One of this week’s top stories is that polls are showing a General Election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be neck and neck.

Let that sink in for a moment.

In a year when the GOP’s nominee is a chauvinist, bigoted, facist-styled and constantly lying billionaire who is disliked by most women, minorities and young voters, the Democrats are on the verge of nominating a candidate who is about as equally disliked and distrusted by voters (this isn’t a personal opinion, it’s the results of poll after poll including this latest one from NBC).

Superdelegates became instituted in the Democratic primary process after such non-establishment candidates as George McGovern and Jimmy Carter beat out establishment candidates in 1972 and 1976. It was an anti-democratic ploy intended to keep 40% of delegates needed to win the nomination, under the control of the Democrat Party elites to overrule their voters if it looked like an opponent to an establishment candidate could win.

The disingenuous reason given by Democratic Party elites for instituting the Superdelegate scheme into their primaries was that it was an emergency fire alarm to be pulled if somehow a candidate who looked too weak to win in a General Election, won their party’s nomination. Uh…right…what’s that latest poll say again?

NBC Poll - Trump-Hillary-BernieAs DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently declared to bizarrely both justify and diminish the rationale for Superdelegates, they’ve never overturned the will of the voters in Democratic primaries yet.

Then why should they even exist, if the major brag about them is that they’ve never interfered in an election? If the inference is that their overriding voters would be something awful, shameful and destructive to the party, then shouldn’t they be completely eliminated from the process?

And there is an argument to be made that they do indeed interfere in the primaries. As has been broadly reported, whenever Bernie Sanders has won a state, the results of delegates won by each candidate has been adulterated by adding in the Superdelegates “won”. Since Superdelegates are de facto members of the Democratic establishment and heavily behind the establishment candidate, Bernie may have won a majority of a state’s delegates in some cases but the news would report that Hillary added to her lead thanks to Superdelegates.

This is the DNC and their Superdelegates putting a finger on the scale of every primary outcome and falsely promoting the perception that Bernie simply can’t win because even if he does, he loses. It is especially dishonest when the fact is that Superdelegates aren’t actually committed to a candidate until they vote at the convention in July. So all those Superdelegate votes that are always “awarded” when a state has a primary? They aren’t real or legit and don’t count yet.

This is how propaganda works, hammering into the public’s head that the desired perception is the only feasible one to believe. By using this bogus addition of Superdelegates to the results of every primary contest, they have in fact been trying to influence the perceptions of voters that the elites’ choice for the nomination is winning and inevitable. They know that many people don’t bother voting for candidates that are perceived as destined to lose and they have been exploiting this anti-democratic manipulation from the beginning. The intent is to manipulate and control the outcome of the primary process while keeping up a facade of democracy. Again, Superdelegates are anti-democratic and the product of people who are themselves anti-democratic.

What is unsurprising is that when Bernie Sanders claimed that he would want to make his case for the nomination to Superdelegates, he was condemned by the same party elites who have been using Superdelegates to advance the nomination of their chosen candidate…as not respecting the decisions of voters. Yep, those same voters the Dem Party elite created the Superdelegates to override.

When one takes a moment to consider the competitiveness of the candidate who has the lion’s share of Superdelegate support, the irony is that the polls show they are marching behind the candidate who is the weakest against the presumptive Republican candidate, Donald Trump. As illustrated above, the latest polls show Hillary Clinton in a virtual tie (within the margin of error) with the heavily despised Donald Trump. Both are seen negatively by a majority of voters, Hillary at 54% negative and Trump at 58% negative. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has only 36% of Americans that view him negatively (and is the only candidate with a higher positive then negative rating, at 43%) and in this latest polling from NBC/WSJ, beats Trump by 15% in a General Election match up.

So if the true mission of the Superdelegates was to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating a candidate who is more likely to lose the Presidency to the Republicans, doesn’t Bernie have a point in lobbying them to support his candidacy instead?

Of course, since the Superdelegates’ real purpose is only to assure the nomination of establishment candidates and keep populists and “outsiders” like Sanders from getting the nomination, such pursuits by Sanders will surely turn out to be futile.

Personally, I don’t believe that there should be a Superdelegates system. It is anti-democratic, manipulative towards voters and a fraud. It has proven to be a tool of the establishment to influence primaries, sometimes against the will of the majority (in 2008 too when Hillary acquired a majority of them and hoped to use them to bring her the nomination even though she was losing in the actual pledged delegate count to Barack Obama).

That said, since Superdelegates have been used throughout the primary season to help advance the meme that Hillary was the inevitable winner of the nomination (and perhaps helped her win more pledged delegates than she would have), it is understandable that Bernie would hope to use them to turn things back in his direction.

Either way, Superdelegates offer nothing but division to the Democratic Party. Since most have stepped in to manipulate the perception of Hillary as winning more delegates in each primary than she genuinely has, many Bernie supporters are disgusted with the Democratic Party establishment (as well as for justifiable complaints of ex-co-chair of Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, using her position as DNC Chairwoman to support Hillary and undermine Bernie).

And if Superdelegates overrode the results of the primaries and handed the nomination to Bernie even if Hillary won a majority of pledged delegates, Hillary supporters would justifiably disgusted with the party.

Superdelegates have tainted this election as they did in 2008. They are a fraud and anti-democratic. They should be eliminated from the Democrats primary process for good at this year’s convention as an important step towards reunifying the party.

Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
38 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
Assumed NameJames Michael BrodieAquarius 1027Haruko HaruharaFergie1 Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Assumed Name
Assumed Name

Okay, I have to say it: I’m **totally** psyched to be able to vote for a viable female democratic presidential candidate!! (Sorry, but there it is. 🙂

Here’s hoping Sanders has the grace to “do a Clinton” a la 2008.

Assumed Name
Assumed Name

Greetings AdLib,

I don’t fit “the profile” of either a Trump supporter or Sanders supporter, so I’ll play Devil’s Advocate in asking a (sincere) question: The whole issue of superdelegates notwithstanding, hasn’t Clinton more or less “won” the popular vote among primary voting Democrats per se? On the one hand, certainly I understand the appeal of Sanders for many, but on the other hand, it seems as if not merely the “Democratic party elites” favor Clinton, national polls regarding Clinton vs. Trump notwithstanding. Also, it’s not as if Sanders is new to politics: given the length of his political career why wait until this historical moment to complain about superdelegates? There’s a strong argument to be made that given what is at stake (namely a Trump presidency) it is now time to unite the Democratic party behind the presumptive nominee…and that is simply not Sanders. November is only four months away.

Assumed Name

James Michael Brodie

I guess I’ll be the one to say it. At the end of the day, parties can do whatever they want to pick their candidates — even letting nonparty members to be run for office. These are not real elections. Those who want to vote for Clinton, Sanders, Trump, heck Rubio or Bush — can do so in November.

What I find interesting is that the two most interesting candidates in these two primaries are not party members. Maybe this will open the door to a multi-party system.

Haruko Haruhara

I don’t think Superdelegates are the only problem; I’m not particularly wild about the caucus system, either. The irony is, while Bernie supporters have a lot of valid beefs about the lack of democracy in the primary system, Bernie has done as well if not better in the caucuses than Hillary.

What I’m struck by is that there’s no hard and fast rules for picking party candidates, and perhaps there needs to be, but good luck with that. It’d probably require a Constitutional amendment. Primaries weren’t even used much until 1968 apparently, it was mostly all caucuses until then. And then before caucuses, parties simply picked their candidate at the party convention. What I try to tell people mad about how the primaries work is by pointing out that you know, they don’t even have to hold primaries at all, they didn’t until 50 years ago, there’s no rules or requirements to hold primaries. It’s not very democratic, but they really don’t have to do it. They could just pick their candidates at their party conventions.

It’d be nice if we could get rid of superdelegates, caucuses and have some sort of standardised primary system. Now, some primaries are open, some are closed, some are winner-take-all, some are proportional. It’s kind of a messy deal that leaves people feeling disenfranchised.


HH, I agree on the need to get rid of super delegates. And to reform the whole primary process.

If there’s one silver lining from this whole crazy 2016 primary season, it’s that a lot more American voters have been wised up to the ridiculous complexity and general silliness of both parties’ candidate selection process.


I’m not sure where to begin because I’ve read all the excellent comments posted below and I would be here all day if I were to try and reply to each one individually. Therefore I will post a few of my own thoughts as a stand alone comment. I know that this will not be as erudite or comprehensive as those comments by AD,KT, Kes, PPO or others but I feel it’s time to voice my opinion. In the interest of self disclosure, I am in favor of Hillary Clinton as the nominee of the Democratic Party. I qualify that with the comment that I am not a proponent of gender voting by a long shot.

First of all,for the most part KT and PPO’s comments have already said what I agree with.

I understand completely and agree that the whole process needs a large overhaul. I understand that the gap between wealth, merely surviving and poverty are utterly unacceptable and so the electorate, quite rightfully, are mad as heck. I actually pay 25% income tax on my meagre Soc Sec even though I don’t live in the U.S., so I am a U.S. taxpayer ( more than Trump is!).

I have usually admired Bernie for ‘taking it to’ the Democratic Party from the beginning. He has garnered extraordinary numbers of supporters to his rallies. Yes people are more than fed up with the Washington gridlock, the status quo ad infinitum. Bernie has every right to continue the fight and he has been able to cause a necessary shift in the Dem Party. Good. Yes, continue Bernie, but please stop taking the inevitable Dem nominee apart with your rhetoric, which seems to have become more strident in recent weeks. There is no possible outcome that could help Trump more than having Hillary enter the GE with “one arm in a sling” (to quote Ad). Also to use the phrase “I give up” is also not the best tone for Bernie to garner the support that is needed!

Yes, a huge change is needed but this way will not work. Look at the dastardly Tea Party and what they have done and managed to do in the way of obstruction. How? Because they started a grass roots campaign to get their people elected to Congress.

Where are the candidates that will be doing the same for Bernie? One man or woman cannot achieve a “Revolution”. So Bernie popping out of a cake, so to speak, and expecting to be elected Potus is unrealistic in the extreme. Absolutely, he has done brilliantly from a very low starting point and is to be admired for what he has accomplished, but has he done such a job that his supporters will now be bitter and take their bat and ball and stay at home for the GE?! Hillary needs a large turn out to win against Trump. Just what the GOP does not want to happen.

I think that being a blind follower of any movement is unhealthy. But I know what I DON’T want and that is Trump in the WH! At the risk of sounding a little dramatic, that outcome will see the image and the power of the U.S.A. plummet to a dangerous level.

When I read “never Hillary” , I question the level of thinking behind the alternative.

I, too think that Bernie has become a bit egotistical of late and am looking at a hint of bitterness which never ends well.

There is more going on in my brain than I have the stamina to write. So I will leave it there for the present.


Hello, Fergie.

This is not a comment on your comment as such, or an opinion about your opinion, but I just wanted to point out that Bernie has been working hard to get these Progressives elected to Congress by sharing his time and campaign funds to help them do just that. The list is not complete as there are at least 6 more names, and they are all from immigrant families.

I think it’s brilliant because even with Hillary as the dem nominee, having more Progessives in Congress who support Bernie’s ideas, is a winning situation, and might stop Hillary from going back to the center in policy making should she win the presidency.

These are the things that the media don’t report on, about what Bernie is actually doing to help to bring about change. They are too busy reporting when trump farts, or there is another rumoured fight between Bernie and Hillary.

I receive emails from the Bernie campaign, and the last time he mentioned Hillary, was to report that there were only 2 points between them in California. There was no bitterness or name calling, and never has been. The only criticism has been the same from the start, her campaign funding because he strongly believes in removing huge amounts of corporate money out of politics.

Here is part of that list of Progressive candidates who support Bernie’s agenda.

Tim Canova, a Progressive candidate from Florida challenging DWS.

Jeff Merkley

U.S. Senator from Oregon working on Climate Change legislation

Russ Feingold WI

Lucy Flores of Nevada,

Zephyr Teachout of New York

Mike Honda California (CA-17)

Ruben Gallego Arizona (AZ-07)

Keith Ellison Minnesota (MN-05)

Donna Edwards Maryland

Pramila Jayapal

Here is a link to an article from an economist who agrees with many others that Bernie’s ideas for the future are not as far fetched or impossible as some are saying without really understanding how he plans to implement them. Maybe if people actually listened to what he is saying instead of throwing the word “socialist” around without knowing what it really means, his plans would make perfect sense.

Here is that link in case you are interested.


Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders easily wins the policy debate

Sorry to butt in but I’m usually here working behind door #3 and happened to see your comment on my tea break. Hope that you are doing ok?

Take care.


Hi Kalima,

Oh my goodness, you are not “butting in”! Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my comment (or whatever……you know what I mean! 🙂

I don’t have a problem with the term socialist one little bit. In it’s modern context, I’m one! I agree that the majority of people are not aware what it actually means.

I also agree that the obscene amounts of money spent on campaigns are beyond disgraceful times infinity percent.

Yes, I know that Bernie is supporting progressive candidates and that’s excellent. Hopefully they can make some progress.

I will look into Jeffrey Sachs. Thank you for that link which I will read soon. There are probably as many economists who disagree with him which is fine. I guess the devil is in the detail and what is truly achievable.

Unless Citizens United can be “undone” (which is my fervent hope), the U.S. political system is a financial horror. I don’t think anyone of sound mind would disagree with that.

I think that too many unknowns are being thrown on Hillary and that she is more progressive than we all know.

Sorry Kalima, I’m going to have to leave it there for now.

Thank you for asking how I’m going. Not great, so can’t spend too long sitting in one place. Apparently the disks in my spine are drying out and degenerating! Thus pain!
Hey ho and so we plod on!
How are you doing?

Take care also.


Thanks for taking the time to reply, Fergie, and I was glad to hear that you know what Bernie is doing behind the scenes. When you think that many European countries are doing just fine with a socialist government who provides all it’s citizens with access to healthcare, education, unions and so much more, socialist has no scary hidden meaning at all, it just stands for equality.

Time will tell what Hillary will or won’t do, or can or can’t do.

So very sorry to hear about further health problems, Fergie, and believe me when I say that I know what you are going through. I was diagnosed with premature aging of the spine in my early 30’s and get these attacks that last anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. In fact I’m just getting over one that lasted for a month. It was heaven to be able to stand up straight again, although bending is still a problem. We need to find some spare parts!

My doctor always gives me a huge supply of heat plasters, and the warmth gets me through the night. Surgery was suggested years ago, but now there are too many disks involved to predict a good outcome. I hope that you at least find something for that intense pain, and will be sending out healing thoughts your way.

Take care of yourself and I really hope that you have the right doctor to support you through this trying tim. I do, and feel very lucky.

See you, and all the very best.


Excellent, Ad, but why would we think otherwise? Your usual brilliance shines through!

Here is Planet America for this week. some good thoughts in there.

OK, I’ve stewed over this comment and believe we need to bring it in to the open.

I am getting more and more fed up with Bernie Sanders! Here is an avowed Independent who suddenly decides to hang his socialist messages on to the coat-tails of the Democratic Party and registers as a Dem. THEN, he starts biting the hand that feeds him by knocking his rival in the Democratic Party. This is continuing long after it has become evident even to the most one-eyed supporter that he cannot now achieve the nomination. He needs now to swing his support behind Hillary and get out of the fucking way, because he is screwing things badly and possibly handing the Presidency to Drumpf! Sorry if I upset a lot of Bernie supporters, but, c’mon now. It is time!
OK, I feel better now. Time for a Scotch and beddy-byes!


PPO, kudos to you for being spunky enough to post the point of view of the “loyal opposition.” That’s what the Planet is really all about!

My good friend in Australia (Brisbane) is also a Hillary supporter and she and I have had many a civil conversation about our differing takes on this election. So far no blood has been drawn.

I would just say that (if I might presume to speak for Bernie) he doesn’t see his candidacy as a “hijacking” of the Democratic Party. I think he sees is as a restoration of the Party to its FDR roots. Its authentic self. I think it could be argued that the hijacking actually occurred in the 1990s. Rightly or wrongly, Dems felt back then that they were losing the culture wars to the GOP and the Religious Right — that the whole country was drifting to the right — and that if the Democratic Party didn’t swing right as well, it would soon be extinct.

So we ended up with crackdowns on crime, oppressive welfare “reform,” and trade deals that benefited corporations much more than workers.

Over time, that didn’t work out so well.

Now we have a nearly-destroyed middle class and about half the population who are making $28000/year or less. This does not a happy electorate make. But the traditional system was working so well for both major parties’ bigwigs that they failed to notice that unhappy electorate.

Which resulted in big surprises for both the Dems and the GOP. Surprises named Sanders and Trump — although that is definitely where the resemblance ends.

Like you, I believe the odds of Bernie’s becoming the nominee are not great, but I also understand completely why he’s not dropping out. Every primary he wins, every massive (and massively enthusiastic) crowd he draws is political capital that he brings to the convention.

The Dem Party is practically spring-loaded to twang back into centrism. It’s so appallingly safe. And it’s the politics that Hillary knows from the 90s. So the Party needs to be pushed, pulled, prodded and poked back to the left. Kicking and screaming if need be.

Unlike some, I don’t believe that the Sanders campaign is hurting Hillary. If Bernie were running as a 3rd party candidate that would be a different story. But if she’s having trouble staying on her game now — with one person pushing her to the left and another just being a silly ass — she may not be ready for the presidency, where this would be considered a good day. And we all know she’s not that fragile. Not by a long shot.

I believe Bernie will do the right thing — the thing he promised at the beginning — when the time comes. (Including not running as an Independent.) But the time isn’t here just yet.

Donkeys are noted for their stubbornness.


Hey Homie. Even if Sanders managed to get the white house, the sweeping change he promises would not happen. Incrementalism is the only way to get any progress accomplished in DC. Hillary readily admits that, because it’s just a sad fact.
I also don’t believe that a pure progressive/liberal, or a pure conservative makes for a good president. A good leader must know when to be liberal and when to take a more conservative approach. I think president Obama has proven that, time and again.
No candidate, president or human being is perfect. Of course you know this already.


I think the problem arises though, Homie, when we consider that there are many people in situations in which incrementalism isn’t an option. They needed help last week, not next Tuesday. There is a degree of genuine desperation out there that I think the bureaucracies of both parties are more or less oblivious to.

These people are way past settling for a 5% improvement by 2019 in their living situations. And if the Dem Party doesn’t communicate that it understands that, there are other places these people will turn to. Trump. Gary Johnson of the Libertarians (God forbid also.) And Jill Stein with the Greens.

This is not a good time in history to try to sell pragmatic “progress by inches” — however practical it may be.


Hey Homie. My point about sweeping change is, it’s just not possible, for Bernie or anybody else. The republicans are going to be just as vile and uncooperative as they’ve been during president Obama’s near 8 years.

I doubt that there is anybody in DC who dislikes the republicans more than Hillary. They have tried to make her life a living hell, since her husbands administration.

I think Hillary would be able to whip more votes in favor of her policies than Bernie would. He shoots for the moon, and that is simply not how things happen in DC. He knows that better than the voters do. He’s got some great ideas, but if you can’t get cooperation on those ideas, what good are they?

I think Sanders has done a good thing for America by running and changing the national conversation. I do commend him for that, but it’s over for his presidential bid. He knows it.


IMO, You’re spot on, KT. Wow, I didn’t know the fireworks would explode about this. Thanks everyone for a well argued theme.


I agree that he’s highly unlikely to be the candidate (something huge would have to happen) and that he also is aware of that, Homie.

But I think he knows better than many suspect the “art of the deal.” You never announce ahead of time what you’ll eventually “settle” for. You aim high. Very high.

And then — when compromise is finally reached — both sides feel they got a decent deal.


Hey Pink! I pretty much feel the same way. On the one hand, I commend Sanders for entering the race and changing the national conversation.
I saw him on an episode of Bill Maher’s Real Time, before he started his bid for the presidency, and Maher asked him if he thought about running. He said if he did, it would be to get the national conversation centered on the real issues of social justice and economic fairness. He registered as a dem so he could debate Hillary and possibly move her more to the left. He has accomplished all of that, yet still he persists. I think it’s now an ego thing. He’s really enjoying his new found national fame and I think it’s gone to his head.

I also agree about him biting the hand that fed him. If he had run as an independent, without the democratic party, he would never have come as far as he has. Now he’s been attacking the party for a few weeks now. I don’t find that to be a desirable quality in people. He seems to be going the way of many “revolutionaries,” before him. He should know better.

Now he’s beginning to remind me of the British Officer in Bridge Over the River Kwai who got caught up too much in building that bridge, and it became his downfall.


KT, you’ve put it far better than I could. THATS what I was trying to say! Thanks and Peace!


Hi PPO, Ifeel that Bernie is more of a democrat than any of the others. Bernie has views that are democratic and he has always worked with the democrats. When he decided to run as a dem he brought a big bunch of us independents along with him.

It bothers me when people are strictly for the party, not for what is best for America.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree since I don’t think the party should be first.

When I served in the US Army I took an oath to support the USA, NOT a political party.

Peace my friend.


You’re so right, Nirek, that Bernie’s stands are more Old Democratic than current. I’m not arguing against his policies, merely that, in this day and age, it is difficult, if not impossible to get anything done without knowledge or cooperation from the Washington Political Machine, and I think Hillary is more qualified to tap into that demographic than Bernie. No doubt, the Dems need to get back to some of their old policies, but, unfortunately, unless they can empty Washington of the staus quo, nothing will happen and the race will default to the GOP.


AdLib, this article is excellent!
It seems to me that the parties both are silly not to be inclusive of indepentents. They put party before country. In this election cycle, Bernie is the best candidate I have ever known. His integrity, honesty, morality, and consistancy are unparrelled. Bernie’s visionfor America is nothing less than wonderful and is in keeping with the Constitution of the United States of America.

To exclude independent voters from the Democratic elections is “cutting off the nose dispite the face”!

As for the “superdelegates” , they should go with the majority of the voters in their states.

It’s hard to type left handed, so I’ll stop here. Suffice to say I agree we should not even have “superdelegates”.


I’m with you in hoping that the whole superdelegate situation becomes ancient history after the Dem 2016 Convention, AdLib.

My son is in town these days, and this gives me a window into the way the millennials think about political issues. (He’s been in grad school in Madison, WI the past few years.) He fills me in on what he and the students he teaches think about this year’s campaign and American politics in general.

What I’m hearing is that party loyalty with these kids is considered to be somewhere between being a dark-humored joke and utterly incomprehensible. Most of them have been Sanders supporters and when they look at DWS and the Democratic Party, the last thing they feel is respect, admiration and/or loyalty.

They’re stunned that a system that seems to have been the dream design for getting Clinton elected is supposed to make sense to them. And that after the way their candidate has been treated, they’re now expected to fall in line and support/contribute to her campaign.

The superdelegates are a major reason that many of them say they’ll never identify with the Democratic Party. After this election season, they’re done.

I think DWS and her cohorts have been “too clever by half” in winning the battle for Hillary’s nomination. They’ll likely succeed there. But they may find that they’ve lost the war.

And they may have lost a whole generation of younger voters. Possibly forever.


This is really excellent, AdLib. I’ve been asking how superdelegates, the few chosen ones, can represent “for the people, by the people” and count that as being fair. No wonder Bernie protests that the primaries are “rigged”. They certainly are.

States that don’t let Independents vote are also very undemocratic. It’s like telling them that their vote doesn’t count in this part of the political process. I find it appalling and dangerous.

For months now I have read that Bernie has a better chance of winning against trump, and yet the DNC continue to spin their web of deceit. Do they want to lose the WH just to have the opportunity of a possibility of the first woman president? With her popularity at almost the same level as trump’s, do they think that will encourage people to vote for her in the GE? I don’t.

Bernie has no damaging baggage. Anything trump would try to throw at him would roll off his back and not faze him in the least. Hillary on the other hand has a history of issues, some true, and not made up by republicans, and she will be in a fight that will have her defending the accusations from now until November, bringing up scandals that she and the Party’s establishment would rather forget. I see it as Mad Max and “Thunderdome”. If politics haven’t seemed crazy enough until now, just wait until she is announced as the Dem nominee.

I don’t think that there has ever been a time in U.S. history where two nominees have been disliked as much equally.

I agree 100% that superdelegates should be abolished, hardly democratic, as it robs the people of the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. The DNC won’t come out of this debacle smelling of roses and that’s a given. Fight fair or don’t fight at all. The voting public is not as dumb as you hope they will be.

I admire Bernie for standing up to this crooked DNC establishment ploy, and for having the conviction to say it out loud.

Should Hillary lose in November, it will be one of the most disgraceful and dishonest moments in American political history after the unbelievable and disgusting performance we have all witnessed from trump. Right along with the demonic racists who crawled out of the moldy woodwork in 2008 and stayed out for almost 8 years growing bolder every year.

A few days ago I read this article you wrote last year, and it sums up what I have aleays felt about the Clintons.

Thank you for explaining what has bothered me during this primary season, and for writing about what I’m sure many Dem leaning voters are feeling right now.

Hillary Covers Up Truth of Why Bill Clinton Signed DOMA

And so it begins.


State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices


Ironic, that Tad Devine was a contributor to those new rules in 1988.

In 1992, Devine served as a member of the Democratic Party Rules Committee and was a consultant to CBS News throughout the Democratic National Convention in New York. As lead negotiator for the Dukakis campaign at the 1988 Rules Committee, Devine was involved in the Democratic party’s 1988 reform that eliminated winner take all methods of delegate selection and established proportional representation as the exclusive system of delegate allocation in the Democratic Party

I bet he is kicking himself now. The very rules he helped to create are hampering Bernie right now. I am not a Dem anymore but my votes generally go that way. But it is stuff like this and the total mismanagement of DWS that made me change my affiliation in 2014.