So were the Obama Boys Russian operatives too? Or are we just going ignore that this blog post claims the Clinton campaign essentially got played by the very narrative they created? A narrative they created not once, but twice.

I'm guessing this ongoing refusal by folks on the left to accept the Russian interference narrative is just a convenient way of continuing to vilify Hillary Clinton as much as possible.
Never mind that this narrative also happens to conveniently confirm that the harassing, misogynistic Bernie bro was largely a myth. Maybe I'm just a sucker for the idea of unity and reconciliation, but I prefer the latter scenario.
But I guess haters gonna hate.

We already knew it was a myth. Just like it was a myth when they did it with Obama Boys. Nobody forced the Clinton campaign to spend a considerable amount of energy denegrating Bernie supporters. Especially not Russia.

It apparently didn't seem like a myth to the author of this post and her colleagues who continued to get harassing tweets and messages.
I mean, if you're inclined to believe her.

I'm sure she did. Assholes exist on the internet, post at 11. RUSSIA DIDN'T FORCE THEM TO MAKE THAT A FOCUS OF THEIR SURROGATE'S MEDIA CAMPAIGN. TWICE. Just like Russia didn't force Gloria Steinem or Madeleine Albright to disparage millions of women, or John Lewis to call into question Bernie's civil rights activism. Russia didn't force Hillary Clinton to call half of America DEPLORABLES. Or to LIE ABOUT HER HEALTH up until she collapsed in front the entire world.

Russia's interference doesn't excuse Hillary Clinton's already horrible campaign.

OK, without wading back into the weeds of all the things wrong with Clinton's campaign, I'll acknowledge that the general election should never have been so close that foreign interference could have made a difference in the result. But the fact that it was so close made it possible. I'm not putting her loss entirely on Russian interference, but it was one of many factors that could have tipped it the other way.

I'll agree with that.

I don't think the left is denying that Russia did something like the release of emails, but there was nothing wrong with that. That's just plain, ordinary investigative journalism.

And the paid agents spreading fake news and harassment in order to divide the Dems and help elect Trump?
And selectively hacking and releasing emails of just one party, also to help their desired candidate? That's interference, not journalism, and not plain and ordinary by any standard.
We know the Russians have a shitload of dirt on Trump. Interesting how they haven't sent that stuff to Wikileaks.

I don't get this argument that because they released information on one party, that somehow makes that information invalid. Were Woodward and Bernstein interfering because they only reported on certain activities of the Republican party?

Sure, I agree that the Russians had an agenda, but that doesn't make the revelations any less true.

True or not, the revelations weren't really all that relevant. Mostly the DNC emails were routine discussions, taken out of context and wildly exaggerated to sow discord first between the Democratic candidates, then to bolster the GOP narratives.
It's not that the information was invalid, it's that with only ones side, it was incomplete.

I mean, maybe that's just a difference of culture. Up here those sort of revelations would be a existential crisis, and overturning the election in question would only be the most immediate and unquestioned start.

But what sort of revelations? Ultimately there was nothing earth-shaking or shocking in the DNC emails. The biggest scandal was that the emails were hacked so easily in the first place.

Um, part of your electoral system was colluding with a candidate to help them win.

The political parties are private entities, they aren't 'part of the electoral system' as a part of government. They're generally expected to be neutral in primary races, but it's more of an ethic, not a legal requirement. The thing to keep in mind is that ultimately, the parties are self-serving. From a standpoint of fairness, I agree the DNC should have showed no favoritism. But from the party's point of view, there was little incentive to bolster the candidacy of the guy who had never actually been a party member and had never done anything to help the party. Clinton on the other hand was long-time loyalist, boosting Democratic candidates and fundraising at every opportunity. No surprise she would have been favored by the DNC. I'm not saying it was right, just that it was understandable and not terribly shocking. You know who else wasn't particularly bothered by these 'revelations'? Bernie Sanders.

I can't really agree there. You have a two stage electoral process, with the first stage split in two with one each run by the DNC and the RNC.

I mean really. Do you honestly think that sort of argument would fly with any sort of independent election monitor?

Oh sure our system is fraught with problems, most of which stem from the fact that we have just two major political parties, both traditionally bound more to a kind of patronage system than to the actual voters. And of course having just two, each encompassing a fairly wide range of views, pretty much guarantees a perpetual state of civil war within each party, usually undermining any unifying efforts toward progress.
Plus the fact that those of us who decline to register with either party are often excluded from that first stage of the process.
So yeah, the problem isn't specifically with the DNC, it's with our locked-in two party system. If anything positive results from the rise of Trump, it's that he's really a functional independent, not really beholden to the Republican establishment. With any luck maybe he'll effectively wreck at least that part of the system.

Foobar, I think the point here is that the Russians hacked everybody they could, released what they wanted and flooded the social media in order to create as much discord in the USA as possible. Read this discussion to see it in action.

So? You act like that's even irregular.

It's perfectly ordinary if you live in a democracy that might elect candidates the US doesn't like.

It was more than that... Full Clint Watts: Trump Campaign 'Picked Up On' Kremlin Lines

Sun, Apr 02

Former FBI Agent Clint Watts joins Meet the Press to talk about the methods that Russian intelligence operatives used in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.

Hill-haters gonna hate. Plus, they have the same incentive as Republicans to deny they were so easily manipulated. They use pretty much the same arguments.

If nothing else, she can take credit for uniting the far-left and the far-right at least on the denial or diminishment of Russian influence. And of course also hating Hillary.

My low opinion of Hillary dates all the way back to her cowardly 2002 vote on the Iraq AUMF. Are you going to blame that on Russian manipulation too? Or Fox News?

Your hate is sturdy, hellboy. Does it extend to Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Max Cleland, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer?

Well in the Obama race it was all Clinton..but I'm not sure what came first here in 16. The rude comments or the "Bernie Bro" moniker.

Does it matter? You're missing the point. The "Unity" candidate and her campaign pushed a campaign of division again and again using derogatory name calling to describe her oppositions' supporters during both primaries. And despite all the wishy washy bullshit of the Convention she couldn't put the Democratic Party back together. And yet again, here we are seeing how it's not the fault of their actions. No, it's the Russians!

Well to deny that it was in part the Russians is very naive. It well may have very well been the Russians who played a big enough role as to start the animosity. Clinton did play the "Woman Card" early and often but to deny that there was reason is also wrong.

To be blamed for that as a Bernie supporter pissed me off at the time but I blamed 4 channel...now that I know it wasn't a bunch of over hormoned teenagers only makes me madder.

I think we need a new mod.
+1 Dumb Cunt, Bitch, Whore, Shit Eater

-1 Russian Bot?

Now just a minute. There's absolutely no proof of your last accusation.

The part that baffles me is that Hillary supporters still think that they "shared 99 percent of our political perspective."

Were they just not listening? Were they ignoring the perspectives of both sides, or just one? If the latter, which?

I mean, help me out? How can someone quite literally on the payroll of Goldman Sachs be at all comparable to a democratic socialist? How can someone so shockingly bigoted as to refer to black people as "superpredators" and block gay marriage, not to mention military service, be compared to a progressive? How do you even classify someone who wanted to not only ban, but criminalize an entire form of artistic expression?

Y'know, as the Democratic party tries to look forward and regain lost ground there's some definite value in examining specific policy directions and general philosophy toward the working and middle classes.
As for some people's ongoing fixation specifically with Hillary Clinton and her various contrasts with Bernie Sanders, that was pretty much settled here, for better or worse, once she had beat him by double digits among Democratic primary voters.
Of course by explaining this I'm assuming you're not a Russian bot that somehow forgot to turn itself off after the election.

So long as that is "settled," the Democrats will continue to lose.

If they lose it will be on their own shortcomings, not Hillary Clinton's.

It'll be on her, or those like her that won't make way. Democrats cannot win without progressives.

Eh, you're so caught up in the person and the personality you're contradicting yourself.
Yes, Dems can't win without progressives. Even Hillary understood this. But she's yesterday's news. Saying something as silly and vindictive as 'it'll be on her' is self-defeating, basically falling for the same sucker tactics that this post is actually about. Rehashing this character-driven bullshit is what makes you pretty much the equivelent of a Russian bot.

We'll see. I hope you're right, but I pretty much expect the DNC to put forward someone substantially like her. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

OK, I think we've got some common ground here. Maybe you're not a Russo-Canuck bot after all. ;)

I'd like to point out I called 8 years of trump before it was cool.

I was just looking at one of those comments where you discussed her unelectability.

I guess that makes you a winner and a loser at the same time.

Hey, I voted. For Hillary. It's not my fault the democrats didn't offer millennials any incentive to participate in a political system. That was your horse in the running.

I'll also vote for the next democrat for president, but I fully expect that democrat to loose to trump under the 2020 platform of "I am also Not Trump". I'll be pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

Edit: to be fair the problem is really congress. The house and the senate make laws. Hillary and Bernie wouldn't have really been able to do much- but we could have had the SCOTUS. That opportunity was squandered.

I'd love to tell you, you are wrong... but from what I am seeing it is still "We aren't Trump"as the only policy. But to be fair it would be hard to get anyone attention over the Trump noise...But they had better do something...and soon.

Bernie is introducing a single payer bill...But that is little more than a protest bill with no chance to be law. There is a like minded bill in the house with new sponsors

Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), Donald Payne (D-New Jersey), Nydia Velazquez (D-New York), and Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) Sign on to Single Payer House Bill

H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act115th Congress (2017-2018)

But it will never be brought up for a vote. Somebody besides Bernie has to campaine on this stuff.

Nothing is going to happen soon unless the lobbists decide their interests are better represented by democrats willing to throw a little chump change at the general public. There might be a grassroots movement that will grow out of it but that will take like ten to twenty years to take root unless we get some corporate/oligarchy money to help it grow- but American coorporations are infamous for *not* looking at the long term.

And really that is (as far as I can guess) reflected in voter turnout.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

Like, this isn't a Trump hiccup. The actual structure of American wealth has fundamentally changed in a way no one alive can remember. This isn't something greater voter participation can change.

"Like, this isn't a Trump hiccup."

No Trump is a cancer that is still masticating. He is a direct result of voter participation and is less than 90 day into + 2,000 day ordeal.

And yes wealth has been rising to the top in alarming rates. They have been doing so as a direct result of the tax code...a law that can be easily changed by voter participation.

But this was a discussion about the Democratic party not wealth inequality.

The problem there is I still see the 3rd way in power trying to placate the populist wing with any kind of rhetoric but not by ceding actual power. There has been no re focusing of message or money to grass roots needs. It is still "We are not Trump" with no push on any issue with the exception of healthcare...and that only came after the near death of the ACA. And is only being pushed by a few in congress.

The real problem is nobody campaigning for any of these progressive causes all of the energy is in the grass roots. Take healthcare as an example.

There is little or no public support for a single payer type of healthcare...If it were put on a ballot it would lose and lose badly. If a $15 and hour min. wage was put up it would have a hard time. I'm even doubtful that a referendum against Citizens United pass.

The reason is simple...Public opinion is shaped.

Well at least someone is doing the right thing...

Bernie Sanders Just Introduced His Free College Tuition Plan
Joining with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders wants students to organize around the legislation.

but we could have had the SCOTUS. That opportunity was squandered.

We should have had the SCOTUS before the election. When the Democratic President put forward a nominee who never got a fucking vote. If Clinton was President, with a Republican Congress, they would let the rest of the Justices die without replacing one. They said as much last year, no reason to doubt them.

First of all..the quote was...
"shared common values and policy interests".

And what you get out of all of this was that Hillary supporters thought you were on the same side as the tragedy here? ...WOW!!

You have foreign agents representing them selves as...YOU and as supporters of your candidate (and mine) being so crass and crude that they may have cost Bernie the election ( never been known) in backlash or non-votes...and you are worried that a Hillary supporter thinks that you have a lot in common.

Technically speaking foobar is a foreign agent.

Well...It's not the foreign part that bothers me...it's well...this

I mean, that's not my favourite Beatles song either...

Yeah, but I'm 65 so it has a kind of resonance. The Democrats definitely need fresh blood.
(That made me think of Bela Lugosi)

I love how it has occured to nearly none of you that you are both right. Consider for a moment Hillary pulled the Obama Bro bullshit, and the Russians noticed an exploitable division.

There is no doubting that many fake accounts were made, and have gone dark since the election. The bots were real.

See my followups. That's the crux of my argument. She was a horrible, exploitable, compromised candidate. And they need to stop using the Russians to pretend that isn't the case.

So I can't post an article from Zerohedge without people losing their minds over it potentially being fake news, but a fucking blatant blogpost from ShareBlue is perfectly a-ok.

It's going to be a fun year watching you neo-libs dig yourselves deeper and deeper into that hole.

Look up the actual definition of Neoliberalism. Zerohedge is it.

So then why do you people freak the fuck out anytime someone uses it as a buffer against a paysite like the WSJ?

ShareBlue is owned by David Brock. One of Hillary's puppets. It's even more blatantly propagandist than fucking Stormfront.

Can't answer for how folks mod, but if you check the comments on this post, there's not really much sympathy for it. Note that two of the four mods are 'funny'.

I am against Zero Hedge because it is a font of conspiracy theories not because it's owned by someone I dislike. In this case, I also dislike this site but the aligation in this article is right, and if there was another source discussing it, id link them.

Also this is obviously opinion, not being presented as news.
Some of this was covered though in this post.

Not just opinion. This information comes from the current investigation, plus I went looking for the Bernie Bros that fucked with my mom and sister and the author is right. Accounts gone since after the election.

I don't know how much of an effect this had... But it certainly happened.

Sure, totally agree. Not to question the veracity, just saying it's a point of view, not 'hard news' reporting.

A little worrisome that at no point did anyone seem to remember Correct The Record. (wiki)