Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas


There simply are no party provisions for people running "as if" they were a member, you have to BE a member of the party.
And so, because Bernie was NOT a member of the party, the party chose someone else. I'm fairly certain that, if it had been anyone else instead of Hillary, they would have done much the same thing, namely: PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Because in the end, whether you and I agree what they did was immoral or even sometimes illegal, they did what a party is required to do, select a candidate and then protect them.


OK Jeff. Breaking my posting hiatus after reading this gem.
If you don't see the contradictions here then I'm afraid you have been clinically traumatized with what is being commonly called Hillary Clinton Defeat Syndrome
What it is, basically, is deep trauma to the brain for Clinton supporters that occured after she flamed out in the 2016 election. Their brains need to protect themselves of the reality that she lost by having a horrible political record for many on both the far right and left as well as the fact that she was nakedly incompetent to win against one of the most unlikable candidates in modern history.
For the brain to do this it must make up an alternate universe of cockamamie rationale that explains that loss, often extending the logic to the democratic primary itself, as you have done.
Unable to find a tidy narrative to paper over the obvious fact that she was unexpectantly challenged by real politics of addressing people's material concerns and anger and a resultant exposure of the DNC coordinating with her campaign over her challengers, youve concocted a set of rules that, apparent to yourself, allow for the coronation of a nominee.
Coupla things with that:

There was a widely publicized contest where the VOTERS got to both, listen to the arguments, and then cast their votes in whatever state primary system they reside in.

What is the rule or governing authority over candidate qualifications that you are referring to that allows a candidate such as Sanders to run in the primary but not allowed to win it over party preference? Really. A link or citation would come in handy here.

I understand the MSM (looking at you NYT, WP) serving as basically an outpost extension of the Clinton 2016 campaign and running sanders down when er they could. That's fair and the press has sided with the neoliberal consensus for decades now and Hillary was their pick but the DNC?
Out of respect to your fondness for analogies, how much confidence would you have in a stock car race if one of the race teams had just loaned NASCAR a pile of money just before the race?

As mentioned before, there's a perverse comfort in knowing there's an equal amount of that there cognitive dissonance coming from the center right as there has been from the far right. It's just that the center right has more news channels to choose from.


Edited by chunkstyle (12/20/18 12:09 PM)