Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe bs is a person of honesty and integrity. Someone who forgoes superpacs is not someone who spearheads a dirty tactic campaign strategy. In contrast, hrc stupidly feigns ignorance that her campaign accepts money from dirty energy, big banks, and big industry. Her problem is that she's being out-integritied. Now she has a miniscule chance to demonstrate she's the victim of dirty politics, and it's blowing up in her face.

I believe this is why the DNC decided this morning to reverse it's decision. I hope all this crap exposes the bullshit within the major parties, including the Democrats. Politicians of integrity should be trumpeting the incredible corruption that the most recent spending bill permitted, that is allowing major donors to hide. Money is continuing to roll in from what Bernie calls the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" of big $$$.

The Democrats need to watch their backs. Republicans are pissed off enough with establishment politics to turn toward the likes of that asshole Trump, and second place candidates but equally assholish Cruz and Carson. Somewhat less assholish candidates are riding right on their tails. Democratic voters are also getting pissed, and THANK GOD, they're moving toward alternative candidate Bernie Sanders. You're welcome, America.

Wasserman Shmidt: No one trusts you. HRC: You're dangling precipitously on the edge. Establishment candidates: Come clean, wash your hands of corporate influence and get our nation back on track. Otherwise you're a bunch of corrupt bastards.

Here's my take. This data breach--when all the facts come out--will be MUCH LESS of an issue than HILLARY's EMAILS. It is also of such minor significance to anything in general. It is not Watergate. It is not selling baby parts. It is not

The DNC restored data access because the Sanders campaign agreed to its conditions. Had the campaign agreed to this two days ago, data access wouldn't have been lost in the first place. By not telling Sanders of the problem, his staff put him in a difficult position.

If Sanders wants to run as a Democratic candidate and use the DNC's data platform, he needs to ensure that his staff abide by the user agreement.

I think that when all is said and done, you will see that this little episode warrants ZERO concern about Bernie Sanders. It is less significant than Hillary's "damn emails." It is less significant than falsified campaign signatures. It is less important than "harvesting baby parts." It is NOT IMPORTANT and is NOT AND INDICATION OF CORRUPTION. I very strongly believe this will be borne out.

I think that the DNC got nervous, and rightly so. It was going to be raked over the coals, and they and HRC miscalculated their strategy to take advantage of this nothing-event to make BS look bad and weaken his campaign. It blew up in their faces.

You want to worry about corruption in politics? Worry about the legal activity. Worry about Hillary's SuperPAC and its contributors. Worry about her positions on campaign finance reform (zero, squat, nothing) and corporate favors via trade policy (which BS pushed her to "reconsider"), bank and finance laws and regulations, and her kissing up to dirty energy. This is very, very serious. By contrast, this BS about BS is but a speck of Unimportant Nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe bs is a person of honesty and integrity. Someone who forgoes superpacs is not someone who spearheads a dirty tactic campaign strategy. In contrast, hrc stupidly feigns ignorance that her campaign accepts money from dirty energy, big banks, and big industry. Her problem is that she's being out-integritied. Now she has a miniscule chance to demonstrate she's the victim of dirty politics, and it's blowing up in her face.

I believe this is why the DNC decided this morning to reverse it's decision. I hope all this crap exposes the bullshit within the major parties, including the Democrats. Politicians of integrity should be trumpeting the incredible corruption that the most recent spending bill permitted, that is allowing major donors to hide. Money is continuing to roll in from what Bernie calls the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" of big $$$.

The Democrats need to watch their backs. Republicans are pissed off enough with establishment politics to turn toward the likes of that asshole Trump, and second place candidates but equally assholish Cruz and Carson. Somewhat less assholish candidates are riding right on their tails. Democratic voters are also getting pissed, and THANK GOD, they're moving toward alternative candidate Bernie Sanders. You're welcome, America.

Wasserman Shmidt: No one trusts you. HRC: You're dangling precipitously on the edge. Establishment candidates: Come clean, wash your hands of corporate influence and get our nation back on track. Otherwise you're a bunch of corrupt bastards.

The DNC restored data access because the Sanders campaign agreed to its conditions. Had the campaign agreed to this two days ago, data access wouldn't have been lost in the first place. By not telling Sanders of the problem, his staff put him in a difficult position.

If Sanders wants to run as a Democratic candidate and use the DNC's data platform, he needs to ensure that his staff abide by the user agreement.

Agreed to all of the above, but I'll add that Sanders lost me when he blamed this on "some young staffers." The guy who did this, Josh Uretsky, has been working on national campaigns since 2006. Do you know how long that is in campaign terms? The guy is practically a Sanders-level wizened old veteran, as campaigns skew notoriously young. Uretsky was also the national data director. Considering how powerful the VAN data is, that's a pretty senior position in the campaign.

This wasn't some young kid making an innocent mistake, and for Sanders to portray it that way is disingenuous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that I sent $20 to Bernie for this. It will be interesting to see if he gets a bump in fundraising. That will speak volumes. I believe he has a very loyal following and if the dems treat this group poorly, the democratic nominee will get hurt.

Agreed! In fact, given the chaos on the Republican side, this is the equivalent of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and it was totally self-inflicted.

It also had the effect of supporting the belief the DNC was totally siding with HRC and her campaign.

Yep. And let me add that Hillary's rabid fans on twitter are doing her zero favors. Same goes for campaign staff.

Hearing Brian Fallon completely misrepresent what happened and act as though it was the worst scandal to ever hit a campaign was surprising to me. Completely amateur move, irresponsible, morally wrong, and damaging to the party. It really pissed me off.

I was warming up to Hillary. This has presented a stumbling block.

It won't shock me at all if we find out her staff was peaking around and if that happens, she's toast. The woman irritates the hell out of me. Even when things are going well it's like she's determined to screw up.

Audits have determined that only the Sanders campaign accessed another campaign's data. Jeff Weaver acknowledged on CNN that he had no evidence of anything else.

Fallon's stance is political gamesmanship, just as the Weaver/Devine stances are. I think HRC will take a different tack, and Bernie will take a much less blustering stance than his campaign manager did. This is how campaigns play these things.

For the life of me I don't know why the DNC isn't under new leadership. Everyone would prefer it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe bs is a person of honesty and integrity. Someone who forgoes superpacs is not someone who spearheads a dirty tactic campaign strategy. In contrast, hrc stupidly feigns ignorance that her campaign accepts money from dirty energy, big banks, and big industry. Her problem is that she's being out-integritied. Now she has a miniscule chance to demonstrate she's the victim of dirty politics, and it's blowing up in her face.

I believe this is why the DNC decided this morning to reverse it's decision. I hope all this crap exposes the bullshit within the major parties, including the Democrats. Politicians of integrity should be trumpeting the incredible corruption that the most recent spending bill permitted, that is allowing major donors to hide. Money is continuing to roll in from what Bernie calls the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" of big $$$.

The Democrats need to watch their backs. Republicans are pissed off enough with establishment politics to turn toward the likes of that asshole Trump, and second place candidates but equally assholish Cruz and Carson. Somewhat less assholish candidates are riding right on their tails. Democratic voters are also getting pissed, and THANK GOD, they're moving toward alternative candidate Bernie Sanders. You're welcome, America.

Wasserman Shmidt: No one trusts you. HRC: You're dangling precipitously on the edge. Establishment candidates: Come clean, wash your hands of corporate influence and get our nation back on track. Otherwise you're a bunch of corrupt bastards.

The DNC restored data access because the Sanders campaign agreed to its conditions. Had the campaign agreed to this two days ago, data access wouldn't have been lost in the first place. By not telling Sanders of the problem, his staff put him in a difficult position.

If Sanders wants to run as a Democratic candidate and use the DNC's data platform, he needs to ensure that his staff abide by the user agreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that I sent $20 to Bernie for this. It will be interesting to see if he gets a bump in fundraising. That will speak volumes. I believe he has a very loyal following and if the dems treat this group poorly, the democratic nominee will get hurt.

Agreed! In fact, given the chaos on the Republican side, this is the equivalent of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and it was totally self-inflicted.

It also had the effect of supporting the belief the DNC was totally siding with HRC and her campaign.

Yep. And let me add that Hillary's rabid fans on twitter are doing her zero favors. Same goes for campaign staff.

Hearing Brian Fallon completely misrepresent what happened and act as though it was the worst scandal to ever hit a campaign was surprising to me. Completely amateur move, irresponsible, morally wrong, and damaging to the party. It really pissed me off.

I was warming up to Hillary. This has presented a stumbling block.

It won't shock me at all if we find out her staff was peaking around and if that happens, she's toast. The woman irritates the hell out of me. Even when things are going well it's like she's determined to screw up.

Anonymous wrote:I believe bs is a person of honesty and integrity. Someone who forgoes superpacs is not someone who spearheads a dirty tactic campaign strategy. In contrast, hrc stupidly feigns ignorance that her campaign accepts money from dirty energy, big banks, and big industry. Her problem is that she's being out-integritied. Now she has a miniscule chance to demonstrate she's the victim of dirty politics, and it's blowing up in her face.

I believe this is why the DNC decided this morning to reverse it's decision. I hope all this crap exposes the bullshit within the major parties, including the Democrats. Politicians of integrity should be trumpeting the incredible corruption that the most recent spending bill permitted, that is allowing major donors to hide. Money is continuing to roll in from what Bernie calls the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" of big $$$.

The Democrats need to watch their backs. Republicans are pissed off enough with establishment politics to turn toward the likes of that asshole Trump, and second place candidates but equally assholish Cruz and Carson. Somewhat less assholish candidates are riding right on their tails. Democratic voters are also getting pissed, and THANK GOD, they're moving toward alternative candidate Bernie Sanders. You're welcome, America.

Wasserman Shmidt: No one trusts you. HRC: You're dangling precipitously on the edge. Establishment candidates: Come clean, wash your hands of corporate influence and get our nation back on track. Otherwise you're a bunch of corrupt bastards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary should release a statement reinforcing her trust in Bernie. If she doesn't, this is going to move against her.

No it's not. Bernie's a loser and his staff are losers. He didn't even want to be a Democrat until he decided to run for president. His loser data director stole
from her, it's not on Hillary to release a statement about "trusting" Bernie because we now know she shouldn't trust him.

I'm speaking as someone who is not sure which candidate I'll pick in the primary. I like them both for different reasons. The way this is developing hurts Hillary. It's not her responsibility to do anything, but she's a smart politician and she should.

Why?

Because for whatever reason it feels like the dnc favors her to the point of trying to discredit Sanders. It's because he's the underdog and she seems more like an insider. I'm not saying it's all true, but when we're undecided many of us vote with our gut, and these kinds of negative associations with Hillary make me want to go the other way.

If she speaks out against the dnc reaction or facilitates Bernie being back in good graces, it will restore faith in her as more than just someone in it to win. It's why people applauded when Bernie said that "damn emails" line. It's even why trump gains popularity. You want to feel like the person is making human connections and saying something "real" not just playing a game to win.

But why shouldn't the DNC favor her? Why do they owe Sanders anything? All those years in the Senate he refused to join party, refused to pay DNC and DSCC dues, why do they owe him anything now that he's begging for their charity?

Are they supposed to treat all people running as Democrats equally? (Sincere question)

Maybe theoretically, but it's really not cool or fair for someone who just decided to be a Democrat last Thursday to come in demanding this. Bernie has never been loyal to the party but he seems to expect the same in return. No thanks.

In 2006, he decided to caucus with Dems. If he hadn't, it would be a 50-50 split, and Republicans would have kept the Senate.

Your statement is true, but that speaks to only one part of the relationship. He caucuses with the Dems in the Senate and campaigns for some Democratic candidates, but he doesn't support the DNC as a whole in the same way other Democrats do. If he had, this would have played out somewhat differently, I think. His brand has been all about independence and then he decided to run within the system. That creates a lot of tension.

The DNC data are one major advantage we hold over the RNC. Obviously Bernie needs access to his data, and as I've said, I don't think DWS should have cut him off. In the end, though, Bernie did exactly what the DNC asked: he's agreed to provide sworn affidavits and submit to an independent audit. Had he done that 2 days ago, data access would never have been cut off in the first place. So why didn't his staff tell him about this problem right away? Why did he have to learn about it from DWS? Why did he file a lawsuit only to end up giving the DNC what it asked for?

Because he doesn't know how to act or play by the rules, which you have to do if you want their data.

I'm the PP you responded to. I don't think Bernie knew anything about the data breach and I'm sure he was genuinely pissed that his staff did something so stupid. But I think he gets some bad advice and his aides don't always serve him well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary should release a statement reinforcing her trust in Bernie. If she doesn't, this is going to move against her.

No it's not. Bernie's a loser and his staff are losers. He didn't even want to be a Democrat until he decided to run for president. His loser data director stole
from her, it's not on Hillary to release a statement about "trusting" Bernie because we now know she shouldn't trust him.

I'm speaking as someone who is not sure which candidate I'll pick in the primary. I like them both for different reasons. The way this is developing hurts Hillary. It's not her responsibility to do anything, but she's a smart politician and she should.

Why?

Because for whatever reason it feels like the dnc favors her to the point of trying to discredit Sanders. It's because he's the underdog and she seems more like an insider. I'm not saying it's all true, but when we're undecided many of us vote with our gut, and these kinds of negative associations with Hillary make me want to go the other way.

If she speaks out against the dnc reaction or facilitates Bernie being back in good graces, it will restore faith in her as more than just someone in it to win. It's why people applauded when Bernie said that "damn emails" line. It's even why trump gains popularity. You want to feel like the person is making human connections and saying something "real" not just playing a game to win.

But why shouldn't the DNC favor her? Why do they owe Sanders anything? All those years in the Senate he refused to join party, refused to pay DNC and DSCC dues, why do they owe him anything now that he's begging for their charity?

Are they supposed to treat all people running as Democrats equally? (Sincere question)

Maybe theoretically, but it's really not cool or fair for someone who just decided to be a Democrat last Thursday to come in demanding this. Bernie has never been loyal to the party but he seems to expect the same in return. No thanks.

In 2006, he decided to caucus with Dems. If he hadn't, it would be a 50-50 split, and Republicans would have kept the Senate.

Your statement is true, but that speaks to only one part of the relationship. He caucuses with the Dems in the Senate and campaigns for some Democratic candidates, but he doesn't support the DNC as a whole in the same way other Democrats do. If he had, this would have played out somewhat differently, I think. His brand has been all about independence and then he decided to run within the system. That creates a lot of tension.

The DNC data are one major advantage we hold over the RNC. Obviously Bernie needs access to his data, and as I've said, I don't think DWS should have cut him off. In the end, though, Bernie did exactly what the DNC asked: he's agreed to provide sworn affidavits and submit to an independent audit. Had he done that 2 days ago, data access would never have been cut off in the first place. So why didn't his staff tell him about this problem right away? Why did he have to learn about it from DWS? Why did he file a lawsuit only to end up giving the DNC what it asked for?

Because he doesn't know how to act or play by the rules, which you have to do if you want their data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary should release a statement reinforcing her trust in Bernie. If she doesn't, this is going to move against her.

No it's not. Bernie's a loser and his staff are losers. He didn't even want to be a Democrat until he decided to run for president. His loser data director stole
from her, it's not on Hillary to release a statement about "trusting" Bernie because we now know she shouldn't trust him.

I'm speaking as someone who is not sure which candidate I'll pick in the primary. I like them both for different reasons. The way this is developing hurts Hillary. It's not her responsibility to do anything, but she's a smart politician and she should.

Why?

Because for whatever reason it feels like the dnc favors her to the point of trying to discredit Sanders. It's because he's the underdog and she seems more like an insider. I'm not saying it's all true, but when we're undecided many of us vote with our gut, and these kinds of negative associations with Hillary make me want to go the other way.

If she speaks out against the dnc reaction or facilitates Bernie being back in good graces, it will restore faith in her as more than just someone in it to win. It's why people applauded when Bernie said that "damn emails" line. It's even why trump gains popularity. You want to feel like the person is making human connections and saying something "real" not just playing a game to win.

But why shouldn't the DNC favor her? Why do they owe Sanders anything? All those years in the Senate he refused to join party, refused to pay DNC and DSCC dues, why do they owe him anything now that he's begging for their charity?

Are they supposed to treat all people running as Democrats equally? (Sincere question)

Maybe theoretically, but it's really not cool or fair for someone who just decided to be a Democrat last Thursday to come in demanding this. Bernie has never been loyal to the party but he seems to expect the same in return. No thanks.

In 2006, he decided to caucus with Dems. If he hadn't, it would be a 50-50 split, and Republicans would have kept the Senate.

Your statement is true, but that speaks to only one part of the relationship. He caucuses with the Dems in the Senate and campaigns for some Democratic candidates, but he doesn't support the DNC as a whole in the same way other Democrats do. If he had, this would have played out somewhat differently, I think. His brand has been all about independence and then he decided to run within the system. That creates a lot of tension.

The DNC data are one major advantage we hold over the RNC. Obviously Bernie needs access to his data, and as I've said, I don't think DWS should have cut him off. In the end, though, Bernie did exactly what the DNC asked: he's agreed to provide sworn affidavits and submit to an independent audit. Had he done that 2 days ago, data access would never have been cut off in the first place. So why didn't his staff tell him about this problem right away? Why did he have to learn about it from DWS? Why did he file a lawsuit only to end up giving the DNC what it asked for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary should release a statement reinforcing her trust in Bernie. If she doesn't, this is going to move against her.

No it's not. Bernie's a loser and his staff are losers. He didn't even want to be a Democrat until he decided to run for president. His loser data director stole
from her, it's not on Hillary to release a statement about "trusting" Bernie because we now know she shouldn't trust him.

I'm speaking as someone who is not sure which candidate I'll pick in the primary. I like them both for different reasons. The way this is developing hurts Hillary. It's not her responsibility to do anything, but she's a smart politician and she should.

Why?

Because for whatever reason it feels like the dnc favors her to the point of trying to discredit Sanders. It's because he's the underdog and she seems more like an insider. I'm not saying it's all true, but when we're undecided many of us vote with our gut, and these kinds of negative associations with Hillary make me want to go the other way.

If she speaks out against the dnc reaction or facilitates Bernie being back in good graces, it will restore faith in her as more than just someone in it to win. It's why people applauded when Bernie said that "damn emails" line. It's even why trump gains popularity. You want to feel like the person is making human connections and saying something "real" not just playing a game to win.

But why shouldn't the DNC favor her? Why do they owe Sanders anything? All those years in the Senate he refused to join party, refused to pay DNC and DSCC dues, why do they owe him anything now that he's begging for their charity?

Are they supposed to treat all people running as Democrats equally? (Sincere question)

Maybe theoretically, but it's really not cool or fair for someone who just decided to be a Democrat last Thursday to come in demanding this. Bernie has never been loyal to the party but he seems to expect the same in return. No thanks.

In 2006, he decided to caucus with Dems. If he hadn't, it would be a 50-50 split, and Republicans would have kept the Senate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More info being collated over at Snopes...

Turns out there's a lot of misinformation/disinformation being circulated by the Clinton campaign...

For one, and most importantly, it's looking like the supposed "exports" of data only consisted of a one-page summary, as opposed to detailed records of individual voters.

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/

So why did they immediately fire the data director who accessed the data and immediately created new accounts for other Sanders staffers to access the data?

They accessed the Clinton campaign inputs about voters. Four people did not access just for a one page summary sheet.

Yes, this contradicts the audit reports a number of news outlets reviewed yesterday. I believe the Sanders campaign has agreed to a full independent audit, which RT Rybeck, the DNC vice chair, called for. Rybeck does not endorse Clinton and is not at all allied with DWS; quite the opposite. The DNC is hiring an outside security firm to do the audit. The Sanders campaign is not dropping the lawsuit, which is puzzling given that it has its data access back.

DWS did HRC no favors but HRC will be magnanimous to Bernie, I suspect. Bernie's campaign team is not serving him well. He should have been informed about this right away; he should not have heard about it from DWS more than 24 hours later, and there was probably no need to file a lawsuit. While DWS overreacted, Bernie's team did too. That might fire up Bernie's base, but it doesn't say much about his ability to handle a crisis.

Bernie supporters need to realize that Clinton had nothing to do with this and she is probably very unhappy with DWS, who served neither Clinton nor Sanders well here. I think it's well known that she would replace DWS in a heartbeat, but she has no authority to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary should release a statement reinforcing her trust in Bernie. If she doesn't, this is going to move against her.

No it's not. Bernie's a loser and his staff are losers. He didn't even want to be a Democrat until he decided to run for president. His loser data director stole
from her, it's not on Hillary to release a statement about "trusting" Bernie because we now know she shouldn't trust him.

I'm speaking as someone who is not sure which candidate I'll pick in the primary. I like them both for different reasons. The way this is developing hurts Hillary. It's not her responsibility to do anything, but she's a smart politician and she should.

Why?

Because for whatever reason it feels like the dnc favors her to the point of trying to discredit Sanders. It's because he's the underdog and she seems more like an insider. I'm not saying it's all true, but when we're undecided many of us vote with our gut, and these kinds of negative associations with Hillary make me want to go the other way.

If she speaks out against the dnc reaction or facilitates Bernie being back in good graces, it will restore faith in her as more than just someone in it to win. It's why people applauded when Bernie said that "damn emails" line. It's even why trump gains popularity. You want to feel like the person is making human connections and saying something "real" not just playing a game to win.

But why shouldn't the DNC favor her? Why do they owe Sanders anything? All those years in the Senate he refused to join party, refused to pay DNC and DSCC dues, why do they owe him anything now that he's begging for their charity?

Are they supposed to treat all people running as Democrats equally? (Sincere question)

Maybe theoretically, but it's really not cool or fair for someone who just decided to be a Democrat last Thursday to come in demanding this. Bernie has never been loyal to the party but he seems to expect the same in return. No thanks.

Do they have any say in who calls themselves a Democrat when running for office? Do they get anything from Democratic candidates?

Presidential candidates often, but not always, sign joint fundraising agreements with the Democratic party in each state to raise funds that support both the candidate and down-ballot candidates in that state. It's a major party-building mechanism and is especially important this cycle, after years of relative neglect from Obama and poor leadership from DWS. Electing Democrats at every level is tremendously important right now.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have worked closely with the DNC for decades. This year HRC has already signed joint fundraising agreements with many state parties and raises funds for them through the Hillary Victory Fund. If you buy HRC merchandise or contribute to her campaign, you're also asked to contribute to that fund. This week it held a fundraiser headlined by Sting that raised $8 million, much of which will go to support down-ballot Democrats across the country. Bill Clinton is a unique force in raising money to support other Democrats.

So, yes, the DNC does get something from Democratic candidates who choose to support it. We desperately need more Democrats in Congress and in state government, and Clinton has made a concerted effort to help achieve that.

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that I sent $20 to Bernie for this. It will be interesting to see if he gets a bump in fundraising. That will speak volumes. I believe he has a very loyal following and if the dems treat this group poorly, the democratic nominee will get hurt.

It only means that die-hard Sanders supporters are willing to look past it. Not a measure of his level of support among the general public.

To those who want to point out how long Sanders has been in Congress, I'd point out that he is one of the very rare few there who is still holding to standards of ethics and decency and who has not just caved in to corporate interests and big donors like the rest.

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that I sent $20 to Bernie for this. It will be interesting to see if he gets a bump in fundraising. That will speak volumes. I believe he has a very loyal following and if the dems treat this group poorly, the democratic nominee will get hurt.

Agreed! In fact, given the chaos on the Republican side, this is the equivalent of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and it was totally self-inflicted.

It also had the effect of supporting the belief the DNC was totally siding with HRC and her campaign.