Raucous opening to Democratic convention as Sanders backers revolt

[uawchild]

Source: Reuters

Supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders drowned out the opening proceedings with competing cheers and chants on Monday as discord enveloped the first day of the Democratic convention to nominate Clinton for president.

Speakers in the convention's first hour struggled to carry out business as angry Sanders supporters repeatedly booed and chanted, drawing a reaction from Clinton delegates that created a deafening roar.

"We're all Democrats and we need to act like it," U.S. Representative Marcia Fudge, the convention's chairwoman, shouted over the uproar.
Earlier in the day, Sanders drew jeers from his supporters when he urged his delegates to back the White House bid of his formal rival, Clinton.

Sanders' followers shouted: "We want Bernie" in a show of anger at both Clinton's victory in the race for the presidential nomination and emails leaked on Friday suggesting the Democratic leadership had tried to sabotage Sanders' insurgent campaign.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN105101

---

Good lord. This should have been headed off days ago, as soon as the leaked DNC emails became public.

Today's apology seems to have been too late.

The only path forward is to support the Hillary-Kaine ticket, there is simply no alternative, and while expressing outrage on the convention floor about the DNC email scandal is emotionally satisfying, it makes moving forward even more difficult.

[yallerdawg]

1. One persons "revolution" is another's...

crying, whining, and pitching a tantrum.

The people have spoken at the voting booth!

Some people don't like little d democracy -- or big D Democrats, I guess.

[onehandle]

2. These aren't mainstream voters. They are political operatives.

Playing politics and looking for their 15 minutes.

[beachbumbob]

3. Some sander backers...many are being respectable to bernie

Others could care less

[RBInMaine]

4. TOTAL FUCKING HYPERBOLE! Corporate media SHIT ONCE AGAIN!!

They make it sound like some big wide conspiracy to "SABOTAGE" Bernie's entire campaign. What a BUNCH OF LIES and SHIT. A TINY few emails with a few stupid comments and dumb suggestions that NEVER happened.

No big "Revolt." Yes, some ruckus at first, all verbal, and now things have calmed WAY down. No floor fights. No walk outs.

And great speeches with calls for unity, contrasting us with the RePUKES, touting Hillary, and bashing Trump. All good. Mostly very positive. Only gonna get better tonight with Warren, Michelle Obama, and Bernie Sanders.

[BigDemVoter]

11. I am sure the MSM is getting pressure from the KoolAid drinkers to portray the

Dem convention in as unflattering light as possible. In fact, the MSM didn't even have to be pressured, as they would have done it anyway.

[BigDemVoter]

12. I am sure the MSM is getting pressure from the KoolAid drinkers to portray the

Dem convention in as unflattering light as possible. In fact, the MSM didn't even have to be pressured, as they would have done it anyway.

[NanceGreggs]

5. I doubt that the emails ...

... have anything to do with it. People on (alleged) pro-Bernie sites have been discussing this kind of disruption for weeks, and encouraging it, long before the email story broke.

[loyalsister]

6. I suspect it was the last straw for some supporters

It's a tall order to expect those who were heavily invested in Sanders' candidacy to just let it go. George W Bush legally took office and many, if not most of us are still smarting over it. And the "get over it" refrain started early and continued even after the full count came in and made it hurt that much more for many of us. Likewise, the recent news about the DNC's violation of impartiality ripped the scab of a wound that was barely beginning to heal. A lot of people put their whole hearts into elections. I cried like a baby over a local primary. It's irrational, but understandable. And in this case the DNC leadership should have seen it coming after the 2008 primary that inspired an organized PAC designed specifically to thwart the process.

[NanceGreggs]

7. Some "supporters" ...

... were never waiting for "the last straw". They'd decided months ago that anything less than Bernie getting the nomination was unacceptable, and would be met with shouts of vote fraud, a "rigged" process, a "stolen election", etc.

Comparing the 2000 selection of Dubya to the Dem primary process is utterly ridiculous. We're talking about two Democrats (well, one long time Democrat and one Democrat-of-convenience) here. One of them won, one of them lost - which everyone knew was going to happen.

Exactly what was the DNC's "violation of impartiality"? The fact that individuals within the organization had a preference for one candidate over the other? There's no rule against people holding personal opinions about the candidates.

I've yet to see any proof that those personal opinions resulted in any ACTIONS that favoured one candidate over another. Was Bernie ever denied funds, or access to information? Did any DNC employees speak out publicly against him?

How did the personal opinion of ANY DNCer negatively affect Bernie's campaign, or his ability to run his campaign?

Let's keep in mind that when Bernie asked to run on the Dem ticket, the DNC could have said no. They didn't. They allowed him to run as a Dem - despite his decades-long tirade against the "corrupt" Dem Party, which continued throughout his campaign.

So tell me again how hard-done-by Bernie was, when he was permitted to run as a "member" (albeit temporary) of the Party he'd disparaged for years.

[Desert805]

8. Blah blah blah.

"get over it"

[NanceGreggs]

9. Well, there's an intelligent response.

[loyalsister]

13. You know all of their motives because they are generous enough hang out with you

Jeeez! Have a little empathy for these folks who dedicated months to a cause they cared about. Until you have walked door to door for months, spent all your free time on a campaign because you believed in a candidate only to lose. Even worse, there are people who worked on that campaign who had gotten involved for the first time only to discover a few days ago that their efforts were futile because the system is rigged more than they feared.
They're heartbroken, and just when they were beginning to believe there was room for them and that they could safely hope for the future, their worst thoughts about politics were confirmed. The sense of entitlement that rears it's head is reminiscient of the 2000 "get over it calls." Have a little class and empathy for people who are hurting. Bush thought he was entitled to not be criticized or questioned and everyday republicans were the enforcers. Let's not be like them.

[NanceGreggs]

14. I have empathy ...

... for those who backed a candidate who, despite their best efforts on his behalf, lost.

I have NO empathy for those who started yelling "vote fraud, stolen election, rigged primaries" the minute their candidate lost.

You are one of many posters today who have compared Bush's selection in 2000 to Bernie's loss in a Democratic primary.

What's up with that? "Their worst thoughts about politics were confirmed. Their efforts were futile because the system is rigged more than they feared."

If you're saying that the Democratic primary was "rigged", please offer the proof thereof.

[loyalsister]

18. Are you claiming the DNC did not operate through the primary with a bias?

It's not surprising or even unreasonable that they would. She needed help and there were a lot of people invested in her running for office long before she announced. Aside from Martin O'Malley, I saw no one this season who I think has the temperment to be a good president. He is the only one who showed class and grace throughout his entire run. Unfortunately, he did not seem to have enough experience with parts of the country outside of Balitmore in order to pull together a national campaign.

I compared the disappointment of supporters of Al Gore and Bernie Sanders as well as the arrogance and disregard for the sadness over the loss displayed by the opponents of each. It was not a surprise coming from republicans but we're supposed to be better than that.

[NanceGreggs]

20. Show me where this "bias" ...

... of anyone in the DLC affected Bernie's campaign.

Show me where the DNC rules require that no one on their staff is permitted to have a personal opinion as to the candidates.

Show me where emails exchanged between coworkers expressing a preference for one candidate over another manifested itself in withholding DNC resources from Bernie's campaign.

Despite his running "as a Democrat", Bernie disparaged the Party, its members, and called HRC unqualified to be POTUS.

"It was not a surprise coming from republicans but we're supposed to be better than that." Too bad Bernie was never told that we're supposed to be "better than that".

[loyalsister]

21. Burden of proof?

If it is not a logical conclusion for reasonably skeptical people to draw, why did the DNC apologize and DWS resign?

As for falling in line and unconditional loyalty to party, I personally know too many people who have lost and lost and lost their economic standing under policies of both parties.
And the get the impression that they're supposed to smile and thank Democrats for the rosy economic gains and successes. Even when they are better off paying the fine than buying insurance because they fall into the gaps that exist in some areas with Obamacare. Republicans have refused, and Democrats haven't been able to turn the tide for so many because of Republican obstruction.
And, it's easy to say people are being short sighted, naive, and selfish when they won't fall in line. But I think we could do better in showing people who are suffering more respect.
Because of the 24% poverty and 3% unemployment, many people are living with a fear that they will soon be homeless (if they aren't already), and are unsure whether they can feed their families next week, despite working more than one job. They are focused on their own families and many times can't even begin to look beyond their next few days.

People are suffering and party loyalists think they should forget it all and fall in line. So many have been looking for politicians who do not demand that juvenile college greek-like loyalty because they do not feel that they have been represented by either party despite ideas, rhetoric, and desires.

They thought they found something that might open the party doors for them and don't see it anymore. Dismissing the sorrow they and their advocates have when all they see on the horizon is an appearance that the party was working against them and more of the same, They deserve better and Democrats who don't appear to value them are not displaying the kind of compassion they felt they were getting from Sanders. That he was able and gutsy enough go beyond a symbolic line or two in a speech mattered to his supporters. Disrespecting how things look from their point of view devalues them.

[NanceGreggs]

22. In other words ...

... you can't point to a single thing the DNC did that disadvantaged Bernie in any way.

Thanks for admitting that!

[JustAnotherGen]

26. You are correct Nance

And the media won't tell the real story about that - now will they?

They won't tell folks this was planned for weeks - if not months. That people were planning to camp out to be able to engage in the protests/disruption.

I also notice - Jill Stein didn't go to the RNC and hold a rally down the road from there. She planned it all along too.

[onwardsand upwards]

10. Hillary Clinton made a mistake by not choosing a credible progressive as a running mate

She is far too close to corporate interests for many active Democrats.

She needed to round out the ticket by choosing either Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren -- or someone with similar progressive credentials.

Instead, she went "safe", which angered many people -- especially in light of the fix at the top, which is what the emails reveal.

[NanceGreggs]

15. Please enlighten us all ...

... as to the "fix at the top".

Apparently the millions of Dems who voted for HRC in the primaries did not find her "too close to corporate interests for many active Democrats", given that she won the nomination by a wide margin.

The myth that HRC needed to choose someone like Warren was dispelled the minute Warren was thrown under the bus by Bernie supporters because she campaigned with HRC. Also dispelled was the myth that if she had named Bernie as her VP, the BS holdouts would have been satisfied. They threw BS under that same bus the minute he endorsed Hillary, and labelled him a sellout who had betrayed them.

You might want to check out some of the (alleged) pro-Bernie websites. The dead-enders were NEVER going to be satisfied with Bernie or Warren as the VP choice - in fact, they have made it abundantly clear that no matter what HRC did, it wouldn't change their minds about voting for her.

So much for the "if ONLY she'd chosen differently" myth.

[bigdarryl]

16. I'm starting to think that most of them are imposters posing as Sander supporters

The latest polling shows 90% of his supporters back Hillary as the nominee.So the question is who the fuck are theres people and where do they live

[NanceGreggs]

17. Hmmm, yes.

Who ARE these people? They're the people that BS supporters embraced with open arms the minute they "said" they were BS supporters.

No other credentials were necessary.

[cstanleytech]

19. Its almost as if they were only in it to create disruption for the Democrats so they couldnt

rally enough support behind a single candidate but as soon as Sanders stopped being the potential for such a thing they literally threw him under the bus.

[onwardsand upwards]

23. Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- the fix at the top!

Clinton gets her money from Wall Street, which everyone sees. Wall street is not known for its benign generosity. Everyone sees that, too. She is the Democratic "business, as usual" candidate.

These are extraordinary times, when many people are not looking for a "business, as usual" candidate.

That's Trump's trump card: he's business, but not as usual.

Unfortunately, he could well trump her, if she appears too BAU.

I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. In fact, it is a ghastly prospect. However, Clinton needs the support of the progressives in the party if she is going to win. She needs to do something substantial to get it. The latest polls are scary as hell.

Blindly standing by Clinton, at this time, is not helping her -- or anyone who wants to avoid a Trump presidency.

[NanceGreggs]

24. What was "the fix"?

Be specific, and try using facts.

"Clinton needs the support of the progressives in the party if she is going to win. She needs to do something substantial to get it."

You, like many others here, seem to be operating under the delusion that "progressives" have not been supporting HRC all along. She's garnered backing from a wide spectrum of Dems from the outset.

In addition, 80% to 90% of former Bernie supporters - who invariably describe themselves as "progressives" - are now backing Hillary.

HRC's supporters are not "standing blindly by her". We are all well aware of what needs to be done, including financial donations, efforts to get the vote out, etc. Where you get this "blindly standing by" meme is anyone's guess.

[onwardsand upwards]

25. I'm just stating the obvious ...

... but, apparently, I'm wasting my breath.

[NanceGreggs]

29. Hmmm ...

If it's so obvious, why can't you point out what it is?

[onwardsand upwards]

30. It's obvious to everyone ...

... but the oblivious!

[NanceGreggs]

31. What's obvious ...

... is that you have no idea what you're talking about, have been called on it, and are now reverting to the "I know you are, but what am I" meme.

[onwardsand upwards]

32. Demonstrations outside the DNC are pretty obvious!

But, perhaps not to everyone.

[NanceGreggs]

33. Try actually following the discussion.

You brought up “the fix at the top”.

I asked you to explain what “the fix at the top” is.

You replied with “Debbie Wasserman Schultz – the fix at the top”.

I again asked you what “the fix at the top” is.

You then say “it’s obvious” - but you obviously still can’t actually explain what it is.

Now you’re talking about “demonstrations outside the DNC being obvious”.

Huh? What do demonstrations have to do with “the fix at the top”, or serve as any explanation of what that “fix at the top” is?

If you can’t explain what it is, just say so. Changing the subject only underscores the fact that you don’t have the vaguest idea what you were talking about in the first instance.

[onwardsand upwards]

34. It's good advice ...

... which you could try for yourself!

In post 24 (see, above) you also made the argument that progressives back HRC.

It IS a bit tricky, considering 2 different concepts at the same time -- but I have confidence you can master it with practice!

But, back to what is (apparently) your main point: the fix. Do you not think it relevant that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was so biased that she was forced to resign? Not (obvious) evidence of a fix?

[NanceGreggs]

35. Yes, progressives back HRC.

Do you honestly think that ALL progressives backed Bernie? What about now? The vast majority of self-described "progressives" who were formerly BS supporters now support HRC.

DWS resigned in a show of "the buck stops here". She took responsibility for what happened on her watch - despite the fact that there was no evidence of a "fix" that led to Bernie losing the nomination, no less any evidence that she personally formulated or engaged in any "fix".

You're the one convinced there was a "fix" in. So, as I asked when this conversation began: What was "the fix"?

Enlighten us all as to how anything DWS or any of the DNC workers DID disadvantaged Bernie in any way.

Let's hear it - in detail.

Oh, and saying "it's obvious" is not an answer. Let's hear a complete explanation of the DNC's "fix", how it operated, who was involved, and how it impacted Bernie's campaign. And we're talking FACTS here, not someone's opinion.

Please proceed, onwardsand upwards.

[onwardsand upwards]

36. Without being on the inside, it is impossible to know the details.

You know that, of course (or, at least, I hope), but you're pretending not to, as a rhetorical device. Tiresome.

How do you know, for example, that "DWS resigned in a show of 'the buck stops here'"? Let's hear a complete explanation, of how it operated, who was involved, and how you know that there is no evidence she personally formulated or engaged in any fix?

Are you on the inside? Do you have inside information?

Because the vast majority of us are not on the inside, with public officials, we have to go on a certain degree of trust. Most of us are willing to extend this trust, until there is clear evidence that it was misplaced.

The Wikileak provided that evidence.

Not knowing exactly what powers (formal of informal) DWS had, but knowing that she was willing to abuse her power in the way that we saw, it is reasonable to presume that she would be willing to abuse it in other ways that, unfortunately, we cannot see.

Trust is broken.

Specific enough, NanceGreggs?

[NanceGreggs]

37. "Without being on the inside ...

... it is impossible to know the details.”

And yet here you are, claiming there was a “fix” anyway, without any evidence whatsoever – and the Wikileaks emails showed no evidence of a “fix”.

How do I know that "DWS resigned in a show of 'the buck stops here'? Simple: there were no emails that demonstrated her involvement in anything untoward. She resigned because of what others said in emails, and she took responsibility for what happened on her watch.

“and how you know that there is no evidence she personally formulated or engaged in any fix?”
How do you know she did, if there is NO evidence? There’s no evidence that she’s not a serial killer either – so should people just assume she is, because there’s no evidence that she’s not?

“knowing that she was willing to abuse her power in the way that we saw …”

Such as? How did DWS "abuse her power"?

You’re the one who insisted there was a “fix” here – and yet all you can come up with to support that accusation is your own opinion, and some rather ludicrous assertions you’ve yet to substantiate.

This is a discussion board. If you are going to claim that there was a “fix” in at the DNC to thwart Bernie’s campaign, you’re going to be asked for FACTS to prove your point. And “because I think so” or “I don’t trust her” are NOT facts.

Get it now?

[onwardsand upwards]

40. It IS a fact that I do not trust her.

The Wikileaks emails revealed her bias, and attempts to conjure up ways of discrediting Bernie Sanders -- including a jab at his religion -- at the top of the party.

This peek under the rock (and that's all we've got to go on) revealed something very stinky.

DWS abused her power by (at best) tolerating this and (at worst) actively encouraging it. Without a full inquiry, we can never see what really went on.

Our peek, though, is enough to break the trust, and move from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilty.

Now that we know that she was biased and (at best) tolerated bias, it is really up to her to demonstrate that there was nothing stinkier than that. She should bend over backwards to release all emails to demonstrate that there was no fix.

I don't see that forthcoming and, so, I make my own personal judgement -- which I believe I am entitled to do.

Got it?

[NanceGreggs]

41. You're entitled to believe ...

... whatever ridiculous conspiracy theories you want to believe.

You're assuming that DWS ever even saw those emails, and then you assume she "encouraged" something - what, I don't know. Someone said something about Bernie's religion - where's the evidence that the topic was ever even raised outside of that comment, no less used against him in any way?

Oh, that's right, there is none. We all KNOW that it didn't happen.

You know that DWS is Jewish, do you not? Do you really think she encouraged anti-Semitism, or using Bernie's Jewish faith as a negative against him? What are you tokin'?

You just so obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're just making ludicrous accusations, and then proffering your baseless opinions as some kind of proof thereof.

"She should bend over backwards to release all emails to demonstrate that there was no fix."

You really don't get it, do you? You really don't understand any of this. Why do you feel so compelled to keep proving it with every post?

[onwardsand upwards]

42. Likewise, you are entitled to believe ...

... whatever you prefer to believe. (I won't descend to calling what you believe "ridiculous". You're on your own there.)

It seems a long stretch that DWS resigned over emails she never saw. She would have to be angel. Personally, I don't believe in angels (but, again, you have the right to believe whatever makes you happy to believe).

I did not "assume" that she encouraged something -- I said that "at worst" she was actively encouraging it. You seem to have trouble reading sometimes. Maybe corrective lenses would help?

DWS's religion is not really relevant here. The comment about Bernie Sanders' religion was referring to the leaked email that he may be an atheist, and how that could be used against him. Again ... reading issues.

Again, I will refrain from insulting you in the way you insult me ("don't know what you're talking about", "ludicrous accusations", etc ...) These bullying tactics stifle debate.

This is supposed to be a forum where people can freely exchange information, opinions, and debate.

The quality of these things is highest when people refrain from this sort of insulting behavior.

Hopefully, we can agree on that.

[NanceGreggs]

43. And yet again ...

... you demonstrate that you don't have a clue as to what's going on.

What ev - I'm out.

[onwardsand upwards]

44. Yes -- you are definitely out!

[Person 2713]

27. Wait they didn't like what sanders said and he drew jeers but then they chant we want sanders?

Doesn't make sense

Earlier in the day, Sanders drew jeers from his supporters when he urged his delegates to back the White House bid of his formal rival, Clinton.

Sanders' followers shouted: "We want Bernie" in a show of anger at both Clinton's victory in the race for the presidential nomination and emails leaked on Friday suggesting the Democratic leadership had tried to sabotage Sanders' insurgent campaign.

[Tarc]

28. Revolt? They occupied a media tent for 5 minutes.

[forest444]

38. But our beloved lamestream media would never let facts get in the way of a good story.

Especially stories which hurt both Sanders and the Democrats as a whole - a twofer, as far as their executives are concerned.

[k8conant]

39. There were 100 or more of us inside the media tent for nearly an hour

because the police were blocking the doors. Others outside could not enter or exit during that time.