Susan Sarandon was one of Bernie Sanders’ biggest celebrity endorsers this spring. She was and is a huge Bernie-or-Bust person. Even back in March of this year, Sarandon was saying that she couldn’t see voting for anyone other than Bernie Sanders… although she did sort of praise Donald Trump in the same breath. As in, Sarandon thinks Bernie and Trump are birds of a feather, taking it to The Man, and Hillary Clinton represents The Man. It’s all pretty convoluted logic when you really think about it, but whatever. Anyway, Sarandon attended Day 1 of the DNC and she was photographed looking not pleased during some of the prime-time speeches.
Susan Sarandon is having literally the worst time at the #DemConvention pic.twitter.com/Ola9Hi3y5o
— Ian McKenna (@Ian_McK_) July 26, 2016
She saw the GIF/Vines and she reposted it on her Twitter:
Accurate. #DemsInPhilly #DNCinPHL https://t.co/tGYCAKARrg
— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) July 26, 2016
And guess what? Sarandon is still Bernie-or-Bust. CB and I were trying to decipher just WTF Sarandon was trying to say here and we’re both still “????”.
Sarandon is a known Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter, who has criticized Hillary Clinton throughout her campaign, calling her more “dangerous” than Donald Trump, especially following the DNC email leaks.
“That’s so disgusting,” Sarandon said in an interview with Jordan Chariton of The Young Turks, a popular progressive online network (via The Hill). “I think we have to really ask what’s happened to us in terms of what we’re willing to sacrifice to get our person in. The critical question is, does it matter? Nixon resigned when they broke into the [DNC] headquarters…and now you found out all this tampering went on. What does this really say about us if all of this goes by unattended?”
She went on to explain why she understands voters are so inclined to stick with Sanders or Trump. “A lot of people felt disenfranchised. A lot of people are working so hard and getting nowhere. A lot of people are sick with politics the way it is,” she said. “And Bernie and Trump spoke to those people.”
The pretzel logic is so disturbing, and I believe that Sarandon is saying that because Wasserman Schultz overstepped as DNC Chair, somehow Hillary Clinton should resign, because Watergate and Nixon? Nixon resigned because of the cover-up surrounding CREEP (the Committee to Re-Elect the President) and their break-in of the DNC offices at the Watergate. Who broke into the DNC’s servers this time? NOT HILLARY CLINTON. Probably Russia. There’s also a lot of evidence suggesting that Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump to win, as in Trump is Putin’s Manchurian Candidate. And who is Nixonian in this situation, according to Susan Sarandon? … Still Hillary??
Photos courtesy of Getty.
I have to say – among so many disappointments of the past few months Sarandon is one of the biggest ones to me. She is just ludicrous.
Agree. I wonder if I will ever be able to watch Bull Durham again without raging at her.
Wishing there were a “like” button here for this comment!
yes, pretty disappointing! I always thought she was rather intelligent….guess I was wrong.
She’s not intelligent because you don’t agree with her? You do know opinions aren’t facts, right?
I know, and I love that movie.
If she doesn’t like it AND she’s not a pledged delegate, she can go home.
Thank you for saying that. Sarandon will be fine no matter who is in the WH. Her support of Nader helped bring us W. Which was disastrous. Her petulant behavior about HRC & her Bernie or Bust BS is that of a spoiled child who cares not for anyone but herself.
She has proven herself to be a celebutard & knows nothing about how politics or the world works. I think she is a talented actress but sadly her world view is terribly entitled & spoiled. Remember this…many many many people will suffer under a Trump presidency. She knows this but she won’t be one of them. She has been added to my “not” list
Absolutely. She has nothing to lose. I’m so disappointed.
Thank you, Snappyfish! On a related note, I’m so weary of hearing celebrities with little apparent grasp of history, economics and current events (not to mention respect for genuine analysis) opine on politics and social issues. They have a right to express their views, but I wish they would exercise their influence responsibly and recognize when they are just too ill-informed to speak credibly on political issues–especially issues that stand to affect ordinary Americans the most. I get the sense that some of these people scan the New York Times during their breakfast latte a couple times a month and think they’re ready to go into deep conversation with the likes of Rachel Maddow. Nope!
I’m sure she was one of those shouting and booing during speeches. She and the others wisely kept their mouths shut during MO’s speech. Hands would have been laid on them.
They would not have been ready for the wrath coming their way if they booed FLOTUS.
Nope. Opening a can of whoop ass.
Susan, you need to go back and learn some history, specifically Nixon’s resignation. He was about to be impeached. And he would have been removed from office. Even Republican Senators like Ed Brooke were going to vote to remove him. And the primaries did happen. The people voted. Your candidate lost. It happens. Move on.
I’m enjoying the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the lawyers on staff that worked to impeach Nixon. Ha ha. This woman is a vibrant example of priviledged politics. ” …a lot of people are working so hard and getting nowhere. A lot of people are sick with politics the way it is.” -Sure, maybe, but you are not the voice of these people, nor are you representing what’s best for them or for the country.
I feel like this should be called “Streep’d” after Meryl.
Streep’d: (strēpd) adj. the disillusioned feeling that one experiences when they realize an iconic actress is actually far less intelligent than previously thought.
Alas, we’ve been Streep’d again!
Or Oldmanned. After Gary Oldman. I’m still not over the fact that he turned out to be misogynistic and bigoted.
Not that Hillary broke into servers, but that clearly the DNC had major claims and push in getting Hillary to be their only representative and according to the emails, never planned on having Bernie get the bid. I *think* that’s what she’s referring to by the comparison to Watergate. Awful comparison though, and not quite linear thinking in proving a point.
I’ve been done with Susan and her speaking points for awhile now. I think when she left Tim Robbins for a young ping pong player i started questioning her thought process. That’s me being snarky though.
I still don’t get why the DNCs position surprised people. I mean Bernie is independent who literally tried to hijack their party. He could have run for president as an independent as he always has but he decided he wanted their machinery, so he run.
Meanwhile they have to have been worried that he will do what the Tea Party did to the Republicans i.e. alienate moderates by shifting the party too far from center. I’m not saying that I personally disagree with his platform but I can see why a major party would be concerned about letting a self described socialist come in from outside and stage a takeover. The truth is that people on the left and right fringes are always the loudest but when it comes down to it, most voters live in the middle.
I don’t understand either. Clinton is a part of the party. She has worked with the party for years and years. Bernie joined to take advantage of the resources that he would not have if he ran as an independent. I was a Bernie supporter. I still am in that I believe in his ideas but he didn’t win the nomination. Hillary did. Of course the DNC wanted Hillary to win the nomination. She has been a loyal member of their club! It shouldn’t shock anyone. The few emails they say proved that the DNC rigged the primaries just showed people complaining and being jerks over email. They didn’t reveal any horrible actions, so I don’t get it.
Jesus Christ Naya,
Just take these damn flowers and this crown and relax already. Find your throne girl!
*snaps fingers*
slow clap
@Naya, I seriously love you. Time and again. And again. You simply knock it OUT OF THE PARK with your comments. Every thread, no matter the subject. <3
COME THROUGH with that logic, Naya! *SNAPS*
Naya – I agree 100%!!!
Plus Bernie refused to fundraise or campaign for any of the downticket candidates or for the DNC while Hillary has raised a ton of money for other people. He’s not a team player. Of course the DNC didn’t want him–he’s not a real member of the party!
That is the entire point of super delegates – to have people who have a vote to try to steer the nomination to someone that could actually be elected president. There’s some confusion lately as to what the DNC does. Nixon on the other hand committed and tried to cover up a felony. That’s a huge difference.
People put a lot of stock in celebrity endorsements but many forget that a lot of them are idiots. Just because you can memorize lines doesn’t mean you are a brain trust. I loved her in Rocky Horror but do not look to her for my political guidance. I was a Bernie supporter as well but I’m also a logical adult who realizes that if Trump wins, this country will be in even more trouble. Progressive purity tests should not win out over the inevitable danger of a Trump presidency.
I understand she was a Bernie supporter but I was also lead to believe that she really despised HC. So what I can’t work out is why she went then..?
I assume to show support for Bernie.
She’s free to support whomever she wants, and I’m free to think she’s not very smart.
I’m still unsure of your political system. We don’t really have rally’s like this. I suppose I can’t understand why any Berine or bust supporter went, they certainly didn’t sound like they were enjoying it. I understand though this was their way of supporting Berine.
If she’s a delegate, she would go and vote, but if she’s not, then some people still like or manage to go because they are major supporters of one of the candidates.
Bernie did his best last night, emphasizing the Supreme Court, the platform, the Senate, and being able to keep pushing. He said that he was, after all, the most disappointed. I guess he’ll need his ground team to keep pulling people along.
Aussie girl, I know, I wouldn’t stay there if I didn’t like it.
She was free to leave anytime.
Bernie’s name will be put up for the floor vote and his delegates can vote for him; it just won’t be enough to block Hillary from winning the first floor vote. I think she may be a delegate
Lilac, that’s what I was thinking too. I really didn’t enjoy seeing her go all sourpuss last night; she knew the cameras would be on her. I understand that she’s also a citizen but she is aware of her status and has used it for a lot of good over the years. This is a shame.
I had already lost all respect for her.. This is just plain delusional to compare to Watergate & put it on Hillary. She can go on the Trumo train with the other delusional fanatics.
I started to write a comment setting out the complete fallacy of her argument but somehow it all comes down to;
“Oh spare me you overprivileged, narcissistic twit!!”
Yeah that’ll work.
my thoughts exactly.
She is rich so would not be as damaged if Trump/ Pence win. I would love to ask her about her pregnant daughter. I would say ” Pence would like to force women to have birth defective children and furthermore if your daughter miscarried he would also demand burial/ cremation to the tune of $3,500- 10,000.” She can afford to fly to France for an abortion/ dnc or pay for forced funeral services in case of miscarriage. What about regular folks? How about that he is against same sex marriage? Or lowering minimum wage? Rich people don’t care about average people because they are not subjected to the same financial and social tyrrany. Bush gave us an endless war, financial collapse, and the highest rents in history due to the housing shenanigans. The Bernie supporters are in a bad young adulthood situation because of this and are going to give up for more of the same under Trump. Word up to the young- don’t trust your future to those who have never known what it’s like to not be a multi millionaire and is against all your freedoms as a modern American!
Pretty sure she’s post-menopausal, so abortion is not an immediate concern for her at all.
That about sums it up, Mia4s. She’s a privileged, entitled woman, who is having a hard time realizing she’s not going to get what she wanted. It’s probably a first for her and many others.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most disliked politicians in a generation. The only candidate who is more disliked is Donald Trump.
I get why many Democrats don’t like her. The DNC definitely wasn’t a neutral party in this race — as was its job — and that was a huge, huge problem. But that ship has sailed. People like Susan Sarandon have to ask themselves if they want Trump in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Do they want him to be our Commander in Chief? If they don’t vote for Hillary, it makes it more likely for Trump to win (at least in some states).
I’m an independent and not a political person (despite living in DC), but I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. She may be crooked, but at least she’s not crazy.
She may not be all THAT crooked relative to most other politicians, including presidential candidates, anyway. And “crooked” and “corrupt” are for Trump – it’s sheer projection and deflection in on his part. Even Democrats have bought into the Republican attacks of the past 30 years, and Trump’s “crooked Hillary” repetition. We’re going to have to try to see her as we’d see any Democratic male candidate and try NOT to repeat the Trump mantra about her. It only gets carried around. The more Democratic voters say, “Crooked Hillary but I’ll vote for her,” the more it locks in that theme. We should question it. We should look at her actual record, it’s mixed but that means not all bad just as it means not all good.
I was proud to have voted for Sanders in the primary; thought Wasserman Schultz was an incompetent, immature manager and ineffective, self-centered surrogate; and admired Sarandon’s activism until the past few months. I’m going to focus on “first woman” Hillary and “longtime interest in children’s and women’s and health rights around the world” Hillary and “up to 3 Supreme Court appointments Hillary.”
Serious question: where does it say that the DNC is supposed to be neutral?
And Sanders wasn’t even a Dem. He only joined the party to run for President.
Yeah…this is my question as well. I would understand the obligation to be neutral if both candidates were Dem, but it just seems natural that they would be more inclined to support their own, you know?
Was there ever any question that HRC was the favorite?
Uh well lets see, the DNC organizes primary voting, debates etc between competing candidates. It is a democratic process and according to their charter and bylaws, the DNC is required to be impartial.
Seriously, you would be comfortable with the DNC hand picking the democratic candidate? It’s sad to see people throw off basic democratic principles in their hatred for Sanders.
Whether Bernie was an independent before, he joined the Democratic party and they agreed to let him run so the DNC is required to be impartial in their support of all candidates.
Well for one thing, the folks staffing the DNC are already superdelegates, a system put in place specifically to avoid what’s going on on the Republican side right now – being saddled with a complete disaster of a candidate.
@Sanders: the DNC doesn’t put on the primaries. Each state puts on its own primary and caucus. Each state has different laws as to how their primaries and caucuses are conducted.
hi independent! so nice to read your comment.
i personally feel there is a little rage being directed at anyone who doesn’t submit to the Hillary vote…some of us have not been a fan of the two party system for a long time in the U.S. and feel that it has created the tendency to over personalize the debates (are you a Bernie or Hillary, are you a Trump) rather than analyzing policies. i wasn’t on the Bernie train and have locally and nationally supported Jill Stein for years. i know the ire i am risking writing that here (see last week’s heaping agains Jill Stein supporters) but i have been a green party voter because that platform actually represents my political views, especially in terms of domestic economy, LGBT rights, challenging a racist police state and imperialist U.S. foreign policy. as a thinking, leftist woman i believe in my right to vote on the candidate who actually represents what i believe. it’s not hate vote on either the Dem or GOP candidate, it’s a vote not based in fear or panic, it’s a vote that says there are more perspectives out there…
i teach community college students in Houston, TX where all of my students are incredibly hard working, intelligent, economically challenged people of various ages. many of them have expressed frustration with the two party system and carefully analyze policy over personality. i am inspired by THEM, their scholarship with their experiences as students of color in an urban environment and wanting politics to represent them, not corporate interests. as Americans we need to open our political field more—take the beautiful energy that Michelle Obama conveyed last night and not be afraid to think outside the box.
The thing is, it’s a 2 party system, was (almost) always, likely will be always, and we have to work with it or change the Constitution. When you like at democracies with more than 2 parties, they face their challenges, too. They are vulnerable to majority governments and awkward coalitions and instability. Democracy is messy and imperfect because people are messy and imperfect. It’s not the fault of a 2-party system, though. The problem is the corrupting influences of money and ideology in politics. Overturning Citizens United and getting ideology out of Congress (knocking down gerrymandering & improving the balance on the Supreme Court) will help our imperfect system. But this is a dangerous time to think that we’re FINALLY going to make it a 3-party system because we are not.
We can, however, easily turn it from a tenuously held democracy into an authoritarian state run by an ill-informed king. I’ll take the former.
http://honestgil.com/
@jmacky just had to stop and say it is great to see not only another Bernie supporter but also a Houston Texan Bernie supporter 😀
@Who ARE these people? just because it has almost always been republican or democracy doesn’t mean we shouldnt welcome a third, better, party =/ i think being afraid of putting ourselves out there is dangerous, we risk staying in the same cess pool and going nowhere.
@Who ARE these people?
The two party system isn’t a constitutional mandate. Altering or disrupting it doesn’t require us to “change the Constitution.”
I’m a registered independent, too, but I do think people who are frustrated with the two-party system need to start doing something other than complaining about it. Third parties are meaningless if we aren’t supporting them on all political levels. They can’t keep their promises if we aren’t giving them congressional and state level support. I tell my friends all the time who find themselves at a poll station voting for the “lesser evil” that they need to start doing their research and being part of the solution rather than the problem. Get to the mid-term elections, get to the polls, and start your movement from the grassroots.
Well, that, and I think people need to be realistic about what a third party actually means. Having more options is a good thing for most moderates, but it also means more bureaucracy and potential for gridlock. We’re never going to have a perfect political party, so we need to start examining what are issues that require compromise and those that require legitimate social change.
It was like 7 e-mails out of 100,000+ emails. The media as usually has overexagerated it and just with a bit of research the truth isn’t as they spin it. Things we don’t hear in the media.
The mistake the people made is the assumption that the DNC and RNC are neutral in the first place. They don’t just pick candidates out of a hat for these elections. The toll it takes on a candidate financially and psychologically to get through a presidential is exhaustive – how else could the system work if they DIDN’T have candidates in mind to start with? People are primed and ready to go well before the primary goes underway. People forget RNC had the same discord earlier in the year when they realized that their chosen ones weren’t capable of beating Trump’s momentum. The only difference is that they lost.
Same with me. The thing with the leaked emails was disgusting. A party is not supposed to be so oppenly against a candidate. What about democracy?
Parties can be openly against a candidate. The dnc and rnc have favorite candidates often. It doesn’t mean there isn’t democracy.
Yup. What does WikiLeaks have to tell us about Republican party emails? Why haven’t the Russians leaked what they tapped into in Republican party emails? Because you know they have them.
First off: where has it been proven that Russia is behind the leaks. No op-ed linking, I want natsec docs that show proof. There isn’t any. This is a classic McCarthyism era red herring to draw attention away from the fact that the DNC rigged the election.
Secondly: the DNC is supposed to be completely impartial and nominate the candidate that best represents the party and has the strongest numbers to win the GE. The leaked emails show blatant collusion of the DNC with not only Hillary’s camp, but the MSM as well. This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, people.
Are you 100% sure the DNC is allowed to be biased FB? Can you show a link or something that supports that claim? I’m not American, so could easily be misinformed, but everything I’ve read says that DNC’s own rules say they should be neutral during the primaries. (It’s not like I’m looking at dodgy Bernie Bro sites, that’s the way it’s being reported on reputable news sites.)
I’m sure the RNC was very much against candidate Trump.
I bet if there was an email expose 8 years ago, you would have found pretty much the same thing..only a preference for Obama ..proof? Well, those mysterious claims in the south that infuriated Bill Clinton came from dems..she knew they clearly weren’t backing her then..they’re like a corporation that wants to put resources behind a viable ‘product’ that can not only win, but pull the ticket with them
RNC didn’t want Trump and here we are in history The conventions actually can have a favor candidate and where is this false assumption they aren’t allowed to promote one candidate coming from, blogs? Opinion pieces? Conspiracy sites? They can absolutely with no consequences side with a favored candidate. Do people realize the RNC & DNC are jsut promotional organizations not actually governing organizations? They have no authority and zero power in elections. They are mouthpieces & promotional organizations only, nothing else.
Democracy happened. We chose Hillary, by a good chunk.
What a strange question. What about Democracy? It’s a political party. They raise money for people affiliated with the party – which Bernie really isn’t.
They forget that there wasn’t any cheating involved- no votes tampered with.
They forget that Hillary’s followers count too.
I’m not an extremist or a liberal. I’m straight down the center and I’ve voted for both parties- it’s easier to stomach Hillary than Bernie for me.
The woman is a millionaire who spends a lot of time focusing on lofty ideals of the world knowing full well Bernie Bust or Boom she’ll likely still have plenty left over to survive a Trump Presidency.
The truth is I want her and people like her to explain what happens to LGBT rights with their bust vote. Supreme Court nominations. Abortions rights and female autonomy. Because it’s all well and good to talk about your conscience when it’s all about your choice in simply voting, but what about your conscience when you contribute to a system that may physically hurt others?
I also have to say hearing why she was angry at Hilary “Because I told her it wasn’t right! She did so many things I told her not to do!” displayed a shocking amount of arrogance.
You act in movies Susan. If any politician sincerely followed the goals and ideals of a celebrity who doesn’t have access to the private documents and Intel I’d want them gone. There’s bringing your perspective to a topic and then there’s assuming your perspective is the only right one.
Sarandon said that? She must think she’s more of a king/queenmaker than she is. She’s entitled to her views, to voice them, to influence the system as best she can but she is NOT in the Oval Office or the Readiness Room (or whatever they call it) for a reason.
Yup, one of the late night shows I want to say maybe Kimmel though I can’t remember. But her entire rant was complaining how Hilary didn’t personally listen to HER on a variety of topics.
Well, Sarandon is welcome to run for office if she wants to truly make her voice heard.
THANK YOU. Applause.
What ESE said. There is too much at stake here to be cavalier about this election, especially when, as you said, you are not someone who will suffer the most from a Trump presidency.
look at Kendrick Sampson in the first pic, such a beautiful man…
I’m voting for whatever third party there is because I can’t support a psycho and I refuse to support a liar who puts her own people at risk. Hillary SHOULD be tried and convicted for Benghazi/the email server etc. She’s a manipulative liar who uses her wealth to get higher.
Um, she’s been “tried” over and over and over for Benghazi -there’s nothing there. Also, the emails bit, c’mon, the head of the FBI is Republican, and the finding was that no credible lawyer would prosecute.
Dani, you seem committed to not understanding.
I think (not certain) Dani has posted trolling comments before.
“Trump’s a manipulative liar who uses his wealth to get higher.” There, fixed that, Republican voter.
Congratulations on being part of the problem.
I sure hope you’re putting your money where your mouth is and participating in your state and local primaries and mid-term elections to get viable third party candidates into the system instead of just being a hash tagging keyboard warrior every four years that whines about the lack of change but never actually participates in the process outside of the presidential election.
Why should Clinton be tried and convicted for Benghazi and the email server? She didn’t break any laws. I haven’t heard a logical reason yet for why she’s criminally responsible for Benghazi.
You’re answering with a common sense and factual answer. She doesn’t like that. LOL
Even the Republican heads of the committees who held Benghazi hearings were forced to admit Hillary did nothing wrong. They held double-digit number of hearings for Benghazi (more than for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack which killed 3,000+ people) and came up with nothing.
Chris Stevens’s family has said they don’t blame Hillary for his death and want the Republicans to knock it off.
As for the e-mail server, it raises questions but it was not illegal. Many other politicians and government officials have used private e-mail for government business (Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Chris Christie, etc.) It’s borderline unethical but not illegal. The FBI has already cleared her in the matter.
There have been other Benghazi type incidents in the past that were not nearly as heavily investigated because Hillary Clinton was not Secretary of State.
I feel like you don’t understand hearings, trials, or anything regarding either scandal.
Hearings are not trials, investigations have to lead to criminal wrongdoing or we do not convict people, feeling someone is guilty and proving they’re guilty are two different things, if after MULTIPLE HOUR LONG attempts to find wrongdoing on Hilary’s part a REPUBLICAN group can’t what does that tell you?
Seriously, this is why there’s an old lawyer joke about if you’re innocent take a judge trial, and if you’re guilty go with the jury. People run from logic in favor of gut feelings and prejudices, they often ignore what facts are presented in favor of the narrative they prefer.
@ Dani
So you will be pleased to have Trump in the Oval office because I think that would be the scenario if those choose to vote for a 3rd party.
meh…just pull he lever for Trump because that is exactly what 3rd party people are doing in reality. Your emotions don’t change the reality of it….and if you are bringing up Benghazi…lol’ing at that not being a right wing ideology because its a right wing invention with multiple investigations that have lead to nothing more than clearing Hilary every single time.
How many times has Hilary been tried for Benghazi at this point?
Her logic makes no sense. How you can say Bernie and Trump are similar is beyond me. Maybe she and Mary Jane have been getting together too often.
I supported Bernie and would have continued to do so if he had been given the nomination. He wasn’t. Now I will vote, but for a third party candidate. I truly believe a third party needs to become viable and the only way to do so is for people to start voting for one. (That doesn’t mean you vote for some knob.)
I find Trump and Clinton ridiculous, each in their own way. I welcome the day that I am able to vote FOR a candidate.
Clinton wasn’t going to get in any hot water over the emails. There is precedent of the same thing happening with others (Rice, Powell, Lerner, Jackson, Breuer) and they were not prosecuted. I find it ridiculous that people in these positions of power were so careless when they work for the government. One email for work, one email for home. However, now is the time to but a stop to this sort of thing occurring. Moving forward if it happens, prosecute.
And thanks to people like you who will vote for pretty much non existent third party Drumpf will win this election.
The US is a two-party system and votes for a 3rd party candidate are always a waste.
This is really not the year to waste votes.
Third parties become viable by voting for them consistently from the local level upward. You don’t magically make a third party viable with a single presidential election. Voting third party in presidential elections is posturing to make yourself feel better, nothing more.
I think Susan’s ultimate result by supporting the BOB movement is akin to the ending of Thelma and Louise.
Ha ha. Wish this site had a way to make posts sticky, cause this is funny.
I’m an independent, have been for a long time. I’m fed up with both political parties, have been for a long time. Hate both candidates for this election. But I am somewhat bemused by how the DNC and Hillary supporters are not dealing with the email leaks so well. Both parties are very hypocritical, but you don’t often see the DNC publicly shamed like this. And I, for one, am glad the BS was brought out of the email closet and shown to the world.
Doesn’t matter if the Russians or Bert and Ernie hacked them, those emails were written by officials inside the DNC. And maybe, just maybe, some people will take time to read them and if nothing else question the system and the process. But probably not. I got through about 40 of them yesterday before I had to go do life. It’s certainly eye opening.
Would you rather the President was someone who was careless with emails, or a racist, misoginistic, xenophobic bundle of ignorance, malice and knee jerk reactions?
Annetommy, no need to get so excited. Read my comment, I said I hate both candidates. I would rather have another option for president. But you go on and get riled up because somebody dares to say something about the DNC. The horror!
I went and found the actual video. It makes more sense in the context of the interviewer’s question. The E!News link has the quotes out of order, and misses a bunch of context.
Interviewer: What do you make of what we’ve seen in the last few days with these leaks that came out, telling us what we already knew, now Debbie WS has resigned and is going to be serving as an honorary chair to Hillary Clinton.
SS: That’s so disgusting! [IMO, it’s quite clear she’s referring to DWS being made a chair.] The critical question is: does it matter? Nixon resigned when they broke into the headquarters and now you find out all this tampering went on and – I know there are lawsuits and things – and I think we have to really ask what’s happened to us in terms of what we’re willing to sacrifice in order to get our person in? What does this say about us if this goes by unattended? Just like, what does it say when someone is killed by the police and they get off? It shows you as a culture, as a society, where your values are.
The Nixon parallel is basically that in both cases, a group did something dodgy in order to support a particular candidate, and were then subsequently supported by that candidate – even though the candidate was by that stage aware something dodgy had gone on. In Watergate it was flat-out illegality and a blatant coverup. The DNC case is comparatively minor (both in scale of offense and later support) but the underlying issues are the same: a) how far should you go to get your candidate elected, and b) if you’re a candidate and your supporters pushed ethical boundaries while trying to help you … how much support do you owe them?
I’m over Susan Sarandon.
So am I.
Poor Sue looks every one of her 70 years. If being at the convention is so overwhelming to her, easy solution, exit stage left or right…
Wow Nancy! You went below the belt with your comment.
I get that you don’t agree with her political views but your comment is so horribly ageist. I hope no one disparages your looks when you age Nancy.
Don’t be sexist. Criticize her views, not her looks.
Of course wealthy Susan Sarandon will be just fine with lunatic Pres Trump. Guessing most in the “Bernie or Bust” crowd will not. I find her attitude so disrespectful & irresponsible. This false narrative of “crooked Hilary” is just ridiculous. Listening to this crowd last nite was so depressing. These entitled millennials can’t string a coherent sentence together when asked my they won’t support HRC. Then all the booing & jeering; ridiculous & embarrassing They all need a time out.
How short our memories are. It wasn’t that long ago that Hillary had approval rating of 64% as she was stepping down as SOS. The republicans had a plan and even bragged about dragging down her poll numbers because they figured that is the only way they can beat her. Mobama’s poll rating 8 years ago was 22% but today she is one one the most admired women in the world until the day she decides to run for office.
Susan Sarandon has always hated Hillary. She was bashing her the she first ran for senate, saying that being first lady didn’t qualify her to run for office forgetting Hillary was such a kickass attorney.
I hope she offers Michelle a cabinet position and I hope she accepts. We need these women in high profile positions to keep reinforcing to our little girls that they can be anything they want.
The optics of having Angela Merkel, Theresa May and hopefully Hillary together during a G8 meeting will make my heart sing.
It’s about respect. As Bernie supporters suspected all along the fix was in. Bernie got zero respect so why are they surprised his supporters aren’t showing respect??
I get it I listened to Betnie’s speech and will vote for Clinton with zero enthusiasm. But the revolution is real and it will be heard!
If the revolution gets Trump elected, then it’s about as real as the Easter Bunny. And no one has shown anything that the DNC DID. Emails are not an action.
So does that mean you’re actually going to show up for midterm elections?
First time poster, trying to understand the logic of the blogger and many of those commenting here. Your candidate has engaged in criminal and unethical behavior; has (temporarily) reversed her position on the issues (eg, TPP) in a panic and solely to appeal to a segment of the population for purposes of nomination; and your own political party, which is supposed to be neutral, has actively engaged in corruption and rigging of the nomination process. How can you all look the other way? Be smart. Vote for issues and for character, not gender and soundbites, and more importantly, demand accountability from your purported representatives (like Hillary and her team). Otherwise, you all deserve what you will ultimately get.
Using your logic a Trump presidency is what we’ll ultimately get.
“Your candidate has engaged in criminal”
Nope.
“and unethical behavior”
Such as?
“has (temporarily) reversed her position on the issues (eg, TPP) in a panic and solely to appeal to a segment of the population for purposes of nomination; and your own political party, which is supposed to be neutral, has actively engaged in corruption and rigging of the nomination process.”
There was no rigging, there were emails between coworkers snarking on and being bitchy about a politician they believed was using their party for his own goals.
“How can you all look the other way? Be smart. Vote for issues and for character, not gender and soundbites, and more importantly, demand accountability from your purported representatives (like Hillary and her team). Otherwise, you all deserve what you will ultimately get.”
The constant assumption that people DON’T vote for those things simply because they vote differently than you doesn’t help your cause. I’ve had more young men try to persuade me not to vote for Hilary JUST because she’s a woman assuming my brain cells could only fire enough to go “ag hrr nother vagina I vote now” It’s not about soundbites or gender, it’s about competency and capability. More democrats believe Hilary is both than the other democratic challengers. That’s how it works.
Thank you for this!
Thank you. It seems many here so easily internalize the corporate propaganda.
A steady diet of corporate media memes makes one go blind.
Not American but an active political person in Canada.
Many politicians have flip flopped over the TPP and will continue to do so until the full agreement is ratified and released to the parties and the public. No one actually knows the full extent of the TPP and what it entails except for the lawyers for the countries involved. NO politician is in full understanding of it, including those who backed it and those who did not. While the politicians may have much more information on the TPP, their info isn’t a whole lot better than what the public has. Once the agreement was reached by the countries, it then was turned over to lawyers to work out the logistics. That means that they all agreed on “sure, we can do this as long as so and so gets that and we get this” and the legal teams for each country involved now have to create the way to actually do all of it. Once that is agreed on, it then has to be put forth to each government of each country in it’s completed form for them to vote on. Any country can say no and it will not go through in their country and they will be left out of it.
It is a hugely complicated, monstrosity of a trade agreement that makes any others that come before it look like child’s play. Do I personally agree with it? There are parts that sure, would be great for the hobbies that I enjoy (cheap parts, etc, etc) but I believe that there are bigger problems with it. Do I think that politicians are going to flip flop on this until the bitter end? Absolutely. They are politicians and will tell you what you want to hear to get into office.
In the end, the telling people what they want to hear is the way this works. Trump is doing a great job of telling those who want to hear the crap he is spewing. He is pulling a group that has felt that they have been ignored by liberals for far too long. Clinton is appealing to those who are business and legal and Sanders was appealing to the more liberal and extreme liberal end of the party. The leaders of the party, the leaders of the country, say and do what will get the votes. It is the other parts of the government that actually run it all. Candidates can say anything for their platform but good luck getting 90% of it through once you are in.
Reversed her position on TPP? NO, FALSE, INACCURATE. She made a number of positive statements about the TPP and expected benefits. Then time passed and she had to actually deal with that complex monstrosity far too multi-headed to really to be called *an* agreement . So now she says “it hasn’t met the bar I set for it.”. And if you see this as reversing or flip-flopping, I have to assume you’ve never had to be the grown up. Because that’s what grown ups have to do all the time: deal with reality disappointing expectations, and revise their expectations/goals/support based on the additional data.
As for the poster who wants to see national security documents regarding Russian (specifically GRU) involvement in the hacks, riiiight. They’re security documents, that means they’re classified. You will have to settle for second hand conclusions with good references. And they’re out there. Google is your friend.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told NBC News on Monday that “there is no proof whatsoever” that his organization got almost 20,000 hacked Democratic National Committee emails from Russian intelligence —adding it’s what’s in the emails that’s important, not who hacked them.
Funny how everyone is saying they are worried about emails being hacked by Russia, but it was ok when Hillary sent vital information via email. Which is it? Is email vulnerable to Russia or is it not when Hillary sends them?
I am a huge Bernie fan. They got us so excited about this election and voting and now I’m supposed to be excited for Hillary who sold out and does everything I’m against? NO.
Julian Assange has been living in the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK to avoid facing sexual assault charges so I don’t think he is the most credible guy on anything. There are many reports out there showing strong links to Russian hackers getting the info and providing it to wiki leaks. The Daily Beast has an article showing some of the links.
Btw why hasn’t Trump shown his tax returns yet?
In what way has Hillary sold out?
Since Bernie and Hillary have 93% in common voting record, how can one be FOR everything you are, and the other AGAINST?
I will forever love Susan if only because of her comments about Woody Allen, but she needs to STHU. If (shudder) Trump became president, she and her wealthy friends could pack up and leave this country and literally live anywhere very comfortably. For the rest of us, this is really, really a freaking important election. I cannot fathom that we could go from having an Obama in the White House to a Trump…:(
Listen, there are people who don’t like Hillary. They don’t. Using Donald Trump as a bat to get everyone looking for something else in line just doesn’t fly with everyone.
What does it mean for the election and the system? Not looking good right now, but everyone who thinks all the crack on both sides can just be patched over because it’s politically expeditious is kidding themselves. It’s interesting times coming.
Truly! It’s very short-sighted to think there’s no correlation between Brexit, Trumpism, Sanders “revolutionaries”, ISIS growth (i.e. America’s foreign policy hubris coming home to roost), etc. Neoliberal capitalist politics are oppressive, and this election isn’t the last we’ll hear from the objectors.
Sarandon needs to learn about fascism and the definition of ‘false equivalency’. She sounds like one of the uninformed fanatical fringe.
There is a group in Washington D.C. called the Young Turks?! You mean to tell me they couldn’t use Google to find out the history behind the name? That tells me everything I need to know.
what is so hard to get about this? Bernie clearly wasnt given the same support and most dont even know he was nominated. she, like MANY of us, are sick of this bullshit. Hillary is a damn snake along with Trump and is, quite frankly, JUST the lesser of two evils. if all of her flip flopping doesnt make that clear i dont know what to tell ya
Oh, FFS, if you possessed an Internet connection or television it was difficult not to know there were two Democratic candidates and a clown car of Republicans. If you went to vote or a Democratic caucus, you had access to both candidates. We all did.
Come on. I think it’s a truth universally acknowledged that the news doesn’t actually cover just “news” but what people want to hear and what media pros think people want to hear. So when Google searches for a particular candidate or public figure spike, media coverage on that person tends to spike as well. But in reality, candidates *don’t* get proportional coverage in traditional media based on who is interested in them online, and in reality, Sanders didn’t either. It’s not spoiled leftist hand wringing, it’s just a fact. Not everyone had equal access to all candidates.
http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/
AGAIN: Sanders only switched over to the Dem side to run for President. And you had to be living under a rock to not know he was one of two candidates.
“Bernie clearly wasnt given the same support and most dont even know he was nominated. ”
Uh, nominated for what? He was a candidate campaigning to be the Democratic party’s Presidential nominee – same as Hillary. Hillary just became the party’s nominee today.
What makes Hillary a snake? The fact that Bernie didn’t become the nominee or that she was running to oppose him, your preferred candidate?
Look, Bernie had my vote too. But there was a race and the opposing candidate won. It’s what happens in democracies as opposed to in coronations. And to say that Bernie didn’t get coverage is a shouty myth. Bernie may not have been the party-faithful’s choice, but he had a lot of attention and lit a match under a lot of people. That doesn’t happen in an oxygen-starved setting. I heart Bernie, but we lost. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, and for goodness sake, don’t pull a Trump and vilify someone else because you didn’t get what you want.
Even if she found Trump and Sanders to be similar (they’re not), she should perhaps think about Trump’s choice of Pence, his stance on women’s rights, and the idea that Kasich’s team let out of the bag that Trump wants the VP to do all the work and make the policies.
Bill Clinton has been accused of sexual assault as well. So if we aren’t to believe Julian Assange, the same goes for Bill too? And his wife? You know the one who slut shamed all the women who filed complaints against her husband?
Excellent point. I’m also baffled that at all the pro-Hillary commenters who staunchly defend her on every post yet never address Bill’s problematic past of sexual harassment (and worse) complaints filed against him.
Yet look on any Woody Allen or Roman Polanski thread and those same commenters rip into the celebs who (wrongfully) support them and look the other way.
Bill Clinton doesn’t have (nor has he ever had) an arrest warrant out for him on rape charges, so those aren’t equivalent either.
The head shake at the perfect angle, just a hint of a dead-eyed eye roll. That’s why she won that OSCAH!!
Dead Idealism Walking!!
Yeah she’s delusional. She was a Nader supporter, too.
You’d think by her age, she’d have gained some wisdom instead of just continuing to believe in pie in the sky stuff. Gotta get practical at some point.
Donald Trump tweet:
“I hate to say it, but the Republican Convention was far more interesting (with a much more beautiful set) than the Democratic Convention!”
This is the same as Hillary?! This level of discourse?
Sorry…. double post