May 6, 2016
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street Southeast
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz:
I am writing to follow up on our discussion about the composition of the standing committees of the Democratic National Convention. In order to reflect the views and aspirations of the millions who support both my candidacy and Secretary Clinton’s, I believe that the composition of the standing committees must reflect the relative support that has been received by both campaigns.
That was why I was so disappointed to learn that of the over forty people our campaign submitted at your request you chose to select only three of my recommendations for the three standing committees. Moreover, you did not assign even one of the people submitted by our campaign to the very important Rules Committee of the Democratic National Convention.
If we are to have a unified party in the fall, no matter who wins the nomination, we cannot have a Democratic National Convention in which the views of millions of people who participated in the Democratic nominating process are unrepresented in the committee membership appointed by you, the Chair. That sends the very real message that the Democratic Party is not open to the millions of new people that our campaign has brought into the political process, does not want to hear new voices, and is unwilling to respect the broader base of people that this party needs to win over in November and beyond. Fairness, inclusion and transparency should be the standard under which we operate.
In our conversation, you told me with respect to the platform Drafting Committee that you would consider allowing each campaign to submit ten names from which you would choose four from each and then you would add an additional seven. While having four members on the Drafting Committee is an improvement, it does not address the fact that up to this point Bernie 2016 has secured some 45% of the pledged delegates awarded. Frankly, we believe that percentage will go up in the coming weeks and, of course, we hope it will end up being a majority.
I believe that each campaign should chose seven members to serve on the Drafting Committee. The fifteenth member would be a chair who would be jointly picked by the two campaigns. This process will ensure that all the standing committees reflect the full range of views of voters who have participated in the Democratic nominating contests.
This process will also ensure that the chairs of the standing committees conduct their proceedings with fairness and transparency. As it stands now, the chairs of the Rules Committee and the Platform Committee are active supporters of Secretary Clinton’s campaign. But even more than that, they both are aggressive attack surrogates on the campaign trail. I do not, and the millions who have supported our campaign will not, have any confidence that either of them will conduct committee proceeding in an even-handed manner. In fact, the suggestion that they would be appropriate chairs in and of itself suggests the standing committees are being established in an overtly partisan way meant to exclude the input of the voters who have supported my candidacy.
As you know, there are already over 9 million voters who, during this nominating process, have indicated that they want to go beyond establishment politics and establishment economics – and want to transform our country with bold initiatives. I will not allow them be silenced at the Democratic National Convention.
It is my hope we can quickly resolve this in a fair way. If the process is set up to produce an unfair, one-sided result, we are prepared to mobilize our delegates to force as many votes as necessary to amend the platform and rules on the floor of the convention.
Thank you in advance for your help in establishing standing committees that are fair and
inclusive. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Senator Bernie Sanders
P.O. Box 905 • Burlington, Vermont 05402 • 802-862-1505 • www.berniesanders.com
Please share widely!
Christopher says
…or at least proportionality. In 2008 when the Rules Committee made for riveting C-SPAN I’m pretty sure both the Clinton and Obama camps were well-represented.
johnk says
Sorry if I come across to harsh here, but I would like Democrats at the Convention who move the party forward and those who want to elect a Democratic president.
I’m done with all the complaining from Sanders. His meanness and the way he tramples on people. Maybe he should start by actually joining the Democratic Party, he’s still identifies himself as an Independent on his Senate page. It’s the Democratic Convention, not the Sanders convention. Someone should tell him that he lost and everything is not about him. Clinton is running against Trump and we need to get ready for the election.
Christopher says
We require that would-be delegates be registered as Dems by February 10th and remain so registered. Of course, that is late enough that some unenrolled could have registered after it was clear Sanders was a viable candidate. I suspect other states that register by party have similar requirements, but I don’t know how states that don’t do party registration handle it.
johntmay says
And then read what you wrote about Bernie Sanders and his meanness and how he tramples people, especially in view or your support of anyone with “Clinton” as their last name.
mike_cote says
Every time someone asks, “Why should Bernie Sanders voters vote for Hillary?”, I have posted a comment that nominating Judges to the Supreme Court, and I have been told over and over that Sander’s voters do not care about the Supreme Court.
But now, we are expected to believe the these self-same Sander’s voters are going to care about who picks who will be the chair of various standing committees. Come on!
johntmay says
Democratic voters who voted for Bernie Sanders will, of course, vote for Hillary Clinton. Yes, there will be a lot of nose holding going on, but that’s life. What you and so many Hillary Clinton supporters are ignoring is the huge number of independents who voted for Sanders. The ONLY thing Hillary Clinton has in the plus column for me is “She’s a Democrat”, nothing else. I disagree with positions on labor, the environment, foreign policy, health care, welfare, trade, and so much more, but she’s a Democrat and I am a Democrat so I will vote for her.
This is not the case with independents. Some may still vote for her, some will go over to Trump and a lot will simply not vote.
Ask yourself this question, if you were an independent and disagreed with Clinton on all the above AND you had strong negatives towards Trump, why would you even vote?
This whole “Bernie voters better vote for Hillary” is just preparing the scapegoat, as I have said time and time again.
Mark L. Bail says
I agree with you. There are “norms” in politics, the way things are usually done. There’s no rule against breaking them, but it throws things out of whack. Bernie has and is throwing things out of whack. (This is not a criticism). Norms make life easier, but people break them and it upsets the apple cart. There is also a legitimate lack of trust on both sides.
You are obsessed with blame, John. You seem to have eased off on Clinton, but you’ve blamed her for everything her husband did, things she said 20 years ago, and her son-in-law’s employment. It’s not healthy. Are there agents–like big banks, corporations, and the GOP–that we want to hold responsible? Definitely. Are they morally corrupt? I think so. Target them. Action is good. Beliefs are secondary. Blame is ultimately a detour for losers. It’s assumes that someone must always be cited, censured, and then punished. It can work against our enemies, but it’s death to a coalition.
I have no interest in scapegoating you or anyone else. You vote, maybe you work for a candidate. Blaming anyone for whom they support is stupid. Your vote is a vote. You’re entitled to it. Everyone is entitled to their vote and support. I supported Berwick in the last state primary. I was so pissed at Martha Coakley that I wouldn’t sign her nomination papers that year. I voted for her anyway. In my opinion, she had little business running after her crappy campaign against Scotto. But you know, she got the support, she got the votes, and was trending upwards when the election finally came.
johntmay says
Just a memory and facing reality, something Clinton supporters seem to lack. Tell me why, over and over and over, Clinton supporters keep telling those of us backing Sanders that “we’d better support Clinton….”. Then tell me that I am obsessed…
Yes, her husband’s record matters. She’s running on it. Yes, her family’s finances matter, blood is thicker than water, eh? You may think that ignoring it is “healthy”, but denial is not a part of my medicine chest.
Mark L. Bail says
Because we are afraid they won’t. Whether that fear is justified, we are afraid they won’t support Clinton.
You completely miss my point on the blame game. I’m not going to continue to bang my head against the stonewall of your opinions. You’re entitled to them. I’ll periodically try to find common ground with you, but I’m not going to waste much time turning it into a project.
johntmay says
Because they are Democrats. It’s that simple and you do not have to remind Democrats about their duty and you do not have to question their loyalty as you do over and over. It’s insulting.
What you do have to worry about, as a Clinton supporter, is the independents who are for Bernie because of his views on health care reform and wealth disparity, views where Hillary is close to the Republican point of view and thereby not attractive to independents who are more issue based in their decisions.
You totally miss the point, just as here on BMG, when Martha lost, all her backers got their knives out and went after the Grossman and Berwick supporters.
petr says
… P. J O’Rourke is going to vote for Clinton, I don’t see how ‘independents’ (whoever they might be) have any kick.
This goes beyond issues. Trump is simply unacceptable whatever your view of the issues. If independents want to split hairs on who’s better with what plan, they get to light the match as Trump plays Nero. If they want to let Rome burn, it’s on them. It is just exactly that simple.
jconway says
And if you tell them Trump will burn down Rome, they’ll light the match. Populists not moderate Republicans are the voters to go after.
SomervilleTom says
What, pray tell, do any of these “low information” voters think will happen AFTER they have “burned down Rome”?
Do they think their provinces will be any more prosperous? The canards that Donald Trump is repeating are pure rubbish. There are a countably infinite number of ways to “change the system”, and the overwhelming majority of them will make things worse or MUCH worse for “the provinces”. The challenge is to find the handful of workable ways forward — that search requires discipline, intellectual rigor, patience, flexibility, and most of all sustained hard work. Mr. Trump embodies the antithesis of all that. If those “populists” in “the provinces” who choose Donald Trump have their way, they and we will discover to our chagrin just how bad things can get.
It is vital to acknowledge the suffering of those in pain. It is suicidal foolishness to mistake the choices they make in the fog of shock and trauma as anything but disastrous for our collective future.
The ignorance and bias of the Trumprist movement — not Mr. Trump himself, but the ignorant mob that beats the drums for him — IS an existential threat to the US more real than ISIS or any foreign power.
kbusch says
Let me recap my comments about Berwick for you, John.
I said early on that it was clear that Berwick didn’t have a chance of winning the nomination. This was clear, say, from comparing polling numbers with 2006 where Berwick was polling worse than the 2nd and 3rd place finishers in that race in mid-summer. Also his support was concentrated in the > $100,000/yr corner. There was some kind of weird fantasy going on that, if we only knocked on more doors, he’d win.
My complaint as well about having another quixotic campaign was that all the knowledge and infrastructure gained in that campaign, e.g., what voters said they’d vote for Berwick or what people had volunteered to work for him, was going to disappear when the campaign disappeared. My thought was the campaign should prepare to lose by preparing to fight another day. I have no idea what has become of all the hard work that went into the Berwick campaign. Hopefully, some future progressive with broader appeal can benefit from it. Hopefully, but I doubt it.
Finally, the Berwick campaign’s characterization of Martha Coakley was so negative that, it seemed to me, pivoting after the primary to getting her elected was just not going to happen. You, John, in particular, had a single-payer absolutism about you: if she wasn’t going to support that, nothing would matter. It’d be nice to have a working MBTA. With Coakley that would have been more likely.
Some contributors here did sound as if there was something cultish going on — particularly in the predictions of victory. Trouble is, when the leader of the cult of personality loses, the followers end up being disoriented.
johntmay says
And her husband welfare “reform” and her belief that a full time salary of under $25,000 is acceptable, and her vote for the Iraq War, and her support of NAFTA and TPP and the Keystone Pipeline, and her super pacs, and her transcripts….and her being the first to go negative in the Sanders/Clinton campaign.
Yeah, nice candidate…
And Berwick, I tried my best and lost. I voted for Martha. Did Berwick “go negative”? Well, if reporting the record is “going negative”….
Christopher says
She does NOT oppose health care as a human right. She has said the opposite and would probably even sign your precious single-payer if it hit her desk.
She has come out AGAINST TPP and Keystone.
She would sign a higher minimum wage if it hit her desk, but $12 is a huge improvement for many.
Superpacs and transcripts are silly season issues, much ado about nothing!
SomervilleTom says
I don’t know if you write these things because you don’t know the facts, don’t care about the facts, or can’t face the facts. As christopher has observed in his response, you again repeat assertions that are disconnected from reality.
Hillary Clinton has supported health care as a human right for twenty five years. Her first foray onto the national political scene was an ultimately failed attempt to introduce “Hillary Care”. She opposes the TPP. She opposes the Keystone Pipeline.
When you relentlessly repeat this rubbish, it primarily hurts your own credibility. Most of us who read BMG are reasonably familiar with the facts. When you continue to repeat such distortions, even after they have been refuted countless times, you waste your time and ours.
I agree with christopher that your commentary is devolving into troll-tracks.
HR's Kevin says
I understand that she is not totally on board the single-payer train but it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that she is remotely close to the Republican position.
Nor is she close to the Republican position on wealth disparity. Republicans don’t even admit that it exists.
I believe that as the campaign moves from the silly season to the general election, more people will pay attention and actually listen to policy details from each side. By November, I think there will be very few people who consider Clinton and Trump to be similar in any aspect.
Christopher says
…of her husband’s third term and Obama’s, which given their overall records is just fine with me. Those who say Sanders supporters had better vote for Clinton are assuming, justifiably so I think, that they will get much closer to what they want on most issues with Clinton as President that with Trump.
johntmay says
That’s what’s got me nervous about Democratic leadership and Hillary / Obama supporters.
The average wage peaked more than 40 years ago. It’s been downhill since.
“Economic Recovery” for the U.S. Middle Class: NEVER HAPPENED We now have significantly Less Purchasing Power than Before the 2008 Financial Crisis.
And you think that’s “just fine”…….
Christopher says
20+ million new jobs created. Inflation kept in check. Minimum wage increased. Maybe he didn’t work magic, but all the trendlines were in the right direction.
That was Clinton. Under Obama we have added private sector jobs for more straight months than ever I believe beating the record previously held by….Oh, that’s right – Bill Clinton!
SomervilleTom says
An important reason why the economy did not surge to record heights during the administration of Barack Obama is that, unlike every other post-WWII recovery, government jobs did NOT expand.
The GOP, with its relentless threats to shut down the government, successfully imposed the LIE that “austerity” was the correct prescription for recovery after their own policies created the Great Recession of 2008.
The claim that Bill Clinton or “the Democrats” are responsible for “flat wages” is another lie. It’s just a lie, and a dangerous one at that.
We need to be EXPANDING, not contracting, government spending. We need to be raising taxes on the wealthy and the very wealthy. We need to get more money into the pockets of consumers. All these are things that Democrats have proposed and the GOP has opposed during the time you cite.
I don’t know anybody who claims that the current economy is “just fine”. I also don’t know anybody who cares about facts, truth, and reality who claims that Hillary Clinton, her husband, or the Democrats are the responsible party for this.
The denial of fundamental Keynesian economics is REPUBLICAN dogma, not Democratic. The lie that slashing government jobs and services will do anything but DESTROY the quality of life for tens of millions of American men and women is REPUBLICAN, not Democratic, dogma.
We saw those lies played out in the tepid and anemic “recovery”, in no small part because Barack Obama was unwilling to confront relentless GOP opposition and naively thought he could “compromise” with them. Failed political judgement? Absolutely. Failed party principles? Absolutely NOT.
Those who think that electing Donald Trump and/or another slate of Republicans because they are unhappy with the way things are today are jumping from the frying pan back into the 2008 fire.
centralmassdad says
I think that this is almost entirely right.
A contributing factor to the slow recovery has that the recession was caused by a credit crisis, which left a lot of business and individuals with too much debt. A portion of the recovery’s energy has been sunk into reducing debt, which, unlike other kinds of spending, doesn’t immediately produce economic expansion. Government policy could have significantly acceleratedthe process of debt reduction by (i) easing bankruptcy rules on consumer home mortgages; and (ii) tolerating some inflation, which would shrink fixed-rate debt. Both of these things were impossible due to the gold-brick waving, Glenn Beck following dimwits controlling the Congress.
merrimackguy says
All the wage trends we talk about were already apparent in the late 90’s, but we had a tech boom and real estate boom (this is the period when home prices really ramped up here) that masked it somewhat. Money flowed into tech companies, they paid people (and those people spent the companies money as well on just about everything) and it was all good.
2001 rolls around and we’re in recession. Tech people are losing their jobs. Bush and Congress cut taxes, Greenspan cuts rates and a real estate boom is ignited, and fraudulent activity coupled with high risk borrowing fuels it, but all the money flowing again masks the underlying trend of poor wage growth and loss of good jobs.
2009 and it’s a mess. Now all sorts of jobs are lost and there’s all sorts of problems. What happens now? We get short term stimulus to try and reignite the economy, and super low interest rates, sparking a stock market boom assisted by stock buy backs.
Now it’s 2016 and good jobs continue to be on the decline. It’s the #1 problem today and Trump is talking about it and people find that appealing. Of course he’s just talking without any real solution, but that’s never stopped people from voting for a candidate.
Should government employment have increased? I don’t know. Many think that government has been slow to embrace technology that would make it more efficient. It certainly hasn’t changed much in response to other changes (fire departments for example).
PS I agree that paying down debt rather than spending has depressed growth somewhat but I also think there’s changes afoot there. 1. Housing takes a bigger chunk, leaving less. Young people are less into stuff. Everyone is tired of buying. Could be a lot of trends coming together.
judy-meredith says
N/T
Christopher says
“if you were an independent and disagreed with Clinton on all the above AND you had strong negatives towards Trump, why would you even vote?”
I for one would vote because it is my obligation as a citizen of a democracy. At one point I even thought I would be an independent if all I wanted to do was vote. I chose the party I more closely aligned with because I wanted to be more involved than that.
johntmay says
It’s the reality of low voter turnout when Democrats run an uninspiring candidate, or worse yet, one with historically high negatives.
kbusch says
I quoted this on BMG a number of years ago.
Let’s try and do a perfectly rational calculation about uses of time. I can spend my time in a variety of ways: I can improve my skills so I might earn more money or get promoted; I can carefully research my purchases so that I spend less for better quality goods; I can attend carefully to the people in my life so as to become more intimate, a better friend, spouse, daughter, son, father, or mother. Also I can educate myself enough so that I can vote intelligently: I could learn about economic theory, foreign policy as it relates to Russia, Syria, and China; I could read about education policy, regulatory reform, banking, environmental policy, energy, and the like. Which of these is more likely to improve my life?
Well, my vote has never, ever swung an election. So, from a completely rational standpoint, all the time spent trying to vote intelligently has been wasted. I could have spent that time becoming a better, happier person in so many other ways. Why waste my time figuring out how to vote where my choice is infinitesimal when there are so many other positive practical things I could be doing? By this calculation, voting is simply a waste of time.
I might add that, if I were not as affluent, for example, if I were making the minimum wage or not much more, the activities in competition with voting could become urgently important — so much so that the priority of voting would be rather minor.
scott12mass says
where the outcome is preordained.
Christopher says
…that I don’t pretend to answer for anyone besides myself, though others following suit would be nice.
johntmay says
Nominate a judge to the Supreme Court who might overturn Citizens United while her re-election campaign would, like this one and the last one, deeply dependent on dark money and super pacs? She’d be cutting her own financial throat.
Christopher says
She has said she wants CU reversed. Don’t forget it’s personal; that particular case was about HER.
JimC says
A strange way to put it. Were Grossman voters silenced in the 2014 election?
kbusch says
of 1968
centralmassdad says
Before my time. How so?
kbusch says
A lot of strong arming occurred in that convention against the anti-war delegates. Their mikes were cut when they spoke and the convention orchestra was used to drown them out. Their literature was kept from reaching the convention floor. Only Humphrey and the pro-war faction got to have signs. Some delegations, e.g., New York’s mostly dove delegation, were subject to repeated and unnecessary credential checks. Including one delegate, sick of the every 10 minute credential check being forcibly removed from the convention.
This was all pretty weird as Humphrey had always been in the rather liberal wing of the party. After a less divisive convention, he would have had a good chance to get more of the Vietnam doves behind him, but the heavy-handed tactics inside the convention coupled with the police violence outside it made all that pretty difficult.
Trickle up says
The party platform, for crying out loud, a completely symbolic and, but for the symbolism, pointless prize that will be ignored the moment it is adopted.
The platform makes the warm bucket of spit look like fine champagne.
I can see why the Sanders campaign wants to go though this exercise, but if he wants to pull President Clinton leftward, the way to do it will be to get votes in November, for her and for members of Congress.
It may be a bitter pill to swallow but that is the way forward.
Mark L. Bail says
shown that it doesn’t understand how politics works. Part of what gets brushed aside with all the talk of revolution is the reality of politics. I’ve never been in Sanders position, but I don’t think you leverage it by sending a letter and telling the DNC to hand over the keys. This is a negotiation situation. Bernie has leverage, but he has to play it. Lefty or not, you have to play politics. I’m not sure his campaign knows how.
sabutai says
Bernie has leverage, and would like to play it but nominating a minority, easily overruled to committees easily ignored. And Hillary says no.
Basic political science holds that if you refuse to give a group a voice, they will exit. And while I think some Hillary supporters what rather she lose without Bernie’s help than win with his help, that isn’t the way forward. Bernie may be whiny in some people’s eyes, but Clinton is being absolutist.
Mark L. Bail says
and threats take place off-stage. If other negotiating tactics hold true, you ask for more than you expect to get. There are obvious threats he can as well as a number of benefits he could offer. Maybe this letter was necessary, maybe it is part of extended negotiations that have been taking place. But these are typically internal politics played out internally.
My suspicion that Bernie/his staff lack a lot of relevant political experience. This is based on their rhetoric, and Bernie’s eschewal of party politics until 2015. Revolutionary rhetoric tends to regard political change as flipped switch, and this letter kind of follows that idea. We changed things, share power now.
Another thing we tend to forget is the fact that party insiders are part of something Bernie never cared to join or work for: the Democratic Party. I’ve witnessed very little resentment among Democrats, but I’m guessing it exists within the people whose careers and lives revolve around it. We are a party, even though Bernie and many of his followers don’t completely recognize the fact. Clinton may be being an absolutist, but aside from the assumption that she’s involved, the odious DWS has enough bad judgement for all.
I’m actually rooting for Bernie extending his influence and bringing the party left. Howard Dean was pretty successful in this regard. His participation wasn’t lasting, but he had some effect. How did he get what he wanted?
TheBestDefense says
Here is where I repeat myself. It is not legally possible to register in ANY political party in VT. From the VT Sec’y of State’s website
I want Sanders supporters to vote for HRC in November. But the rest of us ought to stop making up junk about Sanders. He has caucused with the Dems from his early days in DC. He raised money for the Dems, something for which he has been criticized on BMG. It is a really good time for people who do not want a President Trump to understand the long game.
BTW, anyone who suggests that Tad Devine does not know how the political world operates is somebody who has never spent a minute with him. I think the Sanders campaign is doing exactly what the rules encourage him to do if he wants to expand his influence. Unlike Howard Dean who was never a true progressive, achieved nothing except some crappy policies in VT, had a brief moment of fame, and now is simply a media seeker.
I know the DP platform is junk, irrelevant in real life, but if you do political organizing you take advantage of every opportunity to do so. Sanders is doing that. If the Dems had any brains, they would agree. And after the HRC inauguration they would throw Debbie Wasserman Shultz out on her ass.
Mark L. Bail says
wrote an editorial saying Hillary should dump DWS and Rahmbo immediately as a show of good faith.
Like I say, I’d rather be reassured than right. I don’t know Tad Devine. I think Jeff Weaver is asshat. With that said, I don’t understand what they’re trying to accomplish saying they’re going to go after superdelegates. They’re not going to get them. There is no argument with superdelegates that brings about a Sanders win. Fighting for them seems to legitimize them.
TheBestDefense says
Going after super-delegates is a game to keep Sanders name in the daily media, just for show. We all pretty much acknowledge that the election is going be Trump v. HRC so the conventions are going to be about two things, messaging and who will write the rules for each party for the next four to eight years. I am glad Sanders is going to be there for both reasons.
My eyes will be glued to the TV during the GOP convention. It seems that the GOP insiders know they have lost the White House this cycle and maybe for another couple afterwards. I anticipate a strange mix of acknowledging that Trump is the de facto leader until November, saving their majorities in both chambers, and re-writing their rules to reduce the influence of the religious right and tightening control of their internal governance.
johntmay says
And if it works that way, how did Jeb get his butt handed to him so swiftly by a guy who since day one has been laughed at because “he does not understand how politics works?”
AmberPaw says
“For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. Come on yourselves! It is one thing to ignore [or try to ignore] just how much support Sen. Bernie Sanders does have. It is quite another to appoint “attack surrogates”, and still a third to pretend not to notice what happens in open primaries – pretty much. This is NOT looking to be a tame, docile National Democratic Convention, and packing the rules committee this way, with the “type” of appointees said to have been appointed. Folks – I attended my first Democratic state convention in Michigan in 1966. I had friends in the windows looking down – and friends in the street in that turbulent convention in the 60s. Sanders HAD to write that letter and HAS to fight back against Wasserman’s iron handed poor judgment. Doing so shows that he DOES understand hardball politics and will maintain the respect of those he as brought into the scrum. No one makes progress by being a meek doormat, now do they? And frankly, I sure wish it would be Bernie appointing supreme court justices. I doubt he would appoint attorneys who had worked for Monsanto or Goldman Sachs, or figure that only ivy league graduates need apply.
AmberPaw says
I couldn’t figure out how to edit my own comment. So oops. But “squelch the upstarts” as an operating modality is no way to strengthen a political party.
Christopher says
…to edit your comment once it has been submitted. You aren’t missing anything.
AmberPaw says
Thanks for letting me know it is the site’s limitations not my ignorance.
Trickle up says
starting around 0:54
https://youtu.be/VWEBlZ7C_lE
Mark L. Bail says
reassurance that Bernie knows what he’s doing than being able to say I’m right.
AmberPaw says
Home. In High School – watching on television and hearing about it afterwards from friends who had graduated before me. I truly do think that the heavy handed “squelch the upstarts” approach is very very poorly chosen and that this convention may well be a historic scrum. I hope those who go keep good notes, especially the Bernie Sanders delegates and report back.
Trickle up says
is the title of a song. (One that happily does not take itself too seriously.)
AmberPaw says
Open primaries are so much more fun and predictive – some places have more independent/unenrolled voters than members of a party because voters are sick of both parties and frankly DWS and her behaviors and those like her are part of WHY!