in the DNC in my estimation. It was a totally unforced error and a black eye for the whole organization.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 15:46
It’s not “screwing over” anyone.
So asking about his religion BEFORE he is the nominee is “screwing him over”????
Did you feel the same about Harry Reid, wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect,” who, was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” was “screwing Hillary over?
This guy was mere saying that if his religion was going to be a problem, lets get it out now.
Was stealing Hillary’s list screwing HER over??
To me, there is nothing there.
But if someone asks to come into your house and you welcome them in, should they start they start threatening to burn down your house if you don’t change the rules for them???
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 15:58
You know, Old, we aren’t talking about those other kids, or those other incidents. “Yeah but Jimmy did something too!” Didn’t buy that from my kids…
And yes, I find trying to damage those running to be entirely outside the purview of an organization ostensibly in the business of promoting candidates. You can certainly disagree, and I respect that, but you can’t repair the damage to the reputation of the DNC this incident has inspired in me. I would lose faith in friends discussing how to sabotage something I am trying to do…
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 16:07
You know, Old, we aren’t talking about those other kids, or those other incidents. “Yeah but Jimmy did something too!” Didn’t buy that from my kids…
_____
Nobody IS doing that.
I am claiming that this is nothing out of the ordinary, that Bernie’s people are also guilty, (you just don’t care), and that NO ONE tried to damage Bernie at all.
That in a huge organization there are preferred candidates and resentments????
SHOCKING!!!!
I am claim that there is no REAL cause for damage, only received damage.
Again, I think it’s media hype brought to us by Putin.
By the way, would you have faith in friends who stole from you??
Or is bringing that up “Yeah but Jimmy did something too!” ????
To me, that was worse, and that did not change my opinion about Bernie.
This was not as bad and does not change my opinion about the DNC.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 16:15
” that Bernie’s people are also guilty, (you just don’t care)
Jebus, man, the fact that people are guilty does nothing to change any other freakin’ person’s guilt. How often do you see a successful “That guy did crimes too” defense on Law & Order? It’s a deflection. A “look over there, some big distracting thing.”
You don’t think it’s a big deal. I do. That pretty much sums up where we stand. But it sounds like I am saying that I don’t trust people who discuss how to damage me, and you sound like you are okay with it because a bunch of other people are damaging people too. I don’t see where we could have a meeting of the minds on the issue, so I think the discussion is dead in the water.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 16:19
Jebus, man, the fact that people are guilty does nothing to change any other freakin’
______
There IS no guilt.
It sounds like you are saying that you don’t trust people who discuss how to damage you, but if you like them you don’t mind if they steal from a neighbor whom you don’t like as much.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 16:26
You are really getting far afield. And you attributing thoughts and feelings to me that not only are incorrect, but are thoughts and feelings you would have no way of knowing.
If somebody tries to backstab me, I will react negatively. If someone I like steals from someone else, I will react negatively. I do not approve of theft, whether I like you or not. But thank you so much for saying that I am fine with people stealing as long as I don’t like their victims – Saying I am dishonest and petty and unethical. THAT sure shores up your position, eh?
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 16:38
You are really getting far afield. And you attributing thoughts and feelings to me that not only are incorrect, but are thoughts and feelings you would have no way of knowing
______
Isn’t that EXACTLY what YOU are doing when you say, “Or, to paraphrase, “I believe it will hurt him with Southern Baptists, so let’s do it!”
Or when you accuse ME of saying “. “Yeah but Jimmy did something too!”
What happened here was one guy who said that, if one candidate’s religion may be a problem, maybe someone should ask him about it in a tough crowd, and his higher ups said no.
As for stealing… I am just perplexed as to why that was not as big a deal as someone else saying;
“Maybe we should…”
answered by;
“No.”
That is not saying anything about your honesty or ethics. (But aren’t you doing that to me when you accuse me deflecting from something that I already said I don’t think is a big deal by pointing out how no on cared about the other “scandal”????)
bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 02:26
Last statement on the issue from my end…
If I were a judge, I would not judge one case based on a previous case. I would not think that a wrong hadn’t been committed because of something that happened to a THIRD party. I would not think that it was OK for Trump to defraud the paint company if they can find an employee who stole something once. Or that because the previous case was nice little ol’ Granny Clampett on the dock for making rhuematiz medicine, you Bundy’s are free to go!
Right or wrong is based on its own merits, not the merits of an ENTIRELY different incident. What happened with those other kids is another issue entirely, and in no way alters the facts of the case. Yes, I think it is deflecting when you try to bring up extraneous issues that somehow are supposed to change the material facts. That IS what you did – “Yeah, but Bernie…. Yeah but Harry Reid… Was stealing Hillary’s list screwing HER over?” Consistently said that this incident should be judged on prior incidents. That IS “Yeah, but Jimmy did something too!”
You also said that I am perfectly accepting of theft if it is against someone I don’t like. One, that is decidedly untrue. I don’t approve of theft. You called my honesty into question. Then my ethics because I am dishonest if I don’t like them. This is based on fantasy from start to finish. When the hell did I say I don’t like Hillary? Isn’t that the entire premise? I’m biased in favor of Bernie because I don’t like Hillary, and so am OK with theft?
I don’t like the incident, nor what it does to the trust factor for the DNC. I don’t think that we should judge that person’s actions by the actions of another person’s actions in an entirely different incident. For this high crime, you resort to character assassination.
OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 07:29
Sorry, but I don’t think any wrongs WERE committed.
In the scope of large institutions like National parties, this is all pretty minor stuff.
You assume that I am defending one wrong by citing another wrong.
I am not.
I am claiming that no defense is required.
You also said, “Yes, I think it is deflecting when you try to bring up extraneous issues that somehow are supposed to change the material facts.”…
(Should I assume that YOU are calling MY honesty into question?
An underling suggesting that maybe we do something and then told, “no” is not any great wrong committed especially in such a huge organization.
I point out that that in one organization (the Sanders campaign) a misdeed was ACTUALLY done, and the higher ups did the right thing and handled it in the proper way.
In the other organization, one person THOUGHT about doing something, and the higher ups did the right thing and handled it in the proper way.
I pointed out that you seem to be more upset about the latter than the former while I am the opposite, but I think neither the actual DEED done by an underling in the Bernie campaign nor the thought from an underling in the DNC that was properly squashed by the DNC rise to the level of big deals.
But should I feel that for this high crime, YOU resort to character assassination???
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 15:34
By the way, as for; Just so you know, I didn’t believe the “they are against Bernie” sentiment until the email leak.
_______
I still don’t.
I think they were concerned about his ability to win a general…. that is part of their job.
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 15:45
“I think they were concerned about his ability to win a general…. that is part of their job.”
Huh. Suggestions on how to damage the candidacy of one of your primary candidates is their freakin’ job? And if worrying about his candidacy was the reason, why do they talk about SABOTAGING it? “I’m concerned he might have problems winning the general – instead of helping overcome that, what say we back-stab him?” That’s some job. Doesn’t sound very Democratic.
I thought it was the job of the freaking delegates to decide between the primary candidates. I guess I didn’t realize that the DNC is in the business of making those decisions.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 15:53
Huh. Suggestions on how to damage the candidacy of one of your primary candidates is their freakin’ job?
____
Talking about asking about his religion is doing damage the candidacy of one of your primary candidates?????
What Sabotage?
Who said, “I’m concerned he might have problems winning the general – instead of helping overcome that, what say we back-stab him?
Why won’t you answer similar questions when they go the other way??
What did the DNC do to make the choice for the delegates???
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 16:07
“What Sabotage?”
From the email:
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
Or, to paraphrase, “I believe it will hurt him with Southern Baptists, so let’s do it!”
Argue against it all you want. YOU quoted the email where it said what this person wanted to do, and why – bring up his religion to attempt to damage his candidacy. That may be SOP to you. It may be just a bagatelle to you. To me, it inspires distrust, and effectively gave a weapon to the Bernie or Bust crowd. It certainly has provided no BENEFIT to the DNC.
OldLefty July 26th, 2016 at 16:15
I posted that before and that was shot down.
It’s nothing.
Again, were YOU OK with Bernie’s staff stealing Hillary’s list? That DID happen.
Asking about religion (which was SURE to be a issue in the general) did NOT happen being told “No” DID happen.
I think it’s only a big deal if someone wants it to be a big deal.
In almost 20,000 very candid emails among seven high-level DNC officials over a five-month period, there is zero evidence that the organization took any action to tilt the playing field.
robert July 26th, 2016 at 12:10
You have to love all the excuses Let me know when it’s all over
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 14:54
I don’t understand what you are saying.
robert July 26th, 2016 at 15:11
I guess you didn’t hear the recent news, Bernie won’t be involved with roll call today. He’s sitting this out No telling what’s going to happen when Vermont is called ?
bpollen July 26th, 2016 at 15:47
That’s nice, but still don’t get what you are talking about. Bernie isn’t going to be involved in roll call. How does that make anything I said an excuse? And excuse for what?
robert July 27th, 2016 at 00:15
Never mind I read some bad info about today’s roll call but it still ended up weird on how Bernie behaved today.
bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 02:44
No problem. I’m still confused, but it’s hardly the first time.