Is Bernie Sanders running for Trump resignation/impeachment?

Bernie Sanders-Chris Hayes MSNBC

Bernie Sanders has been everywhere recently talking about everything from how the Republicans are screwing up to how the Democrats are twiddling their thumbs. As recently as Thursday, he said Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, "...brought the Supreme Court confirmation process to a new low during this week's confirmation hearings." And it was only mid-March that headlines were screaming, "Everyone loves Bernie Sanders. Except, it seems, the Democratic party," headline from The Guardian. It is certain that The Bern is well versed on both sides.

Here's the latest figures on Sanders who is being given the national spotlight regularly these days. 61% favorable, 32% unfavorable. When you look at Donald Trump, who sits in the Oval Office today, DT is only 44% favorable, with an unfavorable rating of 53%. When you take the comparisons even further, Barack Obama had a job approval rating of 69% during his first days in office in 2009. Considering the chaos of the Trump administration, the screw ups they have pulled to date, and the fact that Donald John is incapable of getting any of his programs approved, it can only get worse.

These are Fox News polls and although I do have reservations about anything Fox says or does, I take some comfort in the fact that these numbers are being reported by The Hill, a highly reputable publication. They even mention that Trump's unfavorable ratings have been even worse, rising above 55% at times. Here's The Hill's take...

"The huge popularity of Sanders in the Fox poll tracks virtually all other polling that shows Sanders to be, by a large margin, the most popular political leader in America, and far ahead of Trump, the most unpopular new president in the history of presidential polling."

Bernie Sanders has been rallying against the GOP healthcare bill and the repeal of Obamacare since it was introduced by Paul Ryan and endorsed by Donald Trump. The Bern has his own healthcare plan that is even more universal than The Affordable Care Act, but agrees with The Hill that, "...TrumpCare's unpopularity creates a grave danger of disaster for Republicans in 2018 and 2020." And here are some results of Bernie's efforts...

"...a shocking new poll from Quinnipiac University found American voters opposing the pending Republican healthcare bill by a three to one margin. Fifty-six percent of voters disapprove of TrumpCare (or "RyanCare," or whatever name is attached to the disastrous GOP bill), while only 17 percent support it."

With Sanders popularity today, there is no doubt that he would beat Trump in an election, a point I have made several times recently in an effort to keep Progressives active, with an eye toward the day that Donald Trump implodes and brings the Republican Party down around him. The Hill agrees...

"The consistently high ratings for Sanders, and the consistently low ratings for Trump, show that the real majority in America is the genuinely progressive and genuinely populist view of Sanders, not the phony populism or warped conservatism represented by Trump."

 "If Sanders were running against Trump for president today, he would win by a gigantic popular vote margin and a strong electoral vote margin."

Even across the pond, Bernie Sanders' popularity shines above all other American politicians. Here's the tragic analysis of The Guardian from Great Britain...

"If you look at the numbers, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America – and it’s not even close. Yet bizarrely, the Democratic party – out of power across the country and increasingly irrelevant – still refuses to embrace him and his message. It’s increasingly clear they do so at their own peril."

Here's a Party, the Dems I'm talking about, who should have learned their lesson in the DNC fiasco with Debbie Wasserman Schultz; the fact that she unethically ramrodded Cliinton to the Democratic nomination, when Bernie Sanders was clearly the choice of the public. But that wasn't even enough. Again, there was Keith Ellison who was a natural to lead charged up Progressives on the left, but the old guard of the Party felt more complacent with a hard-liner, Tom Perez. Here's another startling fact from The Guardian; with U.S. Independents, Sanders has an astonishing +41 net favorability.

Progressives are asking for more--they want the adoption of Sanders' populist policies in retaking governor's offices with good support in the defined areas--but Democrats have their own ideas. The proof in the pudding came in a recent town hall meeting hosted by MSNC's Chris Hayes, and it applied directly to Trump voters. In "Trump country" West Virginia...

...the crowd ended up giving him [Bernie Sanders] a rousing ovation after he talked about healthcare being a right of all people and that we are the only industrialized nation in the world who doesn’t provide healthcare as a right to all its people.

The Guardian chastises the Democratic Party for its past lack of attention to houses of Congress, governorships and state houses across the country [thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz], instead concentrating on just a White House loss by Hillary Clinton, blamed on James Comey and the Russian intervention in the election. The ostrich effect, they [the Dems] either have their head in the sand or...up their ass. I go for the latter. Politico reports eventual attention to a positive economic message by the Democrats but...

“For now, aides say, the focus is on slaying the giant and proving to the voters who sent Trump into the White House why his policies will fail.”

Same old, same old, which Clinton tried at the end of her campaign and failed miserably. Bernie's comment...

“There are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.”

Looks like the Dems plan to stay on the bottom of the first-class heap. 

We need to say goodbye to the Democratic Party

I have been a Democrat all my life; yes, even as a very young boy I remember my father talking about the Democrats and FDR, his New Deal. My dad came from a well-off family in the South, a family at one time I am almost sure had slaves. But the South was Democratic then, all the way, and it was just the right thing to be left leaning. That's changed in the last few years and the Republicans have taken over the South and turned the people there into a conservative stronghold that had a major effect on the 2016 Democratic Primary, particularly for Bernie Sanders.

Did you know Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democratic Socialist?

But the Democrats today hardly resemble those of FDR's era; in fact you can't even draw a close parallel these days between what they call the Party and what the Dems started out to be. FDR wasn't a Party starter for Democrats, Andrew Jackson has that honor, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the epitome of the Democratic Party, having served four terms in office until his death in 1945. This man set the tone for what the term liberal meant, and followed through with actions that give him a place in history as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.

Here are snippets from the democratic Platform of 1936, three years into FDR's presidency...

• Protection of the family and the home.
• Establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all the people
• Aid to those overtaken by disaster
• Safeguard the thrift of our citizens by restraining those who would gamble with other peoples savings
• Early formation of the Social Security concept
• Expansion of consumer electricity through creation of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
• Making homes available to people of meagre incomes 
• Just treatment of war veterans and their dependents

There are other issues like taking farmers off the road to ruin, worker's pay was increased and hours shortened, actually saved banks and paved the way for a better financial foundation, gave youth the opportunity to stay in school and get an education, which 12 years of Republican neglect had closed, and help for the unemployed. There's more and you can read the complete 1936 Democratic Party Platform here. I want to point out that in every case but one, above, the programs are for the average person, not corporations or the wealthy.

FDR, although born into a wealthy New York family, was a president of the people and his programs substantiated this, but considering the 1929 stock-market crash, some feel he could have paid more attention to a struggling economy; The Great depression lasted until 1939. It is worth noting that the Dow Jones industrial average didn't return to its summer 1929 high until 1954. But as a catalyst, Roosevelt combined a stimulus project with his goals for social equity and created the Rural Electrification Administration to wire the countryside. Perhaps FDR could have used Janet Yellen.

And why take you back all these years down the reminiscing trail to a time some 84 years ago when many of you weren't born or were too young to care what politics was all about? Well, dang it, to illustrate the stark differences in that period, that I might remind you was closer in time to that of the Founding Fathers of this country, that FDR based a lot of his concepts on. As an example, when it comes to corporations...

"To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founding fathers and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did."

We've come a long way from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the journey has ended in a disjointed, confused, and divided Democratic Party that seems not to know how to repair itself. Well, it is my opinion that the Democratic Party is irreparable, therefore, dump it and start over. Progressives, in number, passed liberals a few years ago and seems to be the real new face of the Party. It appears that hard party liners like the Clintons, even Obama, do not want to accept this fact and continue to stick to ideology that just doesn't work anymore with a new generation.

It is a fact that Democrats lost more than 1,030 seats in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress during Barack Obama's presidency. It can't all be blamed on the man because it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz who neglected the Party as DNC head for five years, until she was recently fired, and these losses finally added up to a catastrophe for Democrats. But it is still hard to understand how the upper echelons of the Party could sit by and watch over 1,000 of their legislative and governor's seats just evaporate. To me, this is the ultimate of political incompetence.

Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent, ran for President as a Democrat in 2016, but lost in the Primary due to the killing machine of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair. There were many of us who were supporters of the Bern, and many of us believe today that, until he is given the reins of the Democratic Party, it will remain in its quagmire. Bernie was asked by New York Times Magazine what the Party stands for. His response...

"You’re asking a good question, and I can’t give you a definitive answer. Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."

The article indicates that his answer is partially for effect, since he does have his own liberal values for what he thinks the left should stand for. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren joins Sanders in a call for revamping the Party, but one still wonders why she didn't swallow what establishment pride she had during the Primary and throw her backing behind the Bern. It could have turned everything around, but she didn't and it didn't. And the 2018 midterms will only be a fight against the Trump administration and for congressional seats to block his legislation. First things first.

Is it possible Jeff Sessions is a bigger liar than Trump?

In the Senate hearings to confirm Jeff Sessions for Attorney general under the new Donald Trump administration, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) asked him a simple question of had he had contacts with the Russians. Sessions reply...

“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Not only was he in contact with a Russian, he met with the Russian ambassador. And more than once. Nancy Pelosi, the House's minority leader, says that Sessions lied to Congress and must resign. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader also called for Sessions to resign. When Sessions did everything he could think of to change his story and rearrange the facts, all of which still didn't work, he recused himself...

"...from any and all investigations into the 2016 campaign by the Justice Department, a clear attempt to throw a bone to the howling pack in hopes that the controversy would die down."

It didn't, has only gotten worse, and Donald John was reportedly furious for his action, enough to start the maniac on another tirade accusing Barack Obama of ordering the wiretapping of the Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign. Completely unsubstantiated...nada...zip to back it up. But then, that's Donald Trump, a part of his formula to spread misinformation about anyone who crosses him or disagrees with him. The other part of his formula is outright lies, a technique he has employed from the first day of his presidential campaign, perhaps all his business life.

One can understand why Trump would be frantic over Jeff Sessions recusing himself since it is no doubt his Attorney General would have overseen an investigation of the Russian impact on Donald Trump's winning the election. And we all know from experience that Sessions is simply another of Donald John's yes men, ready to do his bidding no matter what. So, what's next? According to CNN...

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that Sessions' acting deputy attorney general, Dana Boente, should appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation."

If they drag their feet...

"We will then urge (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) and (House Speaker Paul Ryan) to work with Democrats and create a new and improved version of the independent counsel law, which would give a three-judge panel the authority to appoint an independent counsel," Schumer said.

Yeah, lots of luck on that. Here's what PoliticusUSA had to say about a McConnell reaction...

"Given his support for Trump, expect Majority Leader McConnell to resist calls for an investigation, but when even he has to admit that there are unanswered questions, the President has big problems."

With trump's luck so far, his star will rise even higher because his numb nuts followers will scream their fried President is being persecuted. So, if Congress isn't going to do anything and his supporters will only glory in their man's "maltreatment," what's left? Well, it comes down to an anemic left that has been so disjointed in the past that they can't even help themselves, much less try to bring charges against the President. I want you to understand that I do not take pleasure in the fact that, the dozing Democrats under Debbie Wasserman Schultz were grossly outsmarted by the Republicans. Pathetic!

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi calls for Jeff Sessions to resign have fallen on deaf ears in the Republican Congress and in the White House. The Washington Post's take on this says that, even as the democrats mount their opposition against Sessions, his own Party is faltering with some trying to dump him altogether, and others avoiding him in the cloak room. In politics, everyone knows the laws of survival and when you lie, especially in front of a Senate committee, your supporters have a tendency to shun any relationship with you. WP comments...

"If Sessions's response on Thursday morning was the best that he can offer to defend himself, you can expect that the few people sticking up for him right now will dwindle to his immediate family sometime very soon. And when you lose your friends while under heavy fire from your opponents in political Washington, it's almost always curtains."

Jeff Sessions and his spokeswoman have repeatedly tried to explain the whole thing away as a routine act of the Senator as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman, said...

"Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak [the Russian ambassador]."

Neither the Russian ambassador, nor his spokesperson were available for comment but...

"The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year."

Chuck Schumer said in the Daily Beast...

"...Sessions had tried to 'dramatically mislead' Congress. He stopped an inch or two short of calling his former Senate colleague a liar, but made it clear he thought Sessions had concealed the full truth from the Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing. “If there was nothing wrong” with meeting Ambassador Kislyak, Schumer asked, why didn’t he just come clean and tell the truth?'”

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak with Jeff Sessions

Schumer talks about a special counsel to investigate Jeff Sessions and the Beast thinks that idea willIn 1999 he was a key proponent of prosecuting then-President Bill Clinton for allegedly lying under oath when Clinton was accused of perjury over statements he made regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Shoe on the other foot.
"avalanche" now, even with Senators that aren't in deep Red states. The downside of all this starts with Donald Trump who nominated this second-rate politician who is an avowed racist, and who has a past that should haunt him in this issue.

Lindsay Graham said in a tweet, "If Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian diplomat, then for sure you need a special prosecutor." Another republican Senator, Rob Portman, from Ohio joined in the call for a prosecutor. Here's a kick. Some thirty years ago, Sessions was too much of a racist to be a federal judge but now all of a sudden he has become Attorney General of the United States, which is on a higher level than the judgeship he wasn't qualified for. Just what happened in those thirty years to better  certify him for this job? I think nothing.

Political Satire: What is Trump still hiding about Russia?

He's not heavy, he's my puppet 

Whatever it is, it is bad enough that Donald Trump has enlisted the help of Congress, the intelligence community. And now the FBI has refused to cooperate with the White House by downplaying the news stories about Donald John's close ties with Russia. It involves Trump associates’ ties to Russia and the fact that pressure is being applied to cover this up. Greg Miller of the Washington Post said...

"Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives."

Here's some background on the story. According to Politifact...

"The Washington Post reported Dec. 9 that the CIA concluded Russia meddled in the election with the intent to help Trump, rather than to disrupt the election generally. The New York Times produced a similar report. However, the Washington Post also reported that the FBI isn't as confident in this conclusion. These stories are all based on anonymous sources and cannot be independently verified."

 But just last week, the FBI indicated that it would not downplay these same news reports after a request to do so from the White House. Business Insider Politics said...

"Trump administration officials wanted the FBI to disavow the reports and say there was no contact between people associated with Trump and Russia."

Democrats are still pissed over the fact that FBI Director James B. Comey released critical information about Hillary Clinton's email probe just prior to the 2016 election, yet kept quiet on the fact that Trump's campaign team had been in regular contact with Russia. Hillary Clinton accused Donald John of a direct tie between him and Vladimir Putin in one of the election debates, accusing her opponent of joining with the Russian leader to get rid of NATO. And then early in February, Trump voices his support for NATO admonishing member countries for better support.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said that...

 if the White House “contrived to have intelligence officials contradict unfavorable news reports, this represents a new and even more grave threat to the independence of the intelligence community.”

Former CIA director Michael Hayden expressed his concern that intelligence sources were being strong-armed into providing information that was later being interpreted into political speak and then put into the wording that best fit their message. What's new. But considering the Trump administration's  continued praise of Putin and all the action so far to get it out of the media, does that mean there is a smoking gun? And to cap it all off, Donald John has repeatedly criticized the intelligence organizations recently for leaking misinformation.

The leading example of Russian involvement in the 2016 election was the DNC hack where the embarrassing emails from Debbie Wasserman Schultz were uncovered, resulting in her being removed as chair. In this case the federal intelligence community, cybersecurity analysts, the Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying...

"...they believed people at the top levels of Russian government directed the attack in an attempt to interfere in the election."

Donald Trump took the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013, and he is known to have other

It might even look like this

business interests in Russia; specifically a desire to build a luxury Trump hotel in Moscow. But since he won't release his taxes, there is no way to know exactly what is going on. There is one thing we know for sure, Donald Trump is about business. He has been criticized time and again over the lack of complete separation between the presidency and his business-related interests. One son recently cost the federal govt. thousands of protection dollars to protect him in work abroad for the hotels.

Business insider Politics reported...

"Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse this week said he was sure the Russia-related cloud hanging over President Donald Trump's administration would not be clearing up anytime soon."

 The Rhode Island Democrat says Lindsey Graham's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism will look at the issue from three perspectives. 1) Trump's relationship with Russia pertaining to his business enterprises; 2) What did these actually do to affect the 2016 election?; 3) How exactly was the Trump staff involved in, if any, shenanigans in trying to swing the election toward Donald John? It is a fact that more Republicans have evidenced their concern over the possibility that Russia might have some part in getting Trump elected.

It is important to note that three important Donald Trump advisers have left the White House staff due to their Russian ties. First, Paul Manafort, former campaign manager and consultant for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, left early, in August of 2016. Resignation has not been explained. Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser, left in September 2016, with ties to a business consultancy work for state-owned Russian oil giant Gazprom. Page is currently subject to U.S. investigations over his Russian connections. Michael Flynn left recently Feb. 13, for lying to V.P. Pence about speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in December 2016.

Politifact concluded...

"Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton."

Senior research scientist at CNA Analysis & Solutions, Dmitry Gorenburg, lamented over all the ruckus over what might have happened. What the U.S. should be concerned about is the fact that Russia even made the attempt. As an observer to all that has been written, that would indicate to me that the hackers felt they had the means to accomplish their goals and it is accepted knowledge that Putin's minions are known to be excellent cyber thieves. They were able to hack into and steal million from U.S. banks back in 2015.

However, former President George W. Bush said, "...that the American people deserve answers on the alleged connection between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia." This from Donald John's own party plus someone who sat in the Oval Office in the same place where he is sitting now just over eight years ago. And then just this past Friday...

"Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to hire an independent prosecutor to investigate the connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. Issa joins a number of Democrats in calling for an independent prosecutor."

I would expect that kind of rhetoric coming from a career building blowhard like Issa, but GWB is way beyond having to make a name for himself. Apparently the decision of a prosecutor is Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This was Trump's, of course, Tweet response...

“Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big election defeat and the illegal leaks!” 

And finally, Wilbur Ross, who probably will be confirmed Secretary of Finance tonight, is the latest with Donald John's conglomeration of Russian connections. Esquire reports that Ross has an ownership stake in a Cyprus bank in consultation with Russian President Vladimir Putin who was the first to prop up the institution. The magazine also notes that, "Cyprus banks have a long and painful history of laundering dirty money from Russians involved with corruption and criminality."

Well, it just doesn't get any better.

Poltiical Satire: Can the Democrats/Progressives recover? Why not!

The left is in, perhaps, the worst shape it has been in for decades. Not that it has had that much past luck in Congress, the only positive recently being Barack Obama who was stonewalled by the GOP during his entire eight years. But the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton proves the inability of Democrats to nominate an electable candidate to run against a weakened Republican Party. They had one in Bernie Sanders but blew it allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to run the show and bar his nomination through unethical tactics, for which she was fired.

There are all kinds of perceptions of whether or not the Bern would have beat Trump, but what is sure is the fact that he would have given him a better run for his money than Hillary Clinton did. Sanders awakened the younger crowd, which could have been his ace in the hole against Donald John. But this is all history and the focus now is how to bring Democrats/Progressives back to the forefront. If my experience with the Demographic grassroots volunteer organization is any indication of the competency of this group, this is where the most work is necessary.

With both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders I volunteered my services repeatedly; in both cases, with no takers. That's right, my background in database management, including computer modeling , along with research and market predicting was made available several times to apparently deaf ears. Due to my physical condition I couldn't go out and knock on doors, but time and again I offered to make my full office and experience available. Most recently, I contacted Bernie Sanders' campaign right up to the bitter end of his running for the nomination. Both in my state and national. Nothing.

And today Democrats are divided over how to handle Donald Trump, with one group wanting an all-out war, the other wants to try and guide him to the center. It should be obvious by now to anyone, you don't push Donald John in any direction but his own. And then there's the realization that with all the support to oppose Trump, the congressional Democrats just may not have the power to accomplish what they want. Impeachment now would take some strong support from Republicans and that isn't likely to happen. Of course, 2018 could turn the tide.

Bernie Sanders

But there has always been a leader from the left that stood out when minds were being made up aboutBernie Sanders stood out as the candidate of choice but denied his right. The American public was screaming for change, and the Bern offered that in a way that would most benefit the working class. What they got was Donald Trump, the voice of...Donald Trump.
campaigns and elections to come. Names like F.D.R., John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton most recently. There was a clear point at which the obvious was there to see in 2016, and that was when

One Democrat from a left-leaning state, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is Vice Chairman off the Democratic Governors Assn., spoke of massive support for resistance against Donald John's Executive Order banning refugee admissions and travel from seven majority Muslim countries. Gov. Inslee has backed a lawsuit that challenges Trump's Executive Order and commented that by "...undermining Mr. Trump across the board..." The Dems will eventually hope to split Republicans away from the President. Not sure the likes of Mitch McConnell are bright enough.

The Democratic Party is so weakened that several Congress members from red states are afraid to oppose Trump for fear of losing their seats. But what good are those seats to the left if they have no voice. The answer is none. I am having a problem here wondering why we aren't getting fire and brimstone from a team of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer. They are, combined, the strength of the Senate and the Democratic Party. The Republicans doesn't hesitate to gang up against the left when the opportunity presents itself.

However, this is what the Dems are up against. A House and Senate controlled by the GOP. A Republican in the White House, although with such a lack of direction in his first month in office, the unknown will be the biggest problem. And if, probably when, Neil Gorsuch is installed in the Supreme Court, it will be five conservatives against four liberals. Insurmountable odds? Maybe not. Leo Jennings, a Democratic consultant from Youngstown, Ohio, days the Party must adopt a more Progressive economic agenda. Progressives must reclaim the Party.

Jennings, a Sanders supporter, said...

"If we don't start talking about the things that we can do to make it better for all working-class voters, we're bankrupt as a party."

Jennings feels you should lump whites and blacks (people of color) together in the Party's approach, but not rule out identity politics altogether. A state Party organizer who is black said, "If the Democratic Party wants to be around in the future, they need to go left." Precisely what Bernie Sanders was doing when his campaign was ruthlessly side-tracked. The public saw Hillary Clinton as too middle of the road and much too connected to the financial community to be on the side of the consumer. Some Sanders' supporters did vote for Hillary butt it was all too late.

I mentioned the potential magic trio earlier of Sanders, Warren and Schumer, the latter also Senate minority leader, thinking how much power is held by three of the most forceful Democrats in the Senate. What if we now add former President Barack Obama to the formula as a civilian, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, if they are of a mind, plus any other Progressives that want to join the new club. Now, looking forward to 2018, and a takeover of the Senate, and the House too, this consortium could be unbeatable. Is there any reason why these people couldn't and shouldn't work together?

There is at least one skeptic, Chinemerem Onyeukwu, 23, the Party organizer from Ohio, who is worried that, "...Democrats are going to keep running what he called '90s-style campaigns despite Clinton's loss." He has reason to believe that when, in light of the changing analytics of the 2016 Primaries, the Dems were still under the spell of the wicked witch from Florida. There is hope with the election of a new Democratic National Committee head yesterday, Tom Perez. It wasn't the pick of Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Party left, so the future remains to be seen.

Political Satire: The adventures of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was sitting in her Sunrise, Florida, office thinking about how she could revive her political career by switching to the Republican Party and becoming Donald Trump's Secretary of Holocaust Education. At least it would be a Cabinet post after she was deprived of her DNC chair. That brought back memories of how she had led her staff through the arduous task of disparaging Bernie Sanders with emails and word of mouth so Hillary Clinton would win the Primary. She did but was beaten by Donald Trump in the 2016 Election. Then she got caught.

Wasserman Schultz couldn't understand why the Democrats were so pissed. During her tenure as the DNC Chairman, they had lost only 10.2% of the Senate, 19.3% of the House, 20.3% of State Legislatures and 35.7% of Governors' offices. But, it might've been worse. Hell, Joni Ernst could have been elected President. Hey, if I had switched Parties, she might have chosen me for Vice President, she thought. And then looking at a mirror she took from her purse, she said to herself, 'Maybe it's my hair.' Then the phone rang and she had to pick it up since everyone else was gone.

"Hello"

On the other end, "I want my campaign data back."

To which she replied, "C'mon, Bernie, you know I can't do that. Besides, Hillary still has it...whoops!"

Read more...

OK 2017 is almost here-What do we do with it?

As a passionate Progressive, I would still welcome a loophole in the Donald Trump presidency, but until that happens, the left must look ahead to what we have to work with. Right now the Democrats are in something of a shambles, with Hillary Clinton no longer able to lead the Party and a new leader not yet even emerging. My choice, of course, is Bernie Sanders, and also the choice of most other Progressives, but the legions of politicians has grown quiet, until we are able to swallow the inauguration of Donald John Trump. That will be hard to do for many.

For the new DC chairman, the early choice, Keith Ellison, Minnesota congressman and ally of Bernie Sanders, has run into trouble. Politico reports...

"On the heels of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s troubled tenure as DNC chief, the issue of whether Ellison will commit full-time to the job poses a threat to his candidacy..."

My guess is that Wasserman-Schultz had the time but she just wasn't competent enough for the job. CNN says that, "...2017 will be a year for the history books." We knew that the day the Electoral College met and made its grim decision. That quiet you hear out there across the country are those voters of sound mind who didn't vote for Trump, and who are holding their breath in fear of the future. Most individuals are capable of handling most challenges sent their way, but the worst thing to confront is the unknown. Donald Trump is the epitome of the unknown.

Celebrities shun Donald Trump like the plague video...

With GOP control of both Houses of Congress, and a Republican in the White House, the outlook is fairly dim for the left, particularly for Progressives. Democrats have steadily moved to the center, which is one goo reason the Party is losing so many elections. Republicans have staunchly maintained their conservative positions on issues, establishing an identity that supporters can follow. The Dems are fractured with no single ideology to look up to, nor any individual to carry the torch. Until they find that, there could be even more Donald Trumps. God forbid.

Dump the Electoral Party...NOW

It's happened twice now, during the last three elections, the popular vote winner loses the election. It was made official yesterday by an antiquated system called the Electoral College. Donald Trump with 306 votes, Hillary Clinton with 232--hardly a landslide--Clinton ending up with more than 2.5 million popular votes than Trump. The nation did not elect Donald Trump, the college did. And that is what is wrong. NBC reports on efforts, post-election...

"A handful of Democrats and even a few Republican electors have embarked on an unusual effort to deny Trump the victory — or at the very least, raise the specter of changing the election."

And more...

"Electors in three states have gone to court seeking the chance to vote their mind; another resigned to avoid the vote altogether. One Republican elector in Texas has publicly said he will not vote for Trump, although his state voted overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate."

Here's a quote from The Nation, a leading Progressive publication...

"The Electoral College is an abomination: an antidemocratic relic of the unconscionable compromises made during America’s founding that should never have been allowed to linger into the 21st century." 

As an example of the inadequacy of the Electoral College, Donald Trump took Michigan with less than 11,000 votes out of a total of 4.8 million cast, .0023%. Supporters of the College claim it protects the smaller states from being overrun by the larger ones. When, in fact, five of the 10 smallest states, Vermont, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine, as well as the District of Columbia had Clinton leading Trump. As I understand it, this is one of the major reasons the Founding Fathers concocted this nuisance. 

And here is something that is almost as frightening as Donald Trump being elected President. The Nation surmises "that GOP strategists will again try to implement schemes that would distribute electoral votes based on the popular vote in congressional districts, which would allow partisans to gerrymander both the US House and the Electoral College." Because of the incompetency of the Democratic Nat'l Committee, led by disgraced Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the GOP already leads in state legislatures and governor's offices.

The bipartisan National Popular Vote initiative is making some headway with a compact that says the state electors must cast their votes with the popular vote. Ten states have signed up totaling 165 votes, but the compact can only take effect when more than 270 is reached. Barbara Boxer introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, but with a Republican Congress, and the GOP already having won the election, its likelihood of getting anywhere is doubtful. In a final note, The Nation commented...

"...something must be done to address the structural absurdity of elections that allow losers to become presidents."

And that could not be more appropriate. 

What do Republicans have that Democrats don't?

PASSION. It's very simple, you can see it in all factions of the conservatives; when the vote is critical, they turn out. The Democrats, or at least most of them, put their tails between their legs and just stay home when the heat is on. it's pathetic and God knows how many elections we've lost in the last few years. On the bright side, Bernie Sanders brought out the Progressives, and think they did their part in the primaries but Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee had the whole thing rigged from the start. Bernie should have won.

On the other hand, President Obama said on Monday that the reason for Democratic voters not showing up was the fault of the Clinton campaign for not hitting the Dems' strongholds. He cited an instance where, in his support of Clinton, he wanted to go to Iowa where he had won handily but the Clinton people felt he was better needed elsewhere. He also added, "...candidates in the future should ignore at their own peril the places Democrats haven't traditionally performed well." Further...

"...some Democrats have accused Clinton of maintaining a relaxed campaign schedule, bypassing states like Wisconsin and Iowa where Obama won in 2012."

The blame game is, of course, easy to play with hindsight, but the real question here is what brought out more Republican voters than Democrats? We know there was a huge wave of demand for change, to get rid of the Washington that has only performed for the politicians and given us the same crap year after year. Donald Trump seemed to fill that bill and was elected, but we still have a Congress that has an approval rating of 13% and can't seem to get rid of them. Much of this can be attributed to the GOP gerrymandering that Wasserman and the DNC saw fit to do nothing about over the years.

Reports are that the Republican turnout surged this year while Democrats were just dormant. With Obama the Dems' stronghold was the college educated, young and non-white. Bernie Sanders had two of these categories, could have possibly gotten the other, and one must wonder, if he had won the primary, would the election outcome have been different. There is one bit of difference in Democrats that is recently becoming obvious; the Progressive faction of the party...Bernie's people. I am a Progressive, passionate about those beliefs and a firm supporter of the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't even consider not voting and frankly don't understand those who stayed home from the polls on November 8, and let what happened come about. Donald Trump. Here's the kicker, Gallup reports that as of October 2014, polling found that 43% of Americans identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans. There are 4% more of us than them and we still can't win an election. It's a disgrace and something that should make those slackers sit up and take notice. The big question is, can we expect them to turn out in 2018.

Bernie's full-steam lost on Clinton

"Will Democrats and their friends and allies question their belief that the political professionals are best suited to decide who runs?" Not my question, it comes from Progressive Magazine and wonders what the future for our movement is. Bernie Sanders had the momentum and the message many voters were looking for, in a parallel with Donald Trump's appeal, although Bernie did it with class. But thanks to an underhanded Democratic National Committee, Clinton was favored.

Of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former disgraced head of the DNC, was the culprit that pulled the strings that prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. She's gone, thanks to Bernie, but the damage was done and we ended up with...Donald Trump. The latter's differences with Bernie was the fact that Trump added immigrant -bashing, tax cuts for the wealthy and a future for white male supremacy, along with racist and white nationalists' views.

Bernie Sanders did not get the nomination and Hillary Clinton was not able to capitalize on his support, particularly the millennials, so we lost the White House and a chance to reclaim the Senate. But there is still hope with Bernie Sanders Revolution in motion and Chuck Schumer as new minority leader in the Senate. And there are rumbles everywhere about progressive grass-roots movements being pursued. Even if Donald Trump lasts a term, it won't be easy for him or Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi should have gone down with Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Nancy Pelosi

I have been an adamant supporter of Nancy Pelosi since she was Speaker of the House. There have been moments when she shined, like standing up to George W. Bush when he wanted to privatize Social Security. But the downside is the spot the democrats are in now and have been for the last several years. The GOP focused on states to build a base of Republican legislatures and governor's offices that have allowed them to control state governments for some time.

Pelosi isn't the only one responsible, however, Debbie Wasserman Schultz , chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, was in the trenches while all this was going on but did nothing. After helping to throw the Democratic nomination for President in the 2016 Primaries to Hillary Clinton, thus, defeating Bernie Sanders, she has been sent to the showers, disgraced for pulling the rotten shenanigans against Bernie.

W.S. is gone but Nancy Pelosi remains, with the hope that at least Keith Ellison will be the newly elected DNC chair, with a Progressive agenda that Pelosi can at least follow. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan did challenge the reelected leader of House Democrats but lost. Ryan, 43, who represents the blue-collar town of Youngstown, Ohio, promised a new vision with a new generation of leadership. Ryan was even accused of pulling a publicity stunt to elevate his position.

A fellow Californian, Rep. Adam Schiff said, "We need the very best to lead us ... No one is a better tactician than Nancy Pelosi." If Pelosi was that good a tactician, she would have seen the Republican take-over of state legislatures and governor's offices. This move occurred over years and will take the Dems years to overcome the deficit. Or maybe the left is giving in to the fact that we are currently in a "Republican" cycle with, in fact, no strategy to fight back.

With both Houses of Congress and the White House firmly under GOP control, the outlook is dim. But you should never underestimate a Progressive and with all this Republican power and self-assurance, that might just work for the left.   

Which side of the nation are you on?

A nation divided

The results of the 2016 election have spawned a huge game of 'Who do you like?' In the cases of the high-profile politicians, nobody's winning, except Barack Obama. In a recent CNN/ORC poll the results were dismal for at least three:

For all Americans 

• Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, 47% favorable, 35% Unfavorable
• Hillary Clinton, 40% Favorable, 57% Unfavorable
• Mitch McConnell, Sen.Majority Leader, 25% Favorable, 39% Unfavorable

Real Clear Politics rates Donald Trump currently, 39.5% Favorable, 56% Unfavorable. All of this is out in left field compared to Barack Obama's rating following his 2008 election, 70% Favorable, 25% Unfavorable. His current, Favorable 56%, Unfavorable 40%. In another Republican comparison, when George W. Bush left office, his Favorable was 27%, Unfavorable 66%. The key is the Dems needed someone like Obama in 2016...think Bernie Sanders.

We just experienced the most obnoxious election in recent history, perhaps ever.

"...more than 8-in-10 Americans say the country is more deeply divided on major issues this year than in the past several years."

"And more than half say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the US."

But here's hope for Progressives, "...nearly 8-in-10 overall hope to see the GOP-controlled government incorporate some Democratic policies into its agenda." CNN interprets the poll saying

"...'most' say they would like to see President-elect Donald Trump, who won with an Electoral College majority despite trailing in the popular vote nationwide, pursue policies that could draw in new supporters rather than appeal solely to those who backed him during the campaign."

Not sure who CNN's "most" is, but I do not see Progressives wanting new supporters in any Republican form, certainly not the Donald Trump ilk. But the feelings are unanimous that we are a split nation, "...with 85% saying so overall, including 86% of independents, 85% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats." And even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the general public still feels ill about her following the election.

As Progressives, we can only hope that Trump will do the right thing. If not, there is 2008. Unfortunately, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats/Progressives have been saying that too much in the last few years.

"Bernie Mafia" has a request Democrats can't refuse

Bernie Sanders appeals to masses

First it was Elvis' mafia, now Bernie Sanders has his and they plan to capitalize on the strength of his popularity, which is still growing since Clinton won the primary and lost the election. Bernie has just been promoted to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and his colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, is a favorite to be the next chairman of the Democratic Party. He replaces Debbie Wasserman Schultz who brought the party down to where it is.

In effect, it is a decapitated party, as put by Alex-Seitz Wald of NBC News, that Ellison will inherit, if elected. Thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But as an example of Bernie Sander's popularity, his Facebook page grew by 100,000 followers in the 24 hours after Clinton's defeat. Which indicates to me the fact that, had the primaries not been rigged to elect Clinton, with Bernie running against Trump, we would have a different President-elect right now.

Sanders laments the fact that the Democratic Party has all but deserted the working class in the search for a moderate identity that didn't work. But he's even reached out to Clinton to the heal the wounds of a primary the latter's supporters feel did her in. What really did Clinton in was her favorability rating: 41.1% favorable, 55.3 unfavorable. For Bernie Sanders: 54.1% favorable, 37.5% unfavorable. A Bernie quote to end this on:

"I'm not here to blame anybody, not to criticize anybody, but facts are facts," When you lose the White House to the least popular candidate in the history of America, when you lose the Senate, when you lose the House, and when two-thirds of governors in this country are Republicans, it is time for a new direction for the Democratic Party."

Amen! 

Young vote helped elect Donald Trump

2016 election protesters

Obviously a nation is pissed with Donald Trump as the newly elected President. Protests are going on across the country, but one thing bothers me about the reports. Apparently the demonstrations include a lot of young people, which raises the question of where they were last Tuesday...when Trump was elected. The Atlantic reports:

A national exit poll suggests more young adults in 2016 than in 2012 “supported a third-party candidate, did not vote for a presidential candidate, or specifically chose not to answer this poll question,” according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

 Further, the article provides that 37% of ages 18 to 29 voted for Donald Trump. When you add that figure to those voting for third-party candidates plus those who didn't vote, the numbers become significant. A new DNC chair will be welcomed since Debbie Wasserman Schultz has allowed the Democratic Party to weaken to the point where everything from local councils to the presidency is now controlled by Republicans.

We are not so much a conservative nation as we are a nation controlled by conservatives. This did happen on Schultz's watch and now that she is gone and new blood is coming on--perhaps Keith Ellison--the new head must work vigorously to develop the youth, Hispanic and black vote. It took years for the GOP to lay the groundwork for their success and I am afraid it will take some time for the Democrats to catch up.

Rudy Giuliani called the protesters “spoiled crybabies.” Trump thinks they may not know him. The uprisings stretched all the way from Maryland to Oregon and several states in between and you can bet these "spoiled crybabies" knew exactly what they were doing and who it was about. Donald Trump as President is bad enough but looking forward to a GOP controlled Congress and overall Republican domination for the next few years really sucks.

Bernie Sanders: Stay healthy for 2020

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Michael Moore and Allan Lichtman predicted Donald Trump won't survive a full four years as President. As encouraging as that is, we need a backup just in case for 2020. I read a comment yesterday on an Internet site covering the Trump demonstrations across the country. It said, eat right and get plenty of exercise, Bernie, for 2020. Not being anything close to a Constitutional Law expert, or even layman, not sure if he could fill in for an impeached Donald Trump.

I harken back to the unethical antics of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, disgraced former head of the Democratic National Committee, who repeatedly showed overwhelming favor for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. She was fired for her actions, things Bernie Sanders frequently exposed during the campaign, but only to the deaf ears of demented Democrats. Who, obviously, got what they deserved, Donald Trump.

Here's one such email from Brad Marshall suggesting that they use religion against a certain possible atheist with a Jewish heritage:

From:MARSHALL@dnc.org To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 03:31 Subject: No shit

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

Marshall was chief financial officer of the DNC, who later tried to claim his message did not refer to Bernie Sanders. Bernie beat Donald Trump consistently in the polls leading up to Clinton's nomination. But the election results were a complete turnaround from what all the polls were predicting between Clinton and Trump. I would like to think this:

When Bernie Sanders lost the primaries, the force of his following was so let down and discouraged that the majority fractured completely away from the Democratic Party and with no direction or leadership either didn't vote at all or simply looking for change from the typical Washington insider, Hillary Clinton, they misguidedly voted for Donald Trump. This added to Trump's rural support put him over the top.

But, of course, we'll probably never know. 

Why Clinton should not be Democratic nominee

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Huff Post has come up with a list of a 10-point plan being executed by the Democratic Party to lose the 2016 Presidential election. I would like to cover them a couple at a time.

Number one: Assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, when it is clear he will not. There's some pretty good reasoning and not too shabby math in this conclusion but Trump, like Bernie Sanders, has had his share of surprises in this race that has kept the former in the lead and the latter in a very strong contender's position.

Number two: The Dems attempt to nominate the only one of the two Democratic candidates who is almost guaranteed to reunite the Republican Party. You think Mitch McConnell hates Barack Obama, there is nothing that will bring the GOP together quicker than its hatred of the Clintons. Huff Post says, "Hillary Clinton is one of the least popular major-party politicians in America, and her disapproval rating is not just sky-high among Republicans..."

We can thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the direction of the Democratic nominating process, something she has clearly steered to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Sanders ratings against Trump and Cruz are better than Clinton's but due to Schultz' close ties with her and the fact that the Bern is an Independent, the DNC Chair is hell-bent on pushing him out of the race. 

Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if Bernie Sanders isn't nominated?

Sanders Warren ticket

One voter said Clinton is “bought and paid for,” another said he wouldn't vote for Clinton unless Elizabeth Warren was on the ticket. Yet one more said the "dream" ticket would be Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Those are three viewpoints that do indicate a definite preference, but don't demonstrate a voting population that would stay home from the polls without Bernie. And they shouldn't. All you need to confirm this is to look at who leads the GOP ticket. Donald Trump.

If you want that maniac in office, or for that matter, any of his fellow candidates, especially Ted Cruz, then stay home on November 8. Most agree that "...a low-energy, low-turnout election in November would be disastrous for Democrats," according to the Washington Times. Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager, feels his candidate is the one to wake up new progressive candidates and bring them out in November.

RootsAction.org says, “The head of one of the two big political parties in the United States is trying to manipulate the presidential election process by limiting direct debate and tilting the national party apparatus in favor of one candidate. This is unacceptable,” A Democratic county chairman in Iowa, Jason Frerichs agrees. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was co-chair of Hillary's campaign in 2008. There’s no doubt she’s putting her fingers on the scale, limiting the number of sanctioned debates,” Mr. Frerichs said.

And now Michael Bloomberg says he might run if Hillary Clinton isn't nominated. Looking at Bernie Sanders momentum and his recent surge in the polls, don't think the Bern will worry, although Bloomberg could take away some votes.

The assault has started on Bernie Sanders 2

LBJ on Medicare

Yesterday I posted on Hillary Clinton's attack that Bernie Sanders couldn't match up to Barack Obama's drive for the Presidency in 2008 because he "can't galvanize the African-American vote and he will not dominate caucus contests." I went on to show how he was well on his way in both cases. And then we talked about the Democratic establishment and how the hardliners are fighting him in favor of Clinton. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz handling of the debates.

Today it's the media and its attack of Sanders' single-payer plan for universal healthcare which says he is  "...proposing sweeping policies that defy political realities." Further, it calls his approach on immigration incomparable. The MSNBC piece does give Bernie credit for getting his message on revolution across and almost bringing Hillary Clinton to her knees. Further, "But the substance of his proposals easily crumble under scrutiny."

Sanders senior policy adviser Warren Gunnels admits, “It’s going to take a political revolution to pass single-payer {health care} for all Americans.” But didn't it take something of a revolution for Lyndon Johnson to pass Medicare and for Harry Truman to bring us social Security? No one says the single-payer plan is perfect, but, then, Obama didn't pass the Affordable Care Act thinking it wouldn't need tweets. All great welfare programs have gone through this scrutiny.

And don't we know why there has been no immigration reform passed? A GOP Congress that has ideologically blocked every program President Obama has put before them just because it is...Barack Obama. Bernie's plan for immigration is considered overly optimistic when it comes to immigrant coverage for healthcare, but many believe making at least some coverage available will alleviate emergency room visits and could bring health care costs down.

Here's why Bernie Sanders should be Democratic nominee

Bernie Sanders looks happy

If you have the people you have the votes and this is just what Bernie Sanders is doing. Bernie "has broken the record for the number of individual contributions received at this point during a presidential campaign," as reported Monday by the Huff Post. He hit 2.3 million contributions during last Saturday's debate, breaking Obama's record of 2.2 million donations in 2012. It is significant to me that he broke the record of the man who beat Clinton in 2008. People were pissed off by Sander's treatment by the DNC and its chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

So far I cannot find Hillary Clinton's number of individual donors, but that may be withheld due to the fact that she is funded by many corp. donors and PACs, unlike Sanders. Individual donors translate into voters, as compared to large PAC contributions; I would hope individuals who are committed by their money given would also tend to go to the polls. Obviously Bernie's $41.2 million doesn't match Clinton's $76 million, but there is something to be said for those who donate what they can to the man they are convinced represents their best interests.

It seems Wasserman-Schultz DNC has lit a fire under Bernie Sander's followers with $1 million raised just during the Friday before the debate when the rumpus was going on. You see, Bernie's supporters know when he needs them and they come to his aid with what they can give. I'm pretty sure the candidate can depend on those same followers to come to his aid in November of 2016.

Curious? First NGP VAN data breach and it was Bernie Sanders

Dec. 18, 2015 Democratic debate

I am still the cynic and I cannot fathom a company that professed a perfect record until this breach in a Politico article claiming this whole thing was just a glitch, an accident. As I reported yesterday, NGP VAN founder, Nathaniel Pearlman, also served as chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign.

There are just too many factors involved, one of which is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz who had complete control over the whole fiasco. Now there is no doubt that these doofuses in the Sanders campaign should not have looked at Clinton's data; they should have simply reported the incident and this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

Based on my knowledge of campaign political data from 35 years in the junk mail business, my gut tells me Sanders had very similar info and didn't really need Hillary's.

But let's examine the timeline here. The data breach occurred sometime late Thursday or early Friday morning, December 18. The Sanders people noticed the breach but what is not true in the reporting is that the data was accessed over a period of time, that it was exported or retrieved. And much of it was probably already known by the Bernie folks, as I mentioned earlier. But they did what they did, which was wrong, and the shit hit the fan.

Keep in mind that this happened conveniently the day before the December 19, Democratic debate, scheduled (again conveniently?) by Wasserman Schultz on a Saturday when even the most loyal of the voting public is doing just about anything other than watching politicians. Call me a cynic, but the whole debacle is full of intrigue that is long from over and far from being explained.