Tuesday, May 3, 2016

How Hillary Clinton Became the New Nixon. Transcripts and All.





From almost the beginning of his political career well into his presidency, Richard Nixon had a nickname bestowed upon him by the press that stuck. It was Tricky Dick. There was even a famous political poster showing a smiling Nixon with the words, "Would You Buy a Used Car From This Man"?

Nixon it seems always had a political trick up his sleeve and rarely played it straight. He was known for underhanded political tactics and he couldn't be trusted.

The same can now be said for Hillary Clinton who has demonstrated how easily it is for her to be dishonest, unscrupulous and as underhanded as Richard Nixon or for that matter Barrack Obama who might have told more lies and reneged on more promises than any president in history which makes Clinton's under the table political deal with Obama and her willingness to lie and be underhanded understandable.

Clinton's transformation began with her sell out to Obama to serve her own personal ambition. When Axelrod wrote in his campaign memo in 2008 that  Clinton "has no convictions and will shift positions based on political expediency" little did he know that would become even more apparent in 2016 with her 180 degree reversals on Obama. Clinton went from calling Obama a liar in '08 on his claim of being a law professor,said he was unqualified even to be Vice President, to unqualified praise of Obama and his largely failed policies and  her promise to continue them. This is in return for Obama's influence and control of the DNC to do what it can to rig the process for Clinton orchestrated by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC and has been so obvious that David Gergen said on CNN as far back as February that "its obvious the DNC is in the tank for Clinton".

The Sanders campaign knows it too.

Here's a look at some of Clinton's lies, policy reversals, underhanded tactics and political dirty tricks.

In 2008 when it was politically expedient Hillary Clinton told a campaign rally in Indiana that she was "pro gun" and talked about how her father taught her to shoot when she was a little girl.  In 2016  when it was politically expedient Clinton campaigned as anti-gun and tried to exploit the tragedy in Sandy Hook for her own political gain,something that might have made even Nixon cringe. She was also caught lying about Sanders and claims about more guns coming from Vermont used in murders in New York city than any other state.  It was poetic justice that her attempts at exploiting Sandy Hook got her nothing. The CT primary results ended up so close that even though she technically claimed it as a "win" she ended up splitting the delegates with Sanders almost 50-50 netting one more delegate than Sanders. Her attempt at using the heartbreaking murders to serve her political ambitions got her nothing. But revealed a lot about her character.

That Nixonian character was revealed further by her attempt to smear Sanders with a monumental lie about Vermont as the biggest source of guns used in murders in New York city. It was exposed as a lie by both the Washington Post and Politifact.

A closer look at her Vermont claim shows just how dishonest Clinton can be and how Nixonian, willing to stoop to any deciet to try and win.

In terms of the number of guns used in murders committed in New York city, the overwhelming majority of those guns, 1,375,came from New York city itself. Second on the list was Virginia where 375 guns were used in New York city murders.Vermont wasn't even in the top ten. In fact the number of guns used in New York city murders that could be traced to Vermont was 55 making Vermont number 15. So how did Clinton decide she could get away with her claim? Dana Bash weakly tried to pin Clinton down during a Democratic debate by asking how she justified that statement and Clinton refused to answer. Clinton tried to filibuster, going off in another direction on unrelated tangents.Three times Bash told Clinton "youre not answering the question" and three times Clinton went in circles avoiding the answer.

Later Clinton tried to justify her claim by using the term " per capita".It was as sleazy a way of trying to justify a dishonest attack on an opponant in recent memory. Clinton's lie was based, not on the number of guns but the number of people living in Vermont. Vermont has a population of only 612,000 compared to say New York with 20 million; So Clinton and her equally dishonest campaign manager Robby Mook,known for putting out phony campaign memos designed to be "leaked to the press" filled with self serving "analysis" and what is "mathematically impossible",decided they could make the statemen by using "per capita" as the justification,the number of guns divided by the small population of the state of Vermont.That is the depth of political dishonesty Hillary Clinton is willing to go and only re-enforces why the majority of Americans don't trust her. And what makes her so Nixon-like.

Hillary Clinton's politically expedient reversals from 2008 when she was running against Obama include Clinton calling Obama a liar, not once but twice for calling himself a law professor and presented evidence to refute Obama's claims. In 2016 pandering for votes in front of an African American audience she said what a great Supreme Court justice Obama would make  because "he has the credentials. He's a law professor."

And recently during a dust up between Sanders and Clinton over who said who was unqualified what went completely ignored by the news media and especially Rachel Maddow in an interview with Jane Sanders, was that in 2008  in answer to a question about whether Clinton would consider Obama as a running mate Clinton said Obama wasn't  even qualified to be Vice President.Yet in 2008 in  return for not contesting the 2008 nomination at the convention she made a deal and accepted the position of Secretary of State which meant carrying out the policies of a president she said was"unqualified".Again ambition ahead of principle.

Which plays right into Axelrod's assessment in 2008 that Clinton has no convictions and will reverse herself for political expediency. She has done just that on fracking, the XL pipeline,and TPP though Sanders is making that very difficult.

As for more dirty tricks, her super delegate count has been her way of fraudulently padding her delegate totals and  to sucker a lazy, dishonest and incompetent news media into presenting them as part of her pledged delegate total. Democratic party rules are clear that super delegate declarations or endorsements do not count, and would not count unless and until actually cast at the convention, something that hasnt happened in 32 years.

Something else has never happened. Never since super delegates were created in 1981 has any super delegates indicated a preference (and thats all it is since they are non-binding and noncommittal) before the end of the primary season. Never.

Only once before have super delegates indicated a preference before the convention and that was 2008 but not until the end of June and after the last primary. Clinton rounded up super delegates with the help of Debby Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC in January and February to get them to declare and obeying party bosses they did to make it look like Clinton's totals were far greater than they really were. And like these trained seals at CNN and MSNBC, these so called "journalists" include these "preferences" thrown at them along with the actual pledged delegates won in primaries and count them when showing Clinton's total. Also for their own self serving reasons in kowtowing to a party establishment they will want to be friendly with in the future.

There is also concrete evidence of a little something called voter fraud that has taken place on Clinton's behalf in NY, the 18th District in Chicago, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, and South Carolina, something even Nixon didn't get his hands dirty with.

In New York the Attorney General is investigating what they are calling "irregularities" in  the NY primary including 140,000 people wrongly purged from voter rolls who were kept from voting. But there is more than that to investigate

The biggest "irregularity"  which signaled voter fraud were the exit polls in New York, the most reliable polling there is and conducted by one firm, Edison Research, who does the polls then licenses the results to various news organization including CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the three networks. Exit polls have been shown to be accurate within 3/10ths of a percent to the final vote totals. They are far more accurate than telephone polls.The exit polls showed Clinton winning a very tight race in New York 52-48 which would have not only been humiliating for Clinton but would have resulted in splitting the delegates with Sanders 50-50. That would have called her very candidacy into question. While the exit poll showed a Clinton win by 4 points, the  final result was Clinton by 16. A Huffington Post statistical analysis that the final results could have been that far off the exit polls and NOT be voter fraud was 123,000-1.

A close examination of  the fraud in four other states, South Carolina, Ohio, Nevada, the 18th district in Chicago and Colorado will be the subject of another piece.

Add to this a current federal investigation of  NY Mayor Bill DiBlasio one of Clinton's biggest supporters into DiBlasio's illegal fundraising that an investigator said has produced enough evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution and the closer one looks the uglier it gets for Clinton.This came on the heels of  the Sanders campaign filing a complaint with the DNC against Clinton herself engaging in illegal fundraising involving bundling and money raised at events that were supposed to go to down ticket Democrats but 80% of which went to Clinton. Every legal expert looking into it came to the conclusion that if it wasnt illegal it was definitely "unethical".

But what has been perhaps the most blatant comparison to Nixon are the Clinton transcripts of speeches made to Wall Street and the health insurance industry behind closed doors over the last two years for which she was paid $21 million in speaking fees. Clinton is determined to keep voters from seeing what's in them.

Making Clinton's stonewalling on her transcripts even more Nixonian has been Carl Bernstein saying on CNN that Clinton must release the transcripts.

Sanders has made an issue not just of the speeches but Clinton's refusal to make the transcripts public so voters can see for themselves what Clinton told Wall Street executives behind closed doors and how it compares with what she tells voters campaigning. It is as valid a campaign issue as income inequality or healthcare and something Clinton  wants to bury.

There are things we do know however. We know that Hillary Clinton, Bill, her campaign manager Robby Mook and closet most trusted staff have gone over every one of those transcripts and have concluded they are too damaging to Clinton's candidacy to be released.Nixon concluded the same which is why he released transcripts with the most damning passages redacted. It didn't work.

It's clear that if Clinton's transcripts weren't so damaging and damning she would have released them by now and made Sanders look foolish.So its obvious there is nothing in them that would do Clinton any good. Given her penchant for underhanded tactics and lies if those transcripts would have benefitted her in any way they would have been released long ago. But Clinton is hiding them and using one lame excuse after another to justify not releasing them. Each excuse makes her look worse.

One excuse: she will release them when everyone else does even though no one else other than Trump has made any speeches and it isnt known if he were paid for them or not. Besides, what Republicans do in their primary campaign to choose their candidate is none of Clinton's business. No Republican is going to do anything because Clinton says so. Saying she'll do it when everyone else does is so juvenile it wouldn't fly in Pre-K.

Her other excuse is she doesnt want to be "held to a different standard than everyone else". A news flash to Hillary Clinton: presidents are always held to a different standard than everyone else and so are those who are candidates. If Clinton doesnt want to be held to a different standard than everyone else she has no business running for president so she should get out now.

Ironically Clinton has released her tax returns so we can know what she was paid for these speeches but not what's in them.What does that say?

Sanders can make Clinton's refusal to release her speeches as damning as what would happen if she did release them. Its also amusing that everytime Sanders brings up the speeches and her refusal to release the transcripts she complains he is attacking her character.

Sanders is often asked what his path is to the nomination. One is winning the majority of pledged delegates. Nancy Pelosi is on record in 2008 saying super delegates are obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates in the primaries. If Democrats did anything to try and change the standards for Clinton all hell will break loose in Philadelphia.

If nothing else, super delegates in states Sanders won and won by landslides should be obligated to vote for him. If they dont they will face certain defeat in primaries next time they run for ignoring the will of their voters and catering to party bosses to vote for Clinton. Sanders has rightly said he deserves the super delegates in the states he has won and if he gets them he can win..There will be more hell to pay if that doesnt happen.

Then there is Donna Brazile's statement in 2008 when it looked like super delegates were deserting Obama for Clinton that " if super delegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic party." If Clinton gets the nomination through shady political tactics especially through super delegates she didnt earn, Sanders voters will also quit the Democratic party and that will mean disaster for Democrats in November.

But there is one other scenario, admittedly remote but still hanging out there like the Sword of Damocles and one more reason Sanders will never quit and go all the way to the convention:  that somehow Clinton's transcripts gets leaked by someone. If that ever happened, once they became public Democratic party officials would probably tell Clinton to drop out. Every super delegate would run for cover. It would be similar to what Republicans did with Nixon when what was redacted from his transcripts were eventually made public through the tapes. They told Nixon he had to resign.

NOTE: A Politico investigation revealed today (5/3) the Hillary Clinton fundraising scheme mentioned above, the Hillary Victory Fund, was being used to circumvent campaign finance laws. The fund, whose creation was to raise money for down ticket and state Democrats is a virtual slush fund for Clinton with  Politico describing it as " a money laundering conduit for Clinton". The scheme which has seen almost all but 1% of the $61 million raised go to Clinton and not the state parties they were intended is a scheme is a devious money laundering scheme that has more in common with drug dealers or organized crime than someone wanting to be president.Which makes Clinton not so much the New Nixon, but a politician so unethical as to be looking up at him.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Is Clinton Hoping the Same Dirty Politics That Beat Her in '08 Will Win For Her Now?





In 2008 the Democratic primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and the convention that followed in Denver  was probably the dirtiest and most dishonest Democratic political campaign since the days of Boss Tweed who ran the Democratic party establishment in New York in the 1850's and rigged just about every election.

The Democratic National Committee and its hierarchy including Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazile also did everything they could in 2008 to try and thwart Hillary Clinton's run for the nomination against Barrack Obama.

No one knows better than Clinton how underhanded the DNC and Democratic Party establishment can be. They tried to tie her hands behind her back, pressured her to back off  on her attacks against Obama and asked her to "tone it down"(sound familiar?) so intent they were in getting Obama the nomination they didnt want Clinton to do or say anything that could damage Obama in a general election. 

In the end the DNC with help from a compliant news media railroaded Clinton out of the nomination at the convention with Clinton playing the good soldier and willing to go along. Tactics very similar to what the DNC and Clinton are trying to do now to Sanders and have been threatening to do at the convention in July.

Clinton's payback was Secretary of State and the promise that it would be "her turn" the next time Democrats were to choose a nominee. She agreed. And Obama and the DNC have been trying to make good on those promises.

Unlike Clinton though who went along with the charade for a price, Sanders will not and has refused to back off or tone down his campaign and never will. Especially since he has been showing he is the stronger candidate. Which has rankled many in the Democratic party establishment who are realizing Sanders, unlike themselves and 90% of the politicians out there, is a different animal, will never compromise his own integrity for anyone and actually means what he says.

That the Democratic party establishment is in the tank for Clinton is beyond question. David Gergen pointed out as much back in February when he said it was "obvious". It's Clinton's payback for being a team player in 2008 and agreeing not to contest Obama's nomination at the convention. And so Clinton is counting on the same dirty politics that went against her in 2008 working for her now. Clinton and the backroom Democratic establishment's problem is Bernie Sanders.

How underhanded can the Democratic establishment  be? In 2008 the DNC  invalidated and disenfranchised 1, 600,000 Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan using as an excuse the fact that two party chairman in both states moved up their primaries to dates not sanctioned by the DNC in violation of DNC rules. For that,the DNC said they were invalidating the elections and would not count the votes of 1,600,000 Democrats nor seat their elected delegates.

Since when do you penalize 1,600,000 Democratic voters who had nothing to do with DNC rules for the supposed transgressions of two people? Since polls in both states showed Clinton destroying Obama in both elections and ultimately did just that as the elections took place anyway.


A compliant news media making the nomination of Obama as the first black president a priority to make themselves look noble after 8 years of bowing and scraping to George W Bush happily went along and refused to count Florida and Michigan in their delegate and voter totals even though the elections were legitimate. The effect was to make Obama's lead and  popularity look much bigger than it really was.


Sound familiar? The DNC is playing a similar game now for Clinton but in reverse, instead of taking votes away, drumming up 469 super delegates who for the first time in the history of the Democratic party suddenly had an overwhelming urge to declare their love in February and March, something that has never happened before, even though their declarations dont actually count as votes, can be changed and officially don't mean a thing now.  Other than to cosmetically make it look like Clinton has a bigger lead than she really has, something her manipulative and dishonest campaign people keep trying to use. It's nothing but dirty campaign tactics aided and abetted by the DNC given that super delegates havent cast a real vote in 32 years and DNC rules are clear that any declaration before the convention doesnt count for a thing.

 But like in 2008, a compliant herd like news media insists on including these fabricated totals instead of  showing Clinton's real lead which as of this writing is 217 delegates making their claim of invincibility and inevitability with 700+ delegates more to be won look stupid.

That there was this outpouring of super delegates from states where primaries had yet to take place as well as in states Sanders crushed Clinton is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as chair of the Obama controlled DNC trying to do what she can to rig the nomination for Clinton as per Obama's marching orders by trying to create phony expectations.

What's worse is super delegates in states like Washington where Sanders crushed Clinton so badly he reduced her to a Lyndon LaRouch-like non-entity, every super delegate in that state, as per their marching orders have declared for Clinton completely disregarding the will of the voters in their own state.Which will without a doubt come back to haunt them if they ever make good on their larceny.

The only purpose for super delegate declarations now has been to con lazy, ignorant non-thinking herd-like news media types who are too lazy to find out the rules, to make it look like Clinton's lead is bigger than it really is. The DNC and Clinton campaign want this for two reasons: try to hold down Sanders vote by making it look like he didnt have a chance and in turn hold down his fundraising ability. But they have seen that their old style dirty politics isnt working with Sanders or his voters on either score. But it has another purpose as well. To grease the skids if they think they have to steal the nomination for Clinton at the convention by trying to make it look as if its been inevitable all along.


The problem is Bernie Sanders and his message, his own personal integrity and magnetism and the enthusiasm and dedication of his supporters which Clinton cant match has changed everything and the best laid plans of  journalistic mice and corrupt deal making politicians.

Sanders and his voters and supporters have made  it impossible for the DNC, Clinton and Obama to do what they thought they would do and may still try to do much to the peril of the Democratic party-- rig the nominating process for Hillary Clinton to fullfill the promise of pay back for 2008.


Part of that payback was the South. Clinton and some patronizing news media types try to view Clintons wins in the South as somehow evidence of Clinton's superior popularity over Sanders  with "diverse" voters. Media types like Dana Bash at CNN and others like to use the word "diverse" when they don't mean diverse at all, they mean African American. Why they don't say so is a good question. Sanders crushed Clinton in Hawaii and that state is only 24% white. 



Regardless, Clintons big wins in the South had nothing to do with Clinton or her popularity. It was all Obama. To paraphrase Elizabeth Warren in another context, Clinton didnt do that on her own. She had a lot of  help. And that help was in the person of the first black president.

There is politics and then there is the truth. The politics say Clinton gets to keep those Southern votes and delegates. The truth is she wouldn't have gotten them were it not for Obama's endorsement . And she knows it. Which is why you hear her praising and defending Obama and his policies even though in '08 she called him a liar and not qualified even to be Vice President. It's the price she has to pay to get the endorsement and the DNC  going into the tank for her. Its the price she is paying for dishonest superdelegate declarations that are not actual votes to con a gullible news media.It's inside Democratic politics at its sleaziest for all to see.



Had Obama endorsed Sanders he would have certainly won the South as decisively as Clinton did. It was Obama and his popularity getting out the African American vote for Clinton through the largely African American Democratic party establishment in the South  in states where African Americans vote in numbers that are 5-6 times greater than in the rest of the country that was responsible for Clinton's victories.

Which was also part of her payback and promises made in not contesting the 2008 nomination at the convention. Those states that went for Clinton in the Democratic primaries in the South were states that belonged to Obama not Clinton. They are no real reflection of Clinton's strength either in the Democratic party, the South or in a general election.  Take away the 369 delegates Clinton won in southern states she lost to Obama in '08 and are all Obama and she is trailing Sanders in delegates and votes substantially. Which makes her bragging about "Ive gotten more votes than anyone" more than disingenuous. Take away Obama's endorsement and you take away those votes. And delegates.

Even if the case were made that had Obama been neutral they would have split the vote and delegates Sanders is still beating Clinton handily.

One of the more amusing moments for people who recognized it, was watching Clinton and Jim Clyburn of South Carolina embrace warmly with big hugs at a rally for Clinton before the primary. Amusing because in 2008 Clyburn absolutely destroyed Clinton with attacks that undid her completely in South Carolina and won the state for Obama in a landslide. The attacks were completely dishonest but so severe and effective it left Bill Clinton bitter and angry at Clyburn. And he let Clyburn know it.

It was seeing those two embrace warmly and Clyburn's big bear hug at the behest of Obama that was a reminder that except for the rare politician like Sanders and a Joe Biden and a few others,even some Republicans too, most of  these people are missing some DNA the rest of us have. And so much of what we see in politics is just an act.  Clyburn's embrace of Hillary Clinton and the get out the vote effort for Clinton in the South was just part of the script. When its clear to anyone that everything going on with Sanders, his voters and supporters is 100% genuine.

But the Clinton and Democratic party establishment script has fallen flat on its face everywhere else in the country. The compliant, foggy brained news media has tried to write it off as Sanders having a problem with " diversity"when Sanders wins by landslide numbers in states outside the South where the African American population is closer to the 12% that it is in the rest of the country. But it ignores the reality that is obvious for anyone who has seen a Sanders rally where younger voters of all races are wild about Sanders and are not going to follow marching orders from any politician black president or not. It also ignores Sanders support from people like Spike Lee, Cornell West, and Harry Belafonte, three African Americans who have more influence and credibility than any number of black politicians outside of John Lewis. Because Sanders is generating the kind of enthusiasm among younger voters 45 and under regardless of race that Clinton and no other politician can match.

It has flummoxed the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Their desperation has been obvious. Neither Clinton nor the DNC ever expected the response Sanders is getting  on his ideas, and his integrity. And all the screaming, yelling and dirty tricks by Clinton and her surrogates is having no affect on Sanders voters. That and a little thing called democracy has been making life difficult for Clinton and the DNC and their plan of simply handing Clinton the nomination. Sanders and his supporters are wrecking the cronyism and backroom promises that were made and that Clinton expects and the Democratic party establishment is trying hard to deliver. And it's not succeeding. Clinton has not only had a rude awakening its turned into a nightmare called Bernie Sanders.

But they are not giving up. The problem is what they might be contemplating could bring down the Democratic party and that is a rigged, fixed convention.  Clues to that come from things Clinton and her spokesman have been saying lately in the face of her losing 8 of the last 9 primaries and caucuses and by margins that make her look like a political afterthought.

After these landslide Sanders wins, some by as many as 60 points, we hear things put out by the Clinton campaign like "there is zero chance Hillary Clinton wont be the nominee" and "we'll have it wrapped up before the convention". Statements that seem to be saying to Sanders voters, dont waste your time the fix is in and winning primaries isnt going to matter.  Statements from Wasserman-Schultz like "we'll have a presumptive nominee before the convention"  which one might say is pretty presumptuous, tends to re-enforce the idea that they're trying to set it up for Clinton to put in the fix.

Are they really that stupid?

Are they stupid enough to think they could get away with it? It would be the Democratic party self destructing to the verge of extinction in November if they succeeded in pulling off a robbery that gave the nomination to Clinton when it was clear Sanders was the better and more popular candidate. No Sanders voters would ever vote for Clinton or any other Democrat on the ticket in Nov. It would be a wholesale Democratic slaughter.

To show that the potential for that kind of stupidity and dirty politics is there in the Clinton campaign Jeff Zeleny of CNN had reported that Clinton and her people were discussing going after Sanders in a strategy called " disqualify, destroy and worry about unifying the party later."  Worrying about unifying the party later shows how oblivious they are  to reality. There would be no unifying the party. If Clinton and the DNC dont understand Sanders or his voters and what they are about, if they think they are dealing with just another politician and his voters will go along with Clinton the way Clinton voters went along with Obama, then they dont understand the truth:  that Clinton is a candidate who represents values Sanders voters despise. So before the DNC tries to pull anything they better wake up. It's not an idle threat.

 In February 2010, nine months before the 2010 mid term elections  I suggested in another article, when it became obvious that Obama was going to try and sell out the public option as part of healthcare reform by caving in to pressure from the health insurance companies, that if Democrats let him get away with  it they could "lose big"  in the 2010 elections. It was a bold prediction since only 2 years before Democrats were elected to congress with the biggest congressional majority in 60 years.

But led by Pelosi, Democrats went along with Obama dropping the public option from the healthcare reform bill after it had passed the House and they were wiped out in the 2010 elections suffering the worst defeat of any party in 80 years. They eventually lost control of both houses of congress for the same reason.

The same thing will happen if they are stupid enough as to try and rig the convention and nominating process to hand the nomination to Clinton. Clinton would get wiped out  in November and so would down ticket Democrats. And no argument they are contemplating making now would get Sanders voters to vote for her. If Clinton or the Democratic party think they can scare Sanders voters into voting for Clinton by yapping about abortion, the Supreme Court or how bad Trump would be they are not just short sighted, they are blind and whistling passed the graveyard.

Clinton, her Wall Street money ties, her exposed  dishonesty,the lies and positions she is constantly reversing to suit the political climate, hiding her speech transcripts from voters and all the assumptions that can be drawn from that is everything Sanders voters despise about politicians. If the Democratic establishment were to fix it for her to win in an undemocratic way, Democrats all over the country would be finished in November.

 So "worrying about unifying the party later" isnt going to get very far. Because if that happens it will be clear that the DNC and the Clinton campaign's idea of "will of the people" has more in common with Imelda Marcos and Marie Antoinette than FDR. And with her $21 million in Wall Street speeches Clinton probably has the shoe collection that can match Marcos too.

In 2008 Nancy Pelosi in trying to drum up super delegate support for Obama publicly said super delegates were "obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most pledged delegates"  in primaries. That was Obama by a mere 65 delegates. But in August when it looked like super delegates were deserting Obama after a series of misstatements and gaffes that called his ability to be president into question, super delegates 3 days before the roll call vote were deserting Obama for Clinton.

Thats when Donna Brazile announced publicly, " if super delegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic Party".Super delegates never voted.

This is being written before the New York primary. If Clinton were to lose it would for all practical purposes end her candidacy. If she wins but its close, single digits, and delegates are virtually even, the fight goes on with Clinton trying to make a flimsy case for her nomination trying to make more of a single digit win that really would show her weakness not strength given Sanders is his home state beat her 86-14.

Either way neither candidate is going to end the primary campaign having won the number of pledged delegates required by DNC rules to get the nomination. If the DNC and super delegates, especially from states Sanders wins and has already  won and won big, try and pull a fast one at the convention, ignore the voters and rig the nomination for Clinton, it would do well to keep in mind what Donna Brazile said in 2008. Because if Brazile can threaten to quit the Democratic party if super delegates interfere with the nomination, so can Sanders voters. And they will.