Buchan
has whacked the hammer to Roswell
![161031_cover-1.jpg](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097b9e2179605b11ad8f68/master/w_280,c_limit/161031_cover-1.jpg)
Beautiful.
For the most part, the Left's response to Clinton's shambolic showing in the General last year has been horrifically juvenile. I said at the time that I'd love for there to be some introspection, some self-awareness, but there's been none of that. Instead, we've got a fairly juvenile reaction to not getting what we feel we're owed and a 'blame everyone else' approach. And here we are, one year later, and it's still happening!
Clinton herself tweeted around this time last year (around the time Trump was talking about a rigged system) that Trump questioning the legitimacy of the election was a 'direct threat to our democracy' and Obama was on the record saying you can't rig an election. Fast forward a few weeks and it was 'RUSSIA!' from all angles, with this damage-control narrative formulated in the Clinton camp on November 10th (as per the Clinton campaign exposé 'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign').
As a liberal, this has been so, so disappointing. I wanted the Democrats to learn from 2016, an annus horribilis, and build a solid platform to go hard on 2020, but we've lost twelve months of that already with the incessant delusion about what happened last year. It's shaping up to be a similar story in three years' time if lessons are not learned.
Probably trying to distance themselves from Hillary who is tainted. Perez didn't have anything to say about the accusations except that they are looking forward and they are working to make the organization fair and transparent. Probably looking for a new Hillary that is not yet tainted.This is just weird. She was always close to Hillary. She never said a word against Obama. She passed Hillary debate questions. She said this on twitter, on this very topic, last week:
![]()
Yet here she is, throwing the entire party and its 2 most visible faces under the bus. The allegations and tone here aren't something she can walk back from.
So why is a lifelong servant of the centrist DNC doing this? The only thing I could see was that she think Bernie is taking over the party. But Perez just purged most of the leftists from the DNC last week, and elevated Donna Brazile and people like her. And after the debate fiasco, Bernie supporters remember her name quite well, and not in a good way. In the extremely unlikely event of a left takeover of the party, she will still probably be persona non grata.
Maybe it is just a purely personal grudge, and she has decided she is going to finish her political career soon.
Or she wants to sell her book![]()
So pretty much every vote which went Sanders' way in the primary was immaterial. Sanders was informed about it subsequently yet still endorsed Clinton in the General. Disappointing on so many levels.
So pretty much every vote which went Sanders' way in the primary was immaterial. Sanders was informed about it subsequently yet still endorsed Clinton in the General. Disappointing on so many levels.
How has this been proven today in any way beyond what was already known?
We didn't know the extent of Clinton's muggy fingers in the DNC pie prior to the primaries going to ballot. She had the whole party by the short-and-curlies months in advance of her officially being the Democrat candidate. We had a few email leaks which hinted at it, but Brazile's evidence conclusively prove it now.
Democrats committed to learning from their mistakes.DNC Chair Perez Ignores Donna Brazile's Allegation That Hillary "Rigged" 2016 Primary: "We're Moving Forward"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...d_primary_allegation_were_moving_forward.html
The world would be a very different place if sanders were president right now.
Democrats committed to learning from their mistakes.
I'm rather angry with Clinton and hope that history remembers her as the corrupt politician she is. Her corruption essentially placed trump in his chair.
The world would be a very different place if sanders were president right now.
Sanders was electable. He mentioned socialism which is political death at a presidential election. This might change n the future but it will be a while.
Hilary was defeated because she was a woman. If she was a man she could have ripped Trump a new one in the debates but women can't do that as they are "shrill" and "angry" or "a nag". Women are held to different standards particularly in such conservative societies as America's.
Erm.... this women won 3 electionsSanders was electable. He mentioned socialism which is political death at a presidential election. This might change n the future but it will be a while.
Hilary was defeated because she was a woman. If she was a man she could have ripped Trump a new one in the debates but women can't do that as they are "shrill" and "angry" or "a nag". Women are held to different standards particularly in such conservative societies as America's.
Just as sexist to assume only men can be corrupt crooks
in fairness its silly suggesting she lost because she is a womanYou have been ready too many Trump tweets.
You have been ready too many Trump tweets.
And that 'If you're not with us, you're against us' mentality is really part of the problem, makes you incapable of any self criticism - the inability to see the forest through the trees. Yes, Trump is a corrupt clown and male. Yes, Hillary is a corrupt clown who just doesn't happen to be male.
Erm.... this women won 3 elections
![]()
and the UK in the 1980's was far more conservative than todays United States.