2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Hill: Here the Clintons go again, using surrogates to smear opponents
The Hill: Here the Clintons go again, using surrogates to smear opponentsThe Clinton team is at it again, casually smearing successful opponents through surrogates in the face of poor polling. Remember January 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) began outdrawing Hillary Clinton in South Carolina and elsewhere? On that occasion, recall, Hillary's husband and agent, Bill, sniffed that Obama's surprisingly strong showing in South Carolina was insignificant because Jesse Jackson had won there, too, in the 1980s.
This time, it's not Obama, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who's pulling ahead of Hillary. And this time, her agent is Clinton family friend and Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. The occasion? In his celebrated speech two weeks ago at Jerry Falwell's own Liberty University — a speech that, remarkably, drew even some evangelicals now to support Sanders's bid for the presidency — Sanders noted that our nation was in some respects built upon racism. The very acknowledgment of this obvious and hardly controversial truth, Wilentz immediately complained on behalf of Hillary Clinton in a New York Times op-ed, "threatens to poison the current presidential campaign."
Wilentz first conveniently rereads Sanders's observation as a claim about the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (which it was not), then proceeds to argue that at the time of its writing, this document, though it prohibited the federal government from interfering in slaveholders' rights to own human beings and enshrined the proposition that slaves count as 3/5 citizens for purposes of congressional districting, did not reflect racism.
What is yet stranger about Wilentz's gripe, however, is its sheer misdirection. For again, Sanders was not speaking simply of the Constitution — he was speaking of our nation, which of course includes but is much more than its 1787 Constitution.
Our nation is also its earliest origins, its laws and policies that the Constitution allowed and allows, and its broader culture and mores. These include an enduring — and until very recently, underinclusive — commitment to liberty and equal justice under law. But they also include genocide against indigenous peoples, over 200 years of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Acts, the Dred Scott decision, Jim Crow laws, the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II, today's police violence and a host of additional policies, programs and permissions.
All of the above and more were cases in which we fell short of our own highest ideals, as Sanders himself eloquently articulates.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It defines them.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)They are hitting him from both sides.
left right combo.
They want it every way. He's too conservative, he's too socialist. It's becoming more and more clear that there's a reason the 1% fears Bernie Sanders. Because his message does have potential to resonate across the board, and actually unite the people for once.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are far more aware of these Corporate Funded dirty tricksters than they ever were before and the instant responses to them over the past few months, have been impressive.
The 'Bernie has a problem with AAs' attempted smear, only resulted in helping to fix the ONLY problem he had there, introducing him to AAs who are now wondering why they didnt know him before and many of them are working hard to fix his lack of name recognition among minorities all over the country.
A backfire of spectacular proportions. I mean when your goal is to harm someone and it turns out you help them, that is failure of massive proportions.
Same thing with Brock, who succeeded in doing the almost impossible, raising over one million dollars for Bernie.
Even the original surrogates for Hillary, Gutierrez 'you mean the Socialist' has now acknowledge Bernie's success.
And Donna Brazile recently tweeted '#FeelTheBerni on her twitter account.
Now we have Axelrod forced to acknowledge his mistake in initially dismissing Bernie.
But the dirtiest one was the attempt to spread the vile hashtag #Berniessoblack, which we saw on this site, and which backfired as people found it so racist in itself and were so disgusted to see the race card again being used on behalf of Hillary, she probably lost even more former supporters. We KNOW she lost people llike Lil B because he explained why he switched to Bernie after the race card was played.
It's great to see the enormous pushback now against all these smear campaigners who are funded by dark money.
All they are doing is PROVING Bernie right, that that money has a corrosive and corrupting effect on our electoral system and must be removed from it.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is a scary thing to the wealthy
Bucky
(54,087 posts)The notion of rotation in office applies to all politicians in a republic--especially a large republic that has to struggle to retain it's non-imperial traditions. Even politicians as gifted and honorable as the Clintons, for all their talents, are susceptible to the corruptions of flattery, access, and cronyism. I don't always agree with them politically, but I have ZERO doubt that we are a better nation for having had 8 years of President Bubba and 4 years of SecState Hillary Clinton. But they've been at the eye of the hurricane too long. It's high time we rolled someone else in who can say "NO" to the powerful and the chummy.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This third way/play the middle/evade questions/flip flop does not indicate sleaze. It indicates that they're part of the system, and will not fight for change. Since IMO change is so desperately needed, that makes Hillary the least desirable candidate for me. But I'm sure this will be declared "hate", "misogyny", and MRA by the hillarians here and at the "I hate DU" site.
Clayton Clay
(52 posts)But it's juicy gossip though, and linkbait works.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Clayton Clay
(52 posts)As if "surrogate" were an official title.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Posts on DU have been pointed to as reasons to vote against Sanders.
As to Wilentz, I have no idea whether there was express coordination, implied coordination, or completely independent action. Trying to tie Clinton to his statement seems to me to be far less important than pointing out why he's wrong.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I liked Geraldine Ferraro until she said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
She died before she could redeem herself.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)
jfern
(5,204 posts)But the campaign has been paying the expenses of many of their surrogates.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)We'll add this guy to the list of Clinton Surrogate Drones who have fragged Bernie on TV and radio and in print:
* Luis Gutierrez
* Claire McCaskill
* Carlos Danger
* Joaquin Castro
* Andrew Cuomo
* Sean Wilentz
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)President. So why is Bernie off limits and Hillary is not?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Bernie serrogates right?
jkbRN
(850 posts)Do not attack Hillary by means of MSM and skewed (too put it nicely) information.
What they do is pony out policy differences, yes, they do that--and that's fair game.
If you can find a surrogate that uses MSM to bash Hillary and to build up Sanders let me know, because as of right now it seems as if you are making false claims.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You wonder why people don't want Bernie to be President.
The hypocrisy is out of control
Also I don't burn incense to the spelling police
jkbRN
(850 posts)Please don't cry 
Also, you should be aware of the difference b/t a surrogate and supporters/fans
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)I'll wait while you do that before I make you sound foolish.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)and it wasn't nice at all.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Find any post from me other than here and the hill.com. You can search until the morning after the sun no longer rises and you won't find a damn thing. But by all means, go look there instead of empty arguments here. Then come back here and share your findings. I'll be here waiting.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and suggesting that the poster you suggested should ignore you (upaloopa) was likely to post about you on one of the hillary supporter sites. I could be wrong, that's how i read it though.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)It was meant for rougevalley.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I thought you'd be apologizing to the other one. Whatever...
frylock
(34,825 posts)exposed their loyalty long ago.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Hillary's exact words! And then a bunch of her supporters call us out for being hateful towards her.
murielm99
(30,780 posts)They are all over twitter and other sites, too. His supporters act as his surrogates, bashing Hillary, spreading false information about the so-called scandals, posting right-wing sources.
If you can call Hillary's defenders surrogates, we can make the same claim.
Response to murielm99 (Reply #39)
roguevalley This message was self-deleted by its author.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I liked this one, from charlotte scot Old Lyme, CT September 16, 2015
To me the fact that slave trade was not abolished from the beginning gave a legitimacy to it which cannot be denied. The idea that the white men seated around a table at the Constitutional Convention allowed slavery to continue to 1800... then extended it to 1808 was, in effect condoning the practice and thus institutionalizing it. Add to this the painful truth that many of our leaders were slave owners and a precedent was set that gave many white citizens the impression they were somehow superior to the native people and the Africans forcefully brought here. In too many places in our country this attitude prevails. As long as we continue to make excuses for our past decisions, we will perpetuate the unenlightened views of our ancestors.
And this one:
Riley Temple Washington, DC September 16, 2015
For heaven's sake, such careful analysis of the history of the convention to prove what precisely? Whether or not slavery by its terms was, or was not, expressly included or repudiated in the final document that became the Constitution of the United States of America alters what? The facts are that slavery was fully embraced by the framers, discussed and debated at length according to this historian, and it should have been denounced and abolished as wholly inconsistent with the bedrock principles of freedom, equality, liberty, and democracy, but it was not. It was clearly not an oversight, but was allowed to continue by these great men with great minds. The fact is that the founding document is, by its terms, hypocritical, and the writer makes a strong case for it. It assumed a whole race of people as unworthy of the full and unqualified fundamental rights of human beings. The writer finds that breathtaking fact, well-proven by his essay, to be insufficient to label it as racist. This essay makes quite a persuasive case that the framers wrote our Constitution and designed it to ensure that its clarion bells of freedom would ring hollow for all human chattel in their midst. Whether it expressly included slavery, or not, the result was the same for the slaves.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)doesn't mean they're working on their order.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)The long-time Clinton family friend and supporter, Wilentz is quite the piece of work.
Wilentz has prominently engaged in current political debate. He is reportedly a long-time family friend of the Clintons.[10] He has appeared in public venues as a staunch defender of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton: he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. He told the House members that, if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton's offenses were impeachable:
"...history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness."
His testimony cheered Democratic partisans but was criticized by the New York Times, which lamented his "gratuitously patronizing presentation" in an editorial.[11]
In 2008 Wilentz was an outspoken supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for the presidency.[16] He wrote an essay in the New Republic analyzing Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, charging Obama with creating "manipulative illusion[s]" and "distortions," and having "purposefully polluted the [primary electoral] contest" with "the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988."[17] During the Democratic National Convention, Wilentz charged in Newsweek that "liberal intellectuals have largely abdicated their responsibility to provide unblinking and rigorous analysis" of Obama. "Hardly any prominent liberal thinkers" have questioned his "rationalizations" about his relationship to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., or "his patently evasive accounts" of his "ties" to the "unrepentant terrorist William Ayers." For Wilentz, Obama is untested, cloudy, problematic—and liberal intellectuals have given him a free ride.[18] Wilentz was criticized by bloggers and others for his criticism of Obama.[19] He has also come under fire for the alleged historical inaccuracy of his attacks on the idea of nullification.[20].
In January 2014 Wilentz took issue with those involved in the 2013 NSA leaks, in particular Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange. In Wilentz' view, "the value of some of their revelations does not mean that they deserve the prestige and influence that has been accorded to them. The leakers and their supporters would never hand the state modern surveillance powers, even if they came wrapped in all sorts of rules and regulations that would constrain their abuse. They are right to worry, but wrong — even paranoid — to distrust democratic governments in this way. Surveillance and secrecy will never be attractive features of a democratic government, but they are not inimical to it, either. This the leakers will never understand."[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Wilentz
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)You knew I was referring to both of them, didn't cha?
Is "Brangelina" also a right wing term?
at least own your hatred.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I don't hate them. Hatred is a very negative emotion which eats away at the person harboring it. I am supporting and campaigning for a number of progressive Democratic primary candidates - for U.S. Senate, for U.S. House of Representatives, and for state house of representatives. I don't "hate" any of their primary opponents.
Have just a lovely day, dear! Think happy thoughts!
On edit: I am so totally without hate that I never have and do not now keep an enemies list for purposes of "revenge."
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)baggage
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)her supporters.
Your point is....?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)which is what the poster said.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)actions and behaviors of supporters should not affect/reflect on the candidate.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Which way would you like it, once and for all?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts).. by obsessively focusing in on a single word in your subject heading?
Pretty impressive, but then that's a trusted implement from the Distractivist Toolbox.
Faux pas
(14,703 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And Hillary made him say it??
Ok.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Sean Wilentz is a very well known Princeton historian. Unfortunately, he's almost as well known for being a Hillary shill.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... who this guy is. I
But clearly, Hillary sent him out to attack Bernie.
I get it. Mean Ole Hillary.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The more people learn about Hillary, the less likely they are to vote for her.
The more people learn about Bernie, the more likely they are to vote for him.
That's why Hillary's poll numbers are going down, down, down, and Bernie's are going up, up, up.
That's also why limiting the number of debates is so important to the Clinton campaign. Heaven forbid should the American people actually learn more about how Bernie and Hillary differ on important issues. It could ruin everything!
WASHINGTON -- As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has a tight circle of advisers who counsel her on economic policy, foreign affairs and politics in general. In Sean Wilentz, she also has something of a house historian.
Wilentz, a Princeton professor, was an outspoken supporter of Clinton during her previous presidential bid, and has remained close to her since, according to Clinton insiders. He has been helping Clinton understand where and how her potential administration, and that of her husband Bill Clinton, fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more, according to people who know both him and the candidate.
Wilentz, Princeton's George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, was a guest of honor at a Ready for Hillary event in the Hamptons, one Clinton source said, and remains in close touch with Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz_n_7337896.html
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Found this tidbit on his website, http://seanwilentz.com/about/
"In 1998, Wilentz joined with his friends and colleagues Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and C. Vann Woodward to form Historians in Defense of the Constitution, an ad hoc organization of several hundred American historians who opposed on constitutional grounds the impeachment of President Bill Clinton."
And here on Huffington Post: "He has been helping Clinton understand where and how her potential administration, and that of her husband Bill Clinton, fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more, according to people who know both him and the candidate."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz_n_7337896.html
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Very interesting. Explains a lot.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Wilentz, Princeton's George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, was a guest of honor at a Ready for Hillary event in the Hamptons, one Clinton source said, and remains in close touch with Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz_n_7337896.html
OregonBlue
(7,755 posts)very large grain of salt. Just read the comments section sometime. It's enough to gag a maggot.
jkbRN
(850 posts)Although you have a point, the establishment and the RW are not too different. 
frylock
(34,825 posts)because you should see the comments over there.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So Clinton surrogate argues that slavery doesn't reflect racism.
Astounding.
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)Obama and Hillary war criminals. Bernie can deal with it.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)Among other atrocious things he's said.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And Willie and Hill will do the Mad Magazine, "What Me Worry" shrug...claiming they know nothing about it...*wink, wink*
Do they ever tell the creeps to NOT do dirty garbage? Of course NOT!
The good part is, when their slimy, creepy, sleazy ilk try the dirty...it's always a total fail and raises MORE money for Bernie!
So bring it, liars!
Uncle Joe
(58,505 posts)Thanks for the thread, portlander.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)You see for Wilentz, Native Americans still don't count as people. He only considers slavey while ignoring genocide of the indigenous people.
world wide wally
(21,758 posts)And why do people at DU just feed into it?
Once again, smearing the "opponent" is the only way to live.. right?
I hope someday you can see through this Republican bullshit.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)truth? Give us a list of shit to comment about because there appears to be nothing beyond bouquets and fluffy bunnies you don't lose her side doesn't lose its shit over.
Response to portlander23 (Original post)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to portlander23 (Original post)
99th_Monkey This message was self-deleted by its author.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Just look at DU, and the number of threads by Bernie surrogates using the same talking points as the right wing, such as the nonsense Benghazi and email scandals, and even the so-called scandal involving Huma Abedin. Sadly, that's what politics is today.
frylock
(34,825 posts)the mail server issue points to Hillary's inability to use sound judgment. Moreover, comparing DUers grousing online to the likes of Claire McCaskill or Joaquin Castro is ridiculous.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)There certainly have been references to Benghazi.
As far as the email issue, see how you're falling for the Republican line. Consider this:
- There is a lot of evidence that government servers have been hacked many times making millions of people vulnerable.
- There is no scandal with Hillary's email. What she did was legal and there is no evidence that our foreign policy or security were compromised.
In other words, it's a made up issue, where too many Bernie supporters are towing the right wing line.
As far as your last point, since when his Sean Wilentz a household name? In fact, on DU his name doesn't seem to show up since 2008 until today.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I understand the concept of best practice. Something your candidate doesn't.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)But, I'm sick of the right wing attacks on Hillary coming from the left. The email story is bullshit, the crap about Benghazi is bullshit, the story about Huma Abedin is bullshit. The attacks on Hillary's stand on Iraq, her support for NAFTA and TPP, and her support for the Patriot Act, her stand on the death penalty are all enough reason to support Sanders and oppose Hillary without parroting the right wing.
frylock
(34,825 posts)which in and of itself doesn't disqualify her. But as I stated before, it continues the pattern of using poor judgment and a lack of foresight on her part.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)campaign surrogates and anonymous individual supporters on a message board, right?
Apparently not!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)you will do well to learn the difference between a citizen supporter posting on an internet forum with no personal or professional connection to the candidate and no position of power in the political world, to a candidate's surrogate who is a personal friend, long-time ally, and guest of honor at the candidate's fundraiser, with a long history of media performances for the purpose of promoting the Clintons.
I hear you on not using RW attacks on our own candidates, but conflating DU supporters with campaign surrogates is way off base, misleading at best.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)It matters not whether other Democrats have ever heard of Willentz in determining whether he is HRC's surrogate. What matters is how close he is (and has LONG been) to HRC.
Wilentz, Princeton's George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, was a guest of honor at a Ready for Hillary event in the Hamptons, one Clinton source said, and remains in close touch with Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz_n_7337896.html
Baltimore18
(45 posts)that when I click your link, it says:
"The views expressed by contributors are their own and not those of the Hill."