David Brock is not worried about Bernie Sanders

[portlander23]

Chicago Mag: David Brock Calls Hillary’s Email Scandal ‘Phony,’ Says the ‘Air is Going Out’

Bernie Sanders isn’t in your book. He just visited Chicago to appear at Axelrod’s IOP. I’m sure he was invited by Axelrod. What do you make of Bernie? Is he a real threat or is he unelectable?

I think we’ve gone through a ’small d’ democratic process on the Democratic side. He’s speaking to issues such as reining in Wall Street, campaign finance reform, and income inequality that excite a lot of people in the Democratic base. But Hillary Clinton’s speaking to those things, too. I think if you took campaign finance reform, you could say that she has put more meat on the bone in terms of her proposals that could actually achieve some real reform. If you go back to 2011 at this time in that cycle, the year before the election, and you look at polling in the early states, you’d have President Rick Perry or you’d have President Michele Bachmann. … So I’m not real concerned about it. I think we will have a healthy debate in Las Vegas and I would just compare that to all the name calling that goes on on the Republican side, none of which we’ve seen on the Democratic side.

I’ve seen that you were critical of Sanders and said that he praised the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. You also tied him to the new leader of Britain’s Labour Party, socialist Jeremy Corbyn. Still sounds like you might be a bit worried about Bernie.

No, all it was was an attempt to start to draw some differences and some contrasts. This is a political campaign, and inevitably you’re going to have to do some of that.

For the most part, Sanders doesn’t attack Hillary and Hillary doesn’t attack Sanders. Should that change? Should Hillary be speaking out more against him?

I don’t think so. I think she was asked on “Face the Nation” and said there wouldn’t be negative advertising and negative attack. Going to try to keep the debate completely substantive. I think that’s good.

If the polls are right and Bernie wins the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire, is it a light wound or a deep wound?

I think you always want your candidate to be ahead in every poll and win every primary, but that’s not politics, so there’s no way that it wouldn’t be something of a setback. But I think the Clinton campaign is organized to such a degree that even if that happened, and I don’t think it will, she’s still very well positioned to be the nominee.

The fact that Sanders is drawing thousands to his rallies and she’s drawing hundreds to her rallies—how do you explain that?

Well, again, there are certain issues that he has picked up that are finding a constituency in the Democratic party. I think that’s one explanation. Another explanation is Hillary has run before; she’s been in the public sphere for decades. She’s a very known commodity. He’s something different, so I think that’s another reason he’s attracting that kind of attention.

David Brock founded Correct the Record, a Super PAC that is coordinating directly with the Clinton campaign.

The group sent out an email to the press on September 14th attempting to negatively tie Bernie Sanders to Jeremy Corbyn and Hugo Chavez over his efforts to secure low-cost heating oil for lower-income Vermont residents, the first negative attack in the Democratic primary.

Mr. Brock categorized the attack as "standard opposition research":

Jennifer Granholm, who holds a leadership position with the Super PAC, attempted to distance Mrs. Clinton from the attack, referring to it as "contrast material". Granholm also lamented the existence of Super PACs in spite of working for Correct the Record and formerly working for Priorities USA, another Clinton affiliated Super PAC.

Mr. Sanders referred to the incident as a vicious attack:

Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously. They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator.

It was the kind of onslaught I expected to see from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson, and it’s the second time a billionaire super PAC has tried to stop the momentum of the political revolution we’re building together.

Mr. Sanders raised $1.2 million from donors in response to the attack.

Since the incident, Mrs. Clinton has personally stated that she has "no interest" in negative attacks:

[Avalux]

1. The fact that Hillary associates herself with Brock speaks volumes.

It makes me want to puke.

[HooptieWagon]

2. He's no worse than her other associates...

Henry Kissinger, The Family, the Koch brothers (who funded the DLC). In fact, Brock fits right in.

[Hortensis]

4. She doesn't. He did a major hatchet job on her when he was with the GOP, including

writing a best-selling book devoted to swiftboating her with chapter after chapter of lies and filthy slurs. Some years ago this snake got tied of the way his "friends" on the right treated gays, and switched sides. He eventually opened his site devoted to something he is a first-class expert on: Right-wing lies, but exposing them. He's still a untrustworthy sleaze, though.

As for your allegation, Avalux, Hillary is far too scarred and traumatized to forget or forgive anything like that, and any association is strictly in the minds of her many enemies, Avalux.

[99Forever]

3. david who?

[tularetom]

5. David Brock needs to keep up the "good work"

The last time he did a sneak attack on Sanders, it resulted in over a million bucks going into the Sanders campaign coffers in just a couple of days.

Brock started out with some right wing outfit doing hit pieces on the Clintons, until they offered him more money to come and do hit pieces on their opponents. We all know what that makes him, right?

He's a slimy little shit. In addition to being a ho.