I just finished reading a CNN article on the Democratic candidates for President and I would like to share some ideas with you. Being there are at least 23 people vying for this job within the Democratic Party I have chosen the top five candidates (what the polls say) to discuss with you today.
As I am sure that you have garnered from the title I am going to talk with you about the ages of these candidates. Simply put, in your opinion does age matter? Via the U.S. Constitution you must be at least 35 years of age to hold the Office yet there is no maximum age set.
The ages I am going to give you are the age these people would be on the day they would be sworn into Office on January 20th of 2021. It is just my personal opinion that if a person will reach their 72nd birthday during an term for any Office, they should be barred from being able to seek the Office. As I said earlier, these five folks are leading in the Democratic Presidential polls. I have added one person to the list as he just announced his candidacy yesterday. He is the California Billionaire who has been paying out of his own pocket for the commercials saying that President Trump needs to be impeached. His name is Tom Steyer.
Name: Day Born: Age as of January 21st of 2021:
Tom Steyer June 27, 1957 63
Bernie Sanders September 8, 1941 79
Joe Biden November 20, 1942 78
Kamala Harris October 20, 1964 56
Elizabeth Warren June 22, 1949 71
Pete Buttigieg January 19, 1982 39
I am only going to mention two other people who are on the Republican side.
Donald Trump June 14, 1946 74
Mike Pence June 7, 1959 61
I am a registered independent voter who personally does not like the Democratic nor the Republican Parties. I don’t believe that either Party cares at all about the American people as a whole. But today’s Republican Party of Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell totally discuss me. So, in the next Presidential election cycle I would vote for a dead dog before I would vote for any Republican. Personally, of the candidates that I mentioned my top two choices would be Tom Steyer or Elizabeth Warren. If my 72 guideline were the law Mrs. Warren could not be on the ballot. But then neither could Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
This article is just the thoughts and ideas of an old man. But personally I am sick and tired of these old fart career politicians with there way out of date ideas running/ruining our Country. The old folks whom many of them have been in office for 40-50 years need to be made to retire. Do you/we really want people running our Country who are in their 80’s? I just don’t, I am sick and tired of their partisan B.S..
These two people are not running for the office of President but they are the two leaders of the House and the Senate who pretty much tell all the members of their political party how to vote on every issue, every bill. First, Nancy Pelosi who was born on March 6th of 1940. She will be 80 when the next President takes Office. Then there is Mitch McConnell who is the top Republican in the Senate, he was born on February 20th of 1942. So, he will be 78 when the next President is sworn in and he has already stated just like Nancy Pelosi has that he is running for reelection. So, one more term for each of them and Mrs. Pelosi will be 82 and Mr. McConnell will be 84.
What is your thoughts on this issue? Do you even care about this issue, or maybe is it not even an issue at all to you? If you would, please leave me a comment, I thank you for your time, I appreciate you taking of your time to read this.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
The top tier of the Democratic presidential primary is now reshapedaround five candidates. The latest fundraising numbers prove it.
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have raised about $100 million in the past three months combined. Together, they share a large majority of public support.
They were already spending millions of dollars more than many lower-polling contenders have even raised. Now, in a powerful compounding effect for their campaigns, these top tier candidates are poised to plow that new money back into their field and digital operations — further reinforcing their fundraising and organizing advantages in the 23-candidate field.
It’s too early to be an inflection point, but late enough that the rest of the field needs to start worrying.
“The front-runners are pulling away, absent a blunder,” said Bob Mulholland, a Democratic National Committee member from California. “It’s like any season as you get closer, some teams are headed to the World Series or the Super Bowl. … The difference between winning and losing is pretty severe.”
Theconsolidation of Democratic money in the primary — and the now-flattened top tier — became evident this week, after Warren, a Massachusetts senator, announced Monday that she had raised $19.1 million in the second quarter of the year. Buttigieg raised $25 million, Biden raised $21.5 million, Sanders raised $18 million and Harris raised $12 million in the same time period.
That money is not just a benchmark. Buttigieg, while raising his staggering sum, began hiring dozens of organizers in Iowa and New Hampshire and plans to have 300 people on staff by Labor Day. Warren added more than 100 staffers in the past three months and already has more than 300 in total.
Harris in recent weeks has dramatically expanded her operation in the four early-nominating states, with more than 65 staffers in Iowa, 49 in South Carolina, 35 in Nevada and 30 in New Hampshire.
While lower-polling candidates are still struggling justto qualify for upcoming presidential debates, candidates with money can now return to their expanding donor lists for repeat contributions. By late summer, they are expected to begin reserving time for TV advertisements in selectearly-primary states.
“From this point forward, it gets harder for” every candidate outside the top tier, said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist. “Because if you’re at the bottom of the pile and you’re punching up for donors, trying to move polling numbers or obtaining traction with a viral moment and you haven’t been able to do it so far, what makes somebody think they can do it when people are starting to consolidate around the top five?”
Democratic voters, Herman said, are “starting to rule people out.”
“They’re not consolidating, but they’re narrowing it to five or six,” he said. “They’re starting to figure out who they’re not for.”
The same five front-runners are pulling more than 80 percent of the Democratic electorate’s support nationally, according to the most recent Morning Consult poll. And while many voters have yet to settle on a single candidate, voters’ second-choice candidates tend to be from the same group of contenders.
In part, the focus on those candidates reflects not only name recognition, but an electorate yearning for a more manageable number of candidates to assess. In a finding reflective of other polls, a CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll last month found an overwhelming majority of Iowa caucus goers felt the candidate field was too large. The media is starting to assist them by turning public attention increasingly to skirmishes among the top-performing candidates.
The school busing spat between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris simmered for more than a week after the first primary debates last month. Warren’s rise has been significant in large part because of its implications for Sanders, a fellow progressive — and fellow top-tier contender.
When Rep. Eric Swalwell abandoned his long-shot campaign Monday — the first major candidate to end his campaign — he said one of the plainest challenges to his candidacy was “a lot of heavyweights in that field.”
“You have people who, you know, have had high name recognition,” he said. “Two of the candidates have run for president before that I stood on a stage with. We have a senator in California who’s running who is … quite talented and quite popular.”
Asked if he had any advice for Tom Steyer, the billionaire Democratic mega donor who announced the next day that he is running, Swalwell joked, “It’s rough out there.”
Advisers to the front-running candidates caution that the primary remains volatile. So do major donors and unaffiliated strategists. Karen Hicks, a Democratic strategist in New Hampshire, said a financial crisis, an international incident or some other unplanned event could propel a candidate who rises to “meet the moment somehow in a way that sticks.”
The primary, she said, is “still super fluid.”
The newest entrant into the race, Steyer, could make a mark with his immense wealth — he is expected to spend at least $100 million on his bid.
“When you have one guy who’s coming with $100 million, you can’t discount that,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive consultant who advised Cynthia Nixon in her primary campaign against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last year.
However, she said candidates who aren’t already gaining traction, who cannot afford to self-fund, and “who have dedicated their lives to public service, they’re SOL.”
Julián Castro is a telling example. The former Obama Cabinet secretary and former mayor of San Antonio had a breakout debate performance last month challenging his fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke on immigration.
On Monday, he sent supporters an email celebrating that his campaign now has 130,000 different donors, meeting a difficult threshold for the September presidential debates.
But Castro is still polling at 1 percent, according to Morning Consult. O’Rourke stands at 3 percent.
“I think there is still time for the second tier candidate to resonate, but they need to get with it because time is slipping away,” said Gilda Cobb-Hunter, an influential state lawmaker in early-voting South Carolina. “Once the media zeroes in on who they perceive to be the front-runners, it’s really hard for other candidates to get any air space or ink.”
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Ignorant, Racist And Anti-Semitic?
When I was a kid back in the 1960’s the Democratic Party and Churches went hand in hand. When I was a young man all of the Jewish folks that I knew of voted Democratic as a block vote. These things are not so anymore. This is not because the Churches/Christians had changed nor did the Jewish people, nor did Israel. What has changed is the Democratic Platform and their beliefs. When the Democratic Party Leadership decided to be pro-abortion they lost many millions of Democratic voters and most of those either decided not to vote at all, or to vote for a Republican especially once Ronald Reagan came onto the National stage. After Mr. Reagan many of those “Reagan Democrats” never ever went back to voting for Democrats. The days of the Jewish people voting for Democrats has become history and the fault of this is squarely on the Democratic Leadership.
This next Presidential voting cycle ahead of the 2020 Elections once again has a Jewish Believer trying to become our next President, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Yet to me, Mr. Sanders is about as Jewish as Jared Kushner is a Christian. You may have just said, hey wait a moment, Mr. Kushner is Jewish, my point exactly! I say, when asked, that I am a Christian but if do not do the will of the Lord, am I really a Christian, or am I nothing but luke warm water that the Lord will spit out? Mr. Sanders is one that I have paid attention to for about six years now, to me, his words and his voting record say that he is very anti-Israel. To me, to my beliefs as a Christian, the Democratic Platform has proven themselves to be very anti-religion, especially anti-Christian and anti-Israel.
I am going to bring up one more person for you to consider, this person is also a declared Democratic Presidential hopeful, Mr. Beto O’Rourke, a former Texas Congressman. Earlier this month Mr. O’Rourke was giving a campaign speech in Iowa City Iowa when he made these following remarks about Israel’s Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. O’Rourke called Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli people who support him “Racists” because of the Palestinian People. He seems to be ignorant/stupid enough to believe that ‘race’ is the issue there. I guess he shouldn’t be blamed too much as it also appears to be the view of the cow whose teet he is suckling. (The Democratic Party Leadership.) Folks, for those of you who don’t already know it, the issue between the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian People has nothing to do with race and everything to do with Ideology. It is a reality that Islamic ideology coexists with nothing and no one. There is an old saying in Israel that I will close this letter to you with today and this saying is absolutely true. ‘If the Palestinians actually wanted peace they could have peace and prosperity tomorrow, all they have to do is swear off all violence and turn over to the U.N. all of their weapons.’ The other half of this wisdom peace says, ‘if Israel turned over all their weapons today to the U.N. THAT TOMORROW, THERE WOULD BE NO ISRAEL!’
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
According to Lawrence Dreyfuss, a program associate for DSA, the organization saw a surge of 1,152 new memberships on Wednesday—about 35 times more sign-ups than on an average day.
The last major membership bump DSA experienced was in the month following President Trump’s election, during which time they had about six times more sign-ups than in the previous month.
DSA has undergone a renaissance of sorts in the Trump era, ballooning in size from some 5,000 members in November 2016 to 40,000 nationwide.
The left-wing group’s growth has been attributed in part to broader resistance to the new administration and wider acceptability of the “democratic socialist” label championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
“The people of NY-14 demanded more from its representative than empty promises and deep pockets,” Christian Bowe of DSA’s National Political Committee said after Ocasio’s win. “We’re proud of this victory, and we know this is only one of many more to come.”
RELATED IN POLITICS
Young Progressive Ocasio-Cortez Topples Old Boss Joe Crowley
Who Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and What Does Her Win Mean?
Pelosi Disagrees That Socialism Is Rising Among Democrats
DSA members themselves had begun winning elections, primarily on the state level, prior to Ocasio-Cortez. Among those who’ve achieved political success in the past year are Lee Carter, elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017, and Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato, who both defeated long-term incumbent Democrats in Pennsylvania.
I am going to use this first paragraph to try to qualify to you where I stand on a few issues facing every person in America and in deed I think in every country. Personally I am a fundamentalist Christian but by no means am I a perfect person and I do not expect anyone else to be able to be perfect either. Politically I consider myself to be a moderate conservative. In a perfect world I would probably line up behind the ‘Tea Party’ on most issues, but we do not live in a perfect world here in America nor anywhere else. I consider the Tea Party to be the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party so much so that the Conservative Republican base considers them to be extremist. Personally I believe that the Tea Party should be expelled from the Republican Party forcing them to run as a third Party. The Democratic Party has this same type of issue if you consider their Party to all be a bunch of liberals even to the point of people like Senator Bernie Sanders who is really an Independent as he is far to ‘the left’ of the Democratic platform. I believe that Senator Sanders who is a ‘Independent’ should split from the Democratic Party and that he should run as an Independent in the next Presidential election.
Here in the state of Kentucky registered Independents can not exercise our Constitutional right to vote in the ‘primary season’, this is how it was when we lived in the state of Florida also. Yet when the main elections roll around in November both Party’s vigorously court the ‘Independent’ voters. During the 2012 Presidential elections Republican Mitt Romney made the comment about ‘48%’ of the voting public whom he had no chance to woo over to his side of the divide and the American Media railed against him for that comment even though he was correct in that evaluation. There are about 48% of the Democratic electorate who would rather not vote at all than to vote for a Republican. There is a flip side to this equation though, there are about 48% of the voters who vote Republican that would never vote for a Democrat. This leaves about 4% of Independent voters that the election is all about, whoever gets the majority of us Independents wins the Presidency. The term that has been used a lot in the Media for this situation is the ‘polarization’ of America.
Here in America the people of our country gripe a lot about how the politicians in DC never seem to get anything positive accomplished and I believe this is a fair belief. The Democratic leadership forces their members to vote a ‘far left’ agenda and the Republican leadership forces their members to vote to a ‘far right’ agenda. This reality means that nothing constructive ever gets done. There is also the issue that each Party wants all the credit on a bill if it is something that is actually a positive issue, they both vehemently do not want to share any ‘credit’ with the other Party. Because of these Politicians being so pious and egotistical they are destroying America from the inside and it is obvious that they really don’t care about the American people as a whole.
I am going to use my Father-in-law as an example of non-thinkers, (sorry Dad). He is a Tea Party type of believer, he hates all Unions and believes that America would be better off if there were no Unions at all, he thinks they are destroying our Country. He hates the Democrats and he wants the Republican agenda’s to be made law. Yet he is like most folks who believe that the Congress is a do nothing Congress. He doesn’t want to compromise on the issues yet he wants the Congress to get off their butts and get our Country moving again. Where Dad and I differ is that even though I wish the Country was living in a true Christian manner I know that this is not going to happen until after the Tribulation. In the mean time we must compromise with each other by working toward the middle and get at least some things accomplished for the good of the people (the Country). By the way, to my wife and I Dad’s position on Unions is really flawed, this is because he retired from two different Union Factories. Because these two factories were Union he now survives financially from two different retirement checks he gets each month. If it wasn’t for those Unions he and his wife would be in the poor-house or having to live in our basement.
I call myself a moderate conservative because I know that the Tea Party agenda has no chance of happening. I want to make mention that I am not a fan of everything the Tea Party leaders want as not everything they want would be something that would qualify as “Christ like” policies. I believe that if the Politicians do not get off of their ‘high horses’ they are either going to destroy our Country or the people are going to rise up and destroy these pious bought and paid for frauds. Personally, I am a fan of the NRA even though I do not like some of their policies, for example I believe that ten-round clips are big enough as long as the amount of clips and bullets a person can own should have no limits. Personally I am for many things that the Democratic Party wants to pass into law just as I am for many things the Republican Party stands for. The issue is that I am also against many things that both Party’s want to pass into law. We as a people must wake up and learn to work with each other or we as a Country are going to implode.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
If I Dislike What You Do: That Means I Must Hate You; Right?
I make these observations from sixty years of life, with thirty plus behind the wheel of a truck roaming the lower 48 States and all Provinces of the beautiful country of Canada. These are just a few thoughts, don’t mean that I agree with any or all of them, how about you?
Being I don’t care anything for the game of Hockey: That must mean that I am anti-Canadian, right?
I really don’t care anything for the sport of Basketball: So you know, I’m prejudice toward tall folks.
I don’t care anything about Horse Racing: That means I must be anti-short people.
I really don’t care much about Car Racing: Does this mean I’m anti-Hill Billy?
I care nothing about the game of Soccer: So, that means I gotta be anti-rest of the world, right?
I am anti violence, what does that make me? A target, a patsy? Only a fool breaks into another man’s house to see if they will be carried out.
I am anti-hate, anti-racist, what does this make a person? Does this make one naive, or, maybe more Christ like?
If one is anti-Democrat does it then make them minorities and poor folk haters? Maybe a person just can’t personally back a ‘Party’ who is responsible for the death of millions of babies each year!
Of course if one is anti-Republican it must mean you hate grumpy, old, rich, white guys? Isn’t self-absorbed politicians of our time, whether they are Republican or Democrat enough to make the “system’ puke out a 3rd, 4th, or even 5th ‘Party’?
Bernie or Trump, these two ends don’t attract each other, yet millions flocked to them, for what, hope?
Anti-Islamic terrorism ideals are not anti-Muslim or anti-Persian, to not be so is, anti-humanity and anti-God!
What can people do when you are hated by millions? Do you let them stay and kill you? Do you physically remove them from your living area? Do you let them stay and you also stay and try to live with them, or maybe convert them?
Like I said at the beginning this article like most of my articles are for the reason of creating thought, hopefully among many, hopefully thoughts of caring about each other when possible, hopefully eliminating hate some day.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
If Not For President Putin, Bernie Sanders Would Be The U.S. President
Folks, this article to you this evening is obviously just my opinion but if I did not believe that it was correct I would not waste my time or your time with it. Last fall the American people really only had two choices that we were being allowed to have in our vote for our next President. We had the reality that we were either going to have as our next President “Crooked Hillary”, or we could have Donald “Fake News” Trump. During the campaign (DFNT) used as one of his slogans concerning “Crooked Hillary” was “lock her up.” This was even though he knew darn well that if he won that he was not going to pursue this venture, just as he knew that Mexico was not ever going to pay far any wall. If you are one of the few people in the world that didn’t know it before he stole the election from Hillary (because of Putin), he “the Donald” is and has always been, an habitual liar.
As I am sure you caught it, my statement about this Fraud in Chief steeling the election from Hillary, I do actually believe that is correct. Personally I believe that Russian hackers were able to infiltrate several of the State election systems thus taking a few of the States away from Hillary and giving them to Trump, thus swinging the election to him. I do believe that history will prove this as a fact but, what about now? What do we as the American public do about having a FRAUD President in the Oval Office? If he is impeached and imprisoned for the rest of his life as he should be, who takes his place, Mike Pence, the VP? But since Trump is illegally in office, Mike Pence is not legally the VP so it is unfair to allow him to be put into the Office of President, so now what? The next in line would Constitutionally have to be the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. But for how long? Personally the most honest answer would be to swear Bernie Sanders into Office for one seven-year term with that being a one time gig for him, no second term.
As I stated above, I totally believe that Trump and Putin stole the election from Hillary, but, and it is a big but, she stole the Democratic Nomination from Senator Bernie Sanders. Hillary illegally took over the controls of the DNC rigging the process so that only she could win the Nomination. By the events that I have been learning, Hillary is guilty of several frauds, tax evasions, among several other Felonies. So, it is my honest opinion that if President Putin had not interfered in our elections the Democratic Nominee would be our President right now. The only one of the three biggest candidates (Trump, Hillary, and Sanders) who are not guilty of mass felonies is Mr. Sanders. So, in my opinion Mr. Sanders should be awarded the Presidency ASAP. The other two pathetic egomaniacs should be put into Fort Leavenworth Prison for the rest of their lives. This is just a short oped, just wanted to tweak your thoughts to see what you think. Just think of all of the damage that Donald Trump has done to our country here and abroad in this 10 months he has been sitting in the White House. I do have to wonder how the world would be different if we didn’t have this idiot moron of a fool pretending to be the American President.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.
So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.
By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.
“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”
The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.
I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.
When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.
Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politicostory published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politicostory described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.
I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.
“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”
I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.
I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.
Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?
I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.
I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.
When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she believes that the Democratic National Committee was “rigged” in favor of former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary.
Asked Thursday by CNN’s Jake Tapper whether she believes that the Democratic campaign organization was tipped in favor of Clinton over her primary opponent, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Warren responded without hesitation: “Yes.”
“We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile that the Clinton campaign in her view did rig the presidential nominating process by entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC,” Tapper said, continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was “entered into in August of 2015,” months before Clinton won the nomination.
Warren called that “a real problem.”
“But what we’ve got to do as Democrats now, is we’ve got to hold this party accountable,” Warren said.
Tell us where to send you Five Things
Morning briefings of all the news & buzz people will be talking about
Activate Five Things
By subscribing you agree to our
The Massachusetts Democrat is seen as a possible presidential contender in 2020 and beyond.
Tapper then asked, “Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?” And Warren responded simply: “Yes.”
The question came up after Brazile’s book excerpts were released this week, detailing the DNC’s financial turmoil during the election and the role that the Clinton campaign played in aiding it financially.
“Debbie (Wasserman Schultz) was not a good manager,” Brazile wrote in excerpts released in Politico on Thursday. “She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party — she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was.”
(Opinion: How is it that this is not a major case of FRAUD against the American people? We are digging into the case of Moscow committing FRAUD against the American voters, so, then what the heck is this if not BLATANT FRAUD against the voting American public? Why are there not legal charges against Mrs. Clinton and the DNC Chair?)
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT)
By David Catanese, Senior Politics Writer | Sept. 15, 2017, at 6:00 a.m.
As Bernie Sanders deliberated his 2016 run for the presidency, he understood that his odds of toppling Hillary Clinton were low.
But winning was never the lone goal for the gruff independent from Vermont.
Despite more than two decades toiling in Congress, Sanders remained a backbench player, he confided to a top adviser at the time, according to “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.” He sought a higher profile in the U.S. Senate for the liberal causes he had built his career around. A well-run White House campaign, win or lose, would do the trick.
Fast-forward more than two years and Sanders is seeing that notion bear fruit.
While his former primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, is relitigating the last war, an emboldened Sanders is already making moves to shape the next one. Clinton may technically be right, as she continues to assert in interviews, that Sanders “is not even a Democrat.” But it’s Democrats who are increasingly gravitating to Sanders, as 16 did this week by joining his legislation calling for a Medicare-for-all health care system.
Clinton is indicating she wants to remain active in politics by backing Democratic candidates in 2018 who can help flip Congress. But in a striking role reversal, it’s the 76-year-old Sanders who now wields more power among the next line of budding aspirants in Democratic politics.
“This week looks like a moment where it’s crystallizing in a lot of people’s minds that Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party,” says Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic consultant and aide to Sanders’ presidential bid. “There’s an assumption within the Democratic Party that a progressive candidate is a weakness. That’s not a weakness, that’s a strength. We have to lose some of the timidity that the party has had for too long on policy issues. How did Donald Trump end up as president? The public is restless and extremely unsatisfied with the performance of government. You have to make an argument. Put big bold ideas on the table. The public may not agree with every aspect, but they’re going to give you credit for trying to do something. Bernie Sanders put it on the table and argued for it.”
Just look at some of the names who stood next to him Wednesday to roll-out his universal health care pitch: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey.
All are prospective candidates for the presidency in 2020 – and 10 months following the party’s harrowing 2016 defeat, they found themselves moving towards Sanders ideologically and physically, as each waited for his call Wednesday to make remarks at a Capitol Hill podium.
“I want to say thank you to Bernie for all that you have done,” Warren gushed.
Their embrace of a single-payer position comes even as Clinton continues to tar the plan as unrealistic. But if that remains the majority position among Democrats, liberal activists don’t think it will be for long.
“If you look at the list who are co-sponsoring this and those who are rumored to be interested in [the presidency], you see some alignment. I don’t think that’s a coincidence,” says Kenneth Zinn, the political director of National Nurses United, a staunch supporter of the Sanders legislation. “This is how change happens. Grassroots action, bottom-up pressure. I think anyone who wants to be considered a progressive has to sign on to this bill. This is indeed becoming a litmus test for the movement.”
When Sanders began crafting the bill back in the spring, his office reached out to senators they considered to be natural allies, as well as those with higher ambitions. After weeks of behind-the-scenes haggling over exact details, Harris, the freshman senator, endorsed the bill at the close of the summer congressional recess during a town hall in Oakland, California, dubbing it “a nonpartisan issue.” The fact that her home state legislature wrestled with an ultimately unsuccessful universal health care endeavor helped move the needle.
Warren followed a week later, citing the GOP’s persistent efforts to repeal the existing Obamacare program. “We owe a huge debt to President Obama,” she wrote in an email to supporters. “But there’s so much more we could do right now to bring down the costs of quality health care for every American.”
Then came Gillibrand who said she’d be “fighting with Bernie”, following her broad support for the concept during a Facebook Live event in June and Booker, who told a New Jersey television station on Monday “this is something that’s got to happen,” billing it as the next civil rights battle.
Even some alumni of the Clinton campaign acknowledge the winds are blowing in Sanders’ direction.
“During the 2016 primary, Hillary Clinton understandably felt that she owed it to voters to only promise what she honestly felt she could deliver as president. But as Democrats engage in this post-2016 rebuilding, progressives appropriately believe it is important to make a statement on principle in favor of a Medicare-for-all system, regardless of the practical hurdles,” says Brian Fallon, the national press secretary for Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “I would bet many Democratic candidates running in the midterms may, for now, hew towards some of the on-ramp style proposals, such as those offered by Sens. [Brian] Schatz and [Chris] Murphy, but anyone seeking to lead the party in 2020 should probably be wary of rejecting the aspiration behind Sen. Sanders’ plan.”
And Sanders’ diehard supporters are watching – and they are keenly aware of who isn’t on board.
Winnie Wong, a co-founder of People For Bernie and an aggressive internet activist, targeted Democrats on Twitter who steered clear of the Sanders bill.
“If @ChrisMurphyCT is smart, he’ll wake up in the AM, tell his staffer to draft a press release saying he’ll be going with Bernie’s bill,” she wrote, targeting the Connecticut Democrat.
“Baby we got your number,” she fired off to the account of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, including a link meant to pressure those not on board.
But in a sign of how far the debate had moved, even Sen. Joe Manchin, who faces a potentially competitive re-election challenge this year in increasingly conservative West Virginia, paid tribute to the legislation’s concept if not its particulars.
“It should be explored,” he told Bloomberg, later issuing a statement clarifying his skepticism about the merits of single-payer.
But Sanders’ team is betting that the concept will gradually gain popularity as he crisscrosses the country in the coming months to promote it.
“I’m aware of at least one meeting in West Virginia of Trump supporters, people who voted for Trump, and when asked if they supported single payer, half the hands went up,” says Jeff Weaver, a political adviser who ran Sanders’ presidential campaign. “This approach has broad-based support among working class, middle class people, small business people, medical professionals, really across partisan lines.”