2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAll the Sunday Morning talk shows referenced the wiki leaked emails and every show repeated
ONE and only ONE email related to Sanders whereby the guy questions the fact that we don't know whether Sanders is Jewish or an atheist. I assume that since this was the ONLY email discussed on EVERY Sunday Morning Talk Show this a.m. that this had to be the most scandalous and salacious. Are we now in a point in time as Democrats where NO ONE can say anything about someone running for the highest office in the land? Particularly among those people who are running the DNC. I happen to think that the comment was no BFD to raise at the DNC level where people are making decisions about who to throw their support behind among candidates running for office. You can bet your last dollar that the opposition (the 17 Repugs that were running for president) weren't going to be so politically correct. Sanders had a major part of his adult life unaccounted for between leaving college and resurfacing to run for mayor of Burlington, VT. He was raised in the Jewish faith and many on this board and elsewhere had raised the issue that he had spent time living in a Russian commune, and had renounced Judaism. At some point during this time, he dabbled in erotic writings. Heck, half of what I learned about Sanders during his campaign, I learned here on DU, complete with sources and links. And we should know everything of significance which might influence our decision on which candidate to support in the primaries and GE. So why is it okay to discuss this matter here on DU, but grounds for firing at the DNC HQs? What was so wrong about raising this issue in a discussion at the DNC level? Obviously nothing much came of it, since they allowed him to run as a Dem even though he has always maintained his independence even as he caucused with the Dems. But because something has come to light, (something so horrific - NOT REALLY) has now surfaced in emails stolen by the Russians in their quest to get the most unqualified candidate to every run for the presidency elected, all the Dems are running for cover.This is the thing that disturbs me the most about the Dems. They are so quick to throw their fellow Dems under the bus. The Repugs, not so much. The Repugs (that matter) have all gotten in line behind Trump no matter what outrageous thing he has said over the past 17 months. The Evangelicals don't give a DAMN that he has had three wives, doesn't know that 2 Corinthians is pronounced Second Corinthians which shows he has no familiarity with the BIBLE, his favorite book; set up a fraudulent 'university' that scammed people of their hard earned money, manufactures his own overpriced crap in 8 foreign countries while criticizing other companies who have shipped jobs overseas and has NO PLAN legitimate or otherwise for how he is going to create MILLIONS and MILLIONS of new jobs in this country. He keeps up the lie that he can't reveal his tax returns like every past presidential nominee had done since Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon has done to keep the electorate from nominating and electing a president who turns out to be a tax cheat.
But the scaredy cat Dems, at the first sign of a scandal, no matter how inconsequential will throw their Mother under the bus, if the GOP plays the 'scandalous' card and everyone runs for cover. I applaud DWS for stepping aside so that she doesn't continue to dominate the News cycle for a Press in search of a scandal. As for the Dems who ran screaming "hair on fire" this a.m. on the Sunday shows, I wish they would grow a spine.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We may never know...
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
annavictorious
(934 posts)In that case, the two employees involved lost their jobs, and we all moved on. *Someone* at the top got the benefit of the doubt.
So the stupid strategy that two people talked about was never carried out. And there's no evidence that DWS even knew about it. And if she did know about it, maybe she was the one who shut it down because it never got done.
The MSM wants ratings, and Rapey Julian is the pawn of someone who wants Trump.
And the progressive pure, pwned and played, thinks it won a moral victory.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)she wasn't listed as one those it was addressed to. But that didn't seem to matter. They were out for scalps this morning and DWS had to go.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the OP's bash on Democrats (me among many millions), "But the scaredy cat Dems, at the first sign of a scandal, no matter how inconsequential will throw their Mother under the bus, if the GOP plays the 'scandalous' card and everyone runs for cover":
Hillary has immediately appointed Wasserman Schultz to a high-level position in her campaign, and her decision and DWS have already been praised by President Obama and VP Biden. And there'll be others no doubt.
I stand with their opposition to the cynical, and in some cases depraved, attempt to destroy the career of one person for political gain.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the Democrats own platform. Not to mention that the US Constitution expressly says there shall be no religious test for the office of President.
It's not a matter of no one's being able to make any criticism of Sanders. Lord knows, anyone who read DU during the last two years know what bs that claim is.
BTW, I just heard Ed Rendell discussing more than one religiously bigoted email and my understanding is that we have not seen all of them yet. Marshall's apology (on Facebook, to all Marshall offended, but not directly or specifically to Senator Sanders!) references more than one email. So, I am not sure there was just one, but the number is irrelevant. And, campaign surrogates did mention the possibility of Sanders' atheism on Sunday talk shows. So did some DUers, calling it either atheism or pantheism. There were also anti-Semitic posts and, IMO, all of it was shameful.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)You replied to a post about false equivalency with what seems to be a false equivalency.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Much as some DUers think posts on DU determine election outcomes, DU posters were not in a position of power.
Notice the non reply.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hope you are well.
Rex
(65,616 posts)See, they threaten you but don't alert on your post because they know they have nothing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)euphoria.
I'm fine if they alert, even though many of Bernie's supporters are no longer jurying. I don't like unfairness and I would consider a banning for what I post unfair.The TOS did not forbid criticism of Hillary during a primary and mine was always factual. Since the TOS I have not posted much, if anything, that is negative about Hillary. Marshall's email is on Marshall.
All that aside, if I get banned, I get banned. I would miss our exchanges, my board friend, but I could still read your posts now and again.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I've never seen you 'slam' anyone. I wouldn't worry too much about it. BS is out, DWS is out and we are all onboard with defeating Trump. Those that still want to cause resentment between the two groups should take notice.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)The US Constitution doesn't discuss perverts, but i doubt that we as Dems would want to nominate someone who was a known pervert. FTR, I'm not insinuating that Sanders is a pervert either, but the fact that people at the highest levels of the Democratic Party cannot even discuss matters that might potentially doom a candidacy, is deeply troubling. BTW, these are the people who were working hard to raise money for the various campaigns. They have a right to make decisions based on what they perceive to be the viability of the candidates considering that financial resources are limited.
As far as Ed Rendell discussing emails that we haven't seen, I will avoid discussing things that I have not seen. When such emails do surface, we can discuss them then based on what we know, not whats being speculated upon.
glennward
(989 posts)stated or responded to that attacking Sanders on religion "would be wrong." I haven't heard about that from anyone else.
Is there a link to the actual e-mails? Thanks.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)still_one
(91,947 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)riversedge
(69,721 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie was never pro-Soviet.
eShirl
(18,466 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)of terrible emails -- instead of one really nasty one and several not-so-nice (but maybe justified in the context.)
One of the emails I saw criticized simply said: LOL. It was in response to a Bernie campaign announcement that they disagreed with (they disagreed that a California debate had been agreed on.)
Why is the media whipping this nothingburger into a huge story? If we end up with a President Trump it will be because they were complicit.
Cosmocat
(14,543 posts)They hit Clinton HARD two weeks ago with the Comey hatchet job, now this.
Now this ...
Donald Trump ... No more need be said, but the dynamics of the race now are completely flipped over two completely ginned up e-mail "controversies."