Atkins: Hillary Clinton May NEED Bernie’s Help In End

[Segami]

With friends like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton could be gaining a grass-roots army of enemies. That the Democratic National Committee has been working as a shadow pro-Clinton operation, led by 2008 Clinton campaign co-chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, has been a poorly kept secret. Consider that last night’s Democratic debate, one of only six, was the second held on a Saturday night and competed with holiday parties, football and a new “Star Wars” film for America’s attention. So why would the DNC or Clinton want to tick off Bernie Sanders’ supporters, who appeared — until now — to be willing to back the former secretary of state in the end?

~snip~

But going after Sanders only helped fuel his resurgence. His campaign reportedly raised more than $1 million on Friday alone. It could also cost Clinton the endorsement she covets most — Bay State U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The prospect of Warren backing Sanders is the one thing that could throw a major roadblock in the path of Clinton’s coronation. If the Democratic Party’s own system seems rigged, it is Clinton who stands to get hammered. Wasserman Schultz couldn’t resist the chance to swipe at Sanders’ camp even after their access to voter files had been resolved, and despite the fact that the data breach was caused by a DNC vendor.

Sanders’ campaign “accused the homeowner of violating the terms of an agreement, when they had unauthorized access to the house and took things that didn’t belong to them. It was pretty outrageous,” Wasserman Schultz said on CNN yesterday afternoon, hours after the deal to reinstate Sanders’ voter data access had been reached. Last night’s debate might have been ignored by most Americans, who had better things to do. But adding fuel to Sanders’ campaign just weeks before the first primary elections is playing with fire, and it’s Clinton who risks feeling the Bern.


cont'

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/kimberly_atkins/2015/12/atkins_hill_may_need_bernie_s_help_in_end

[Samantha]

1. Interesting article but there is a question I have been meaning to ask here

Do you think DWS would actually doing anything controversial that she did not clear with Hillary Clinton first? What do you think?

Sam

[Segami]

3. I believe Hillary is insulated with layers of advisors.

I can't see her not being insulated.

[Proserpina]

5. And even so, I cannot see her giving up any control, either

Just doing it sotto voce

[Segami]

8. I could imagine a multitude of scenarios

to conduct off-the-books business 'sotto voce' with DWS.

Having said that, I still don't believe DWS occupies any square footage of space within HRC's circle of confidence......JMO!

[Samantha]

9. I understand your point and you may be right

But if there could possibly be major adverse consequences, you still think DWS would leave Clinton totally out of the decision-making?

Of course the parallel is the NJ/Christie/lane closure controversy, but something SO BIG that could cause an explosion, no hints, no nothing?

I personally think in this case Hillary Clinton knew and okayed it. I think she was desperate to hit Sanders in NH before the NH primary. Just a couple of days before the debate, CNN ran an article that NH Remains a Sanders Stronghold. He was ten points ahead of her. At the same time, Sanders was only 9 points behind her in IOWA. I believe she saw the Big Mo going towards him, and she needed a bomb to go off to stop it....

I am okay with your saying you don't buy it. I just want to know what you think.

Sam

[Segami]

10. In her well insulated environment,

relaxing behind her own personal firewall, all she needs to do in order to conduct business is say...

That's all she needs to do.....

[CoffeeCat]

17. You are spot on

I think the Hillary camp is definitely concerned about Iowa and NH.

The Iowa Poll that you mentioned is the most closely watched poll data because the pollster is so wildly accurate. If Ann Selzer says that Bernie is behind by 9 in Iowa; then this is where the race is.

I live in Iowa and I've also taken note of Sanders v Clinton campaign-event attendance. Clinton's biggest rallies are attracting 200-300 people. Bernies last three crowd estimates were 2,000, 1500 and 1,400.

The Iowa caucus season will peak after the new year. The final leg is always a turning point in the campaign. Iowans will fully engage, and a flurry of campaign rallies and events begins. The media descends on our state. This is a critical time for both campaigns because many Iowans will firm up their choices.

If Bernie is beating Clinton with event attendance now, imagine what happens during the peak. He could see explosive rally attendance. If he continues to draw larger crowds than Hillary, the optics could be bad for Clinton and tear into her "inevitability".

I do think that we are seeing signs of a 2008 2.0. It is still too early to tell, but we've got Sanders within striking distance and huge enthusiasm building at his rallies; while hers appear lackluster.

Another point to consider is Independents in Iowa. Independents are the largest political group in Iowa. We have an open primary. You can literally walk into your caucus, change from Independent to Dem in 5 minutes, and then caucus at your precinct. If Bernie attracts more Independents than Hillary, this could be a windfall for him. According to the Iowa Poll, Sanders is beating Clinton with Independents, first-time caucus goers, men and younger voters.

I think the confluence of these factors signals a tight race; one that Hillary could lose. A lot depends on the ground game and if the camps get their supporters to the caucuses.

I thought your analysis about Clinton needing a bomb to go off to stop Sander's momentum was spot on. There is a lot going on here in Iowa that is not widely known. Much of it seems almost hidden. But both campaigns know, and they understand that It's possible that Iowa could be tight.

Thought I'd share my pov from Iowa.

[Betty Karlson]

21. VERY good points. eom

[Samantha]

23. I am so glad you responded to me because I have been extremely concerned about Iowa and NH

I do think this whole event was a typical dirty Republican trick executed by a Democrat. This is just my political opinion so I do not represent it as a fact. However, I had already asked about whether Independents and Republicans could vote for Bernie in Iowa, knowing that Bernie had captured a large portion of the Independent vote there and even some Republican votes.

A DU'er from Iowa reported back to my question that they could show up the day the caucus starts and change their registration to Democrat in order to vote for Sanders. That one detail does not show up of course in the polls most publicly quoted, which are Democratic votes only. But with Sanders being only 9 points behind Clinton before the bomb went off, I had calculated with the percentage I had read (51 percent of Independents) and a guesstimate of perhaps 10 percent Republicans (he gets 25% of Republican votes in Vermont elections), he was set to take it big. And I do believe the Clinton camp knew this. She reigned Mark Penn back into her campaign, and he is advising her on polling. (I hope you are familiar with his reputation.)

However, I was not sure how much of the voting public could recognize a political dirty trick when they saw one and would recoil from voting for Sanders in light of this bomb. So I did two searches tonight and only a couple of things showed up (too early to look). CNN had previously reported that New Hampshire remained a stronghold for Sanders just a couple of days before all this happened. He had a ten point lead over Hillary. One of the things I pulled up headlined "Sanders lead in NH has disappeared." Now he is only 2 points ahead in NH. I don't know what tomorrow will bring. I have not found anything about Iowa.

So here is my question. In your opinion, will voters in Iowa believe Sanders committed a deliberate breach to steal Clinton's data and not vote for him, or are they politically savvy enough to, as Bill Press phrased it yesterday "smell a rat."

Also do you think people in Iowa (and New Hampshire if you have any idea) realize how huge the TPP issue is, how controversial it has become, and the damaging repercussions many feel will be felt by the ordinary man if this passes? If so, do they realize Sanders is strongly against this and that is why he has not been given the press coverage he deserved? Just how tuned in are the people in Iowa over this issue? Hillary previously gave many speeches supporting it but now says she has not read the final version so she has not made up her mind. She "equivocated" on her answer, I believe, because she is aware of the massive adverse opposition to this "trade" deal.

Regards,

Sam

[DonCoquixote]

20. yes

I fully think that Debbie would, because she has her own ambitions. She already joked that her New Hampshire house would be good for a presidential campaign.

As long as Debbie is fine, nothing matters.

[Kalidurga]

2. Derpy Whatta Schmuck

I stole that from Scootaloo. It's just too much fun to not use over and over again. I am punch drunk tired now, so that is all.

[lovemydog]

6. Classic. Thanks Scootaloo.

And thanks Kalidurga for reminding me.

I am not a fan of Derpy Whatta Schmuck either.

It's pretty sad to me that in a very important primary season and general election year, we want the head of the Democratic National Committee to resign, be fired or at the very least shut the heck up.

[JackInGreen]

31. I'm gonna have to get after scoot

DerpyHooves deserves better than a DWS joke. She's just not a clever pony.

[lovemydog]

4. Excellent article.

I think the same is true if Sanders wins. He would welcome Hillary's support.

[Proserpina]

7. Need? Yes. Get?

[senz]

16. Hillary's fortunate that Bernie is kind and forgiving.

[murielm99]

18. Hillary is the one who is kind and forgiving.

She has been very classy about the security breach. Bernie, his campaign staffers and his supporters have behaved like outraged teenagers.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

25. Yes - she is very kind and forgiving

Bill will be the first to tell anyone that

[elias49]

35. Ha! Ouch.

[cali]

34. Bwahaha. What bull.

[jfern]

11. The DNC/Hillary certainly made the life harder in the general election with this divisive shit

[pnwmom]

12. Hillary and Bernie had a fine debate tonight, without any rancor, nothing like

the debates of some of their supporters.

It must have been a let down to many.

It certainly was to O'Malley, who had his line about "bickering" so ready that he couldn't stop himself from delivering it.

[Cassiopeia]

13. There is nothing more rabid than a Republican voting against HRC.

HRC can and will likely take the general election IF she is the candidate that makes it.

However, her coat tails will be loooooong. She will drag every Republican non voter out in key congressional districts that we hope to recover this cycle.

HRC is not a risk we can afford.

[cui bono]

14. For what?

She can get a book deal about how to lose two successive chances at the presidency without him.

.

[DFW]

15. ANY non-united front in the General election will present problems for us

Hillary and Bernie are well aware of that, I'm sure. Neither of them is a novice at running for office. Bernie is no fool. He knows what it would mean to the country for Marco Rubio to be picking the next two or three Supreme Court Justices, and that is not a legacy he wants to leave us with, should he not be the nominee.

Any partisan "help" DWS thinks she is offering Hillary prior to the primaries being decided will reflect poorly on the DNC, and if DWS isn't aware of this, you can bet Hillary is. Howard Dean is advising her, and as DNC chairman, Howard went out of his way to stay neutral in the 2008 primary fight--to everybody's benefit. I think attributing any of DWS's actions to an invisible guiding hand from Hillary would be speculative at best. She handled this poorly, and I'm sure Howard (probably through Hillary) let her know. I'm confident a back-routed "are you out of your fucking mind?" message from him is what led to her re-instating the Sanders campaign's access to the database within 24 hours.

[jfern]

19. They reinstated it right before a scheduled 11pm meeting with a federal judge

DWS is too far off the deep end to let anything but a brutal federal lawsuit change her position.

[Samantha]

24. and the agreement Sanders had signed with the DNC specifically stated

that should the database be made unavailable, the DNC had to give "The Campaign" ten days notice.

The DNC was supposed to notify any signatory of a "breach" on its part, give that signatory a chance to fix or repair the problem, and it had ten days to do so. If that signatory failed to do so, then it could be denied access to the database. That agreement was an attachment to the original filing so the specs were right there in plain English. This was an obvious breach of contract that the defendants were going to lose in a heartbeat. That is why they settled so quickly.

Sam

[The Boss]

32. They didn't quite settle per se.

They restored access to Sanders, but the breach of contract exist, and the protections for the vendor or DNC went out of the window when they breached the contract, and civil damages needs to be paid.

Bernie is asking for $600,000 per day. Seems fair, and I would also include punitive damages for Bernie's campaign.

[Samantha]

39. I heard one of his aids say the access to the database had no impact on the lawsuit

I wonder how long it will take for the independent audit to take place. In the meantime, I hope the damage to the Sanders' campaign in Iowa and NH is minimal.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

22. So we have Dean to thank for the brief moment of sanity?

Praise Dean, then. I mean it.

[DFW]

36. Just my suspicion

I haven't talked to Howard in the last month (just email, and not in the last 3 days). But as a former DNC Chair who was so spectacularly successful that he took us from the depths to the top in 4 years, it would surprise me greatly to hear he had nothing to do with DWS backing down in a big hurry. In the last 40 years, I can't think of a DNC chair who has made a mark like Howard did during his tenure. It's one of the reasons Rahm hated him so.

[Betty Karlson]

37. If you hear more from the greatest chair in recent times, please let us know.

And thank him on our behalf.

[DFW]

38. I made Howard aware of that a LONG time ago

He didn't know about DU, but I sent Andy Tobias a few good posts from DU back when Howard was still DNC chair, and Howard saw them. He and I usually talk about things other than blogs when we get together, and we have some private things in common, too, that we catch up on--non-political stuff. I should be seeing Andy in a week or so, and I will grill him to the extent I can about DWS and her tenure. He is usually unflappable, but I will try.

[Thinkingabout]

26. It is more than Hillary needing Sanders suport is hard working people needs

Democrats elected, electing ANY of the Republicans running will hurt hard working people. After the debate last night I am confident Sanders and O'Malley will get behind Clinton just as she would get behind the nominee just as she got behind Obama in 2008. United Democratic voting gets Democrats elected.

[SwampG8r]

27. Hillary will get the hard worki g people.....white people

They know shes watching out for them since 2007
Eta: this is what hillary said then jurors i am only quoting herself

[Thinkingabout]

28. And which republican would you like to see elected?

[The Boss]

30. Bernie.

No other candidates qualifies. Not the Clown Cars. Not Hillary. America need Bernie right now.

[SwampG8r]

33. I dont want any elected

But running the single most likely.candidate to lose to them i guess will gaurantee it happens so...

[The Boss]

29. Clinton may need Bernie's help. She won't get mine.

Clinton has forever lost my vote years ago. She won't have mine, so I'll be voting for someone who fits my philosophy and it'll be neither D or R's.

I will most likely sit at home, apolitical after June if Clinton is the nominee.

I signed up for Bernie, and dammit, I will give my vote to Bernie because I trust him to improve our lives.