Leaked DNC Email & Choice Of Time Kaine Show It Is Time For DemExit

DNC Sanders Religious Views

The two big stories of the past day provide the same message–the Democratic Party is no longer a suitable home for liberals and progressives. The latest batch of leaked DNC emails via Wikileak shows what we already knew: rather than staying neutral as they should have, the DNC was rigging the system to support Hillary Clinton. Particularly disturbing was the manner in which they contemplated using Bernie Sanders’ religion against him, insulting both Jews and atheists. The DNC email also shows, as did some of Hillary Clinton’s email, how the Clinton campaign and its allies have manipulated the press.

This was hardly the first sign that the nomination process was unfairly tilted to support Clinton. As I discussed in April, Sanders has had to deal with party rules which have made it difficult for insurgent candidates to win since George McGovern won the nomination. Party leaders subsequently thought the party was best off with moderate candidates who do well in the south despite significant changes in the country since 1972. The use of super delegates, restrictions on independents voting in may states, and front loading of southern primaries make it harder for insurgent candidates to win. Plus the Democratic Party showed even more favoritism this year, including with the debate schedule, failing to release the popular vote in Iowa, as was done eight years ago, which Sanders very likely won, Harry Reid’s actions in Nevada, and changing rules on contributions from lobbyists to help Clinton.

While Hillary Clinton has tried to pretend to be a progressive at times, her choice of Tim Kaine as running mate shows again that she remains a DLC Democrat who opposes liberal values. As The Hill reports:

The moderate Democrat has backed abortion restrictions; supported fast-track authority for a controversial Pacific Rim trade deal; and just this week joined a push to deregulate some of the nation’s largest banks — all positions that are anathema to the liberals being wooed by the Clinton team heading into November.

Bloomberg adds:

In selecting Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia over progressive favorites like as Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts or Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Clinton is partnering with a lawmaker whose stances on finance and trade policies have sparked backlash from some of her most persistent critics…

Kaine was also one of 70 senators supporting a bipartisan effort to urge the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ease some rules on smaller banks and credit unions. His vote in favor of giving the Obama administration more leeway in sealing a trade deal with 12 Pacific Rim nations also has rankled progressives.

His “support for fast-track authority for the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership and recent backing of bank deregulation will make our work more difficult,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a progressive political action committee. He said he was referring to efforts to unite the “political revolution with the Democratic establishment to defeat Trump.”

The choice of a supporter of Wall Street deregulation and trade deals such as TPP plays right into Donald Tump’s hands, shortly after he made an appeal for Sanders supporters to vote for him. It also provides more reason for liberals to consider Jill Stein as opposed to voting for Clinton. Both Kaine and Clinton are preferable to the Republicans on abortion, but that is not enough. Neither recognizes it as a woman’s right as true liberals do and therefore, while they would keep abortion generally legal, they are also willing to compromise and accept restrictions. Clinton’s idea of keeping abortion rare not only stigmatizes women who have chosen to have an abortion, but also plays into Republican hands in making it harder to obtain abortions. Again, they are better than Republicans on this issue, but not good enough. If this was the only issue I could live with them, but there are other issues where they are far worse.

The Democratic Party is looking far more like a DLC, or Republican-lite, Party, unwilling to promote liberal goals. Instead we risk a return of the triangulation and moves to the right seen under Bill Clinton. We had enough problems with DLC policies under Bill Clinton. The dangers under Hillary Clinton are now far worse as she supports an expansion of the warfare/surveillance state which has grown out of control since the Bush years.

Be Sociable, Share!

32 Comments

  1. 1
    SocraticGadfly says:

    My take on the religious bigotry email AND an old Flint town hall question for Sanders: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2016/07/dncleaks-religious-bigotry-of-dnc-and.html

  2. 2
    Tano says:

    What a bizarre logic you have.

    You sense the party settling into a direction that you don't like, and your reaction is to leave? Seriously?

    You are going to

    1) totally marginalize the progressive movement by throwing away its strong position within one of the two major parties

    2) insure that the moderate wing of the Dems is seen as the real loyal and trustworthy base of the Democratic party

    3) increase the likelihood of a President Trump

    Does it not occur to you that a solution to your problem that incurs three hugely negative outcomes is a bad idea? Or do you not think these things through at all?

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    You have the illogical position if you think it makes sense to count on a political party which has cheated and rigged the system to ensure that liberals cannot win.

    The illogical position is for liberals to support a corrupt warmonger such as Hillary Clinton who has already done or advocated much of what we are warned about with Donald Trump.

  4. 4
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    You're on the wrong side, Ron.

    Bernie was not and is not a Democrat, and his supporters aren't really that, either.

    Why should the majority of Dems who preferred Hillary and her vision knuckle under to a lefty minority of Dems allied with a bunch of outsiders?

    Keep it up and you'll put Trump in the White House, yet.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    What is the point of a Democratic Party which has taken the views of the Republican Party? A majority of partisan Democrats preferred Clinton in a rigged system. You seek to disenfranchise the majority of the country who oppose both Clinton and Trump.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Far more people prefer Sanders to Clinton or Trump. You are on the side of denying Democracy. I am on the right side.

  7. 7
    Mike Hatcher says:

    It seems we are talking about when to compromise and when to stand firm. If I was in a position of power, I would be happy to compromise with an opponent who's heart was in the right place even if her or his ideas/beliefs I disagreed with. I can't prove it, but I would stake every possession I have that if Trump or Hillary thought they could win by taking position XYZ____fill in the blank, they would do it, they would talk invading Switzerland if they thought that that would win the election for them. So if you really like Hillary and think she would be good for the country, then vote for her, if you think Trump would be good for the country, then vote for him, but if you are voting for one of those because you are so scared of the other candidate, then go your cowardly way, but you can save your fussing at people braver than you.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Or Trump might invade Switzerland because he ate a moldy piece of Swiss cheese and got angry at them. At least I don’t see Hillary invading Switzerland. Russia maybe, but never Switzerland.

  9. 9
    Lyle says:

    DEMEXIT. I'm done with this fake a** corrupt party if the real winner is not nominated. #ELECTIONFRAUD #GOINGREENJILLSTEIN #STILLSANDERS. 

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    You left out #JillNotHill

  11. 11
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    Openly channeling Ralph Nader of 2000, you ask "What is the point of a Democratic Party which has taken the views of the Republican Party?"

    None.

    But the Democratic Party has not taken the views of the Republican Party.

    The Democratic Party is not out to repeal a century of progressive successes.

    The Republican Party is officially and sincerely dedicated to that.

    The Democrats want to nudge the arc of history to the left.

    The Republicans want to lurch a century into reaction.

    Why doesn't that matter to you?

  12. 12
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    If Trump wins the White House he will horse-trade with the Republican Congress.

    Both he and they will put into effect some of their awful, if poorly matched, agendas while the Democrats try to stop them with nothing but the filibuster, the only weapon in their hands.

    He will nominate three or four hard conservatives to the Supremes.

    He may well build his wall and commence his scheme of ethnic cleansing.

    He may get his high tariffs and trade wars with China, Mexico, and others.

    He will lower taxes on the rich and may actually push the government into default.

    He will not protect and he may well harm entitlements, and he and the GOP Congress will launch a coal and oil boom.

    What will he do about the minimum wage?

    The EPA?

    The Department of Education?

    Obamacare?

    We will not have to face any of this if Hillary wins.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    The nomination of a candidate as terrible as Clinton shows that Nader was right about the dangers of supporting the lesser evil.
    Both are awful, but Hillary Clinton can move the country far more to the right that Donald Trump can due to Democrats going along with Clinton’s conservative actions but opposing comparable actions from Trump.
    More people will probably die in wars under Clinton. Clinton even supports the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, further increasing the likely casualties under her. More people will be incarcerated. Clinton has the same position as Trump on suppressing civil liberties to supposedly fight terrorism. Clinton supports increasing the role of religion in government.
    We are far more likely to see Social Security cut if Clinton is elected.
    We are far more likely to see more restrictions on abortions if Clinton is elected.
    The Democratic Party has been exposed as rigging the primaries. Can’t get any more undemocratic than that.
    Why doesn’t that matter to you?

  14. 14
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    I totally disagree with your characterization of her as essentially center-right rather than center-left.

    And personally I favor primaries over caucuses, and closed primaries over open ones, and a system with super-delegates rather than without, and fewer primaries with more states leaving the choice of whom to support to party professionals.

    The current process is too democratic, and that is how we ended up with a demagogic buffoon taking the nomination of the GOP and with a man who has hated the Democratic Party all his long career almost forcing himself and his alien agenda on what remains a center-left party supported by center-left voters.

    And now we are down to chicken or fish, there is no third.

    We will see November put into the White House the Orange epigone of Mussolini or the squat grandma whose first term would be a lot more like Obama's third.

    I would prefer the latter.

    Wouldn't you?

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    Look at her record, as I’ve documented in multiple posts here. Plus Democrats will go along with many of her moves while blocking comparable moves from Trump. She is likely to be far to the right than a third term for Obama. As Secretary of State, most of her advice was over ruled by others in the Obama administration. There won’t be anyone to do that if she is president.

    The Republicans did get screwed this year, but in general supporting democracy is preferable.

    I won’t accept either Trump or Clinton. There is a third choice, and a fourth–Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. They cannot win, but supporting them will get a different message out, with neither Trump nor Clinton being acceptable. Sticking with the two major parties limits the issues being considered and just perpetuates the status quo.

    There is a third (and a fourth).

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    Clinton can get away with triangulating and moving the country more to the right. Trump has disagreed with other Republicans regarding entitlement programs. You are looking at the worst possible scenario under Trump, even attributing views to him he has not expressed, and ignoring the harm Clinton would likely do.

    Trump is unlikely to get three to four Supreme Court choices, but if Clinton is elected we could wind up with a string of GOP presidents after Clinton destroys the Republican brand. Plus we can’t count on Clinton picking decent justices. She is not likely to pick justices who would oppose the corrupting influence of money in politics. Even Alito was more liberal than Clinton on civil liberties.

  17. 17
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    Hillary Clinton can move the country far more to the right that Donald Trump can.

    Inexplicable, that first one. Trump will certainly push more often with the grain of a Republican Congress and less often against than would Hillary. And if Hillary wins she might be blessed with at least a small majority in the senate.

    More people will probably die in wars under Clinton. 

    She is more given to war than I am happy with, but then consider deaths arising from instability resulting from policy following Il Duce's views on ISIS, the use of nukes by us in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, and the US disengaging from major alliances like NATO. Deaths caused by aggression of an emboldened Putin in Ukraine, the Baltic states, or elsewhere would be only the tip of the iceberg. No, it's not a wash, prospects are much worse given Trump in the White House.

    Clinton even supports the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, further increasing the likely casualties under her. 

    Compare an ice cube to an iceberg?

    More people will be incarcerated. 

    More than what? More than are now? More than would be under Trump? Mr. Law and Order? Mr. Crime Crusher?

    Clinton has the same position as Trump on suppressing civil liberties to supposedly fight terrorism.

    And torture far worse than mere waterboarding? And "going after their families"?

    Clinton supports increasing the role of religion in government.

    Never said she was perfect. Can't imagine her even hinting at rolling back the sexual revolution, though, as the Republicans openly would love to do. Look at that platform the FRC wrote for Trump's convention.

    We are far more likely to see Social Security cut if Clinton is elected.

    Than if Trump is elected? No way.

    We are far more likely to see more restrictions on abortions if Clinton is elected.

    No. She ardently defends the right to abortion while he toys with the idea of punishing women for getting one.

  18. 18
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    There are indeed many more than two choices for individual voters.

    But only two candidates have the least chance of getting into the White House; for that, it's chicken or fish.

    If splitters sink Hillary it will be The Donald in charge.

    Jill Stein will be the woman who put him there.

    I'm sure he'd be glad to have her as a guest at his inaugural ball.

  19. 19
    Ron Chusid says:

    Too many falsehoods to go through all of them, but Clinton certainly has a far stronger record of promoting wars than Trump, and cluster bombs do kill more civilians. Clinton supports the drug war while Trump has discussed legalization of drugs to end the problem. You continue to attribute views to Trump which he does not hold or has backed away from while ignoring Clinton’s views and the record when Bill was president. Democrats going along with Clinton’s “triangulation” can move the country far more to the right than Trump can, with Democrats standing up to him. Clinton has already expressed a willingness to compromise on abortion as well as Social Security. She supports keeping it legal, but has also supported efforts to make it more rare, and harder for women to get abortions, such as parental consent laws. Again, Democrats will go along with Clinton’s compromises on abortion rights. They would oppose the same compromises coming from a Republican.

  20. 20
    Ron Chusid says:

    No, the people who will put Trump in office if he wins are those who backed Clinton. We have been warning for over a year that Clinton is an awful candidate.

    Elections are about a lot more than who wins a particular election. They are the best opportunity to get issues brought before voters.

  21. 21
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    You realize you are echoing Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly?

    Voters should trust the Republicans to defend Social Security from Democrats?

    (How is it the pro-entitlements folks missed that?)

    They should trust the Republicans to defend a woman's right to choose?

    (How did the abortion rights folks get this totally wrong, then?)

    And you say I am the one ignoring the facts?

  22. 22
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    Hillary is not a great candidate, that's true.

    But she and the Democrats are soooo very much better than Trump and the Republicans.

    Or even she stuck with a Republican Congress.

    I'm worn out.

    Have a nice day.

  23. 23
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    I'm retired.

    How do you have time for this?

  24. 24
    Ron Chusid says:

    Yes, you are ignoring the facts if you ignore factors such as Clinton’s support for parental notification laws, her support for making abortion rare, and now her VP choice. Clinton has been criticized by pro-abortion rights advocates for years.

    I never said voters should trust Republicans to defend Social Security or right to choose. You are greatly distorting what I said, and ignoring the facts.

    Criticism of Clinton from the left is hardly echoing Hannity or O’Reilly. That is the typical response from Clinton supporters when all the facts are against them.

  25. 25
    Ron Chusid says:

    Typing rapidly.

  26. 26
    Mike Hatcher says:

    I think you all give Trump too much credit for trying to accomplish anything if he takes office.  If the Senate blocked whatever effort he makes to build a wall, do you think he will miss any golf tee time to overcome it? He'll string up 3 miles of fence somewhere, declare victory and head home. Anyone that gets in the way of anything Hillary wants to do and watch out, there will be a price to pay. While it seems Trump might be quite comfortable with a role as "Il Duce" he hasn't shown any ability to create a coherent plan for anything, and the fact that he is a political novice doesn't bode well for him accomplishing anything nefarious or benign. Both candidates are way to Authoritarian, and it seems inevitable that we'll have one of those two in power and our civil liberties will be further eroded either way, but there is no way I'm going to voluntarily vote for a lesser dictator because of a fear of some greater dictator. I feel like a worn out record on this subject. I'll try to save future comments for after the election.

  27. 27
    Ron Chusid says:

    Agree that Clinton will probably be far more effective in pursuing her objectives. I don’t know how much she will accomplish. Will Republicans oppose anything she wants because she is a Democrat, or will she triangulate and get conservative measures passed with their cooperation.

    We really don’t know what will happen, but certainly cannot make an argument that things will be better with one over the other. Both are awful, and it makes no sense to support either.

    Both Stein and Johnson are far better, even giving a significant choice based upon one’s economic views.

  28. 28
    Mike Hatcher says:

    I'd just hit the "thumbs up" button to you remark, but don't have that here on the blog.  See ya around on Facebook.

  29. 29
    Ron Chusid says:

    The Facebook page is definitely busy today. I can barely keep up with all comments. My computer is dinging almost constantly with Facebook notifications.

  30. 30
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    You wrote these.

    We are far more likely to see Social Security cut if Clinton is elected.
    We are far more likely to see more restrictions on abortions if Clinton is elected.

    That's why I wrote this.

    You realize you are echoing Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly?

    Voters should trust the Republicans to defend Social Security from Democrats?

    (How is it the pro-entitlements folks missed that?)

    They should trust the Republicans to defend a woman's right to choose?

    (How did the abortion rights folks get this totally wrong, then?)

    That wasn't fair?

    Abortion rights and entitlement supporting groups prefer Democrats and endorse Hillary.

  31. 31
    Ron Chusid says:

    Yes, you are grossly distorting what was said. Totally dishonest and not fair on your part, taking things out of context to give them an entirely different meaning.

    You miss the key point that when Clinton compromises on Social Security and abortion, which she has indicated she would, Democrats will go along with her and her compromises will have a good chance of passing–just like so many of Bill’s measures like cutting welfare. Democrats will oppose efforts by Republicans to cut Social Security or restrict abortion. You also miss the point that Trump differs from the GOP mainstream in supporting Social Security.

    My opposition to Clinton’s conservative views is hardly echoing Hannity or O’Reilly.

  32. 32
    Ron Chusid says:

    And in case you haven’t noticed, I am far from the only one on the left who opposes Clinton believing she will move us further to the right–as actually did occur under Bill.

Leave a comment