EDIT: 11/6/2015 Title Change I don't recall what I was searching for yesterday when I stumbled upon the following press release. To place it in time, looks like it is dated roughly two weeks after Bernie Sanders announced he was entering the race.
Full press release. I realize it is provocative to say so, but I find it kinda vile.
Updated 9/22/15
“We are doing due diligence on Secretary Clinton's primary opponents.” -David Brock
Here's the full Bloomberg interview with David Brock:YouTube Video * * * To me, there are two quotes from the press release which are particularly worth noting. First, they explain this group exists to protect HRC from the upstarts challenging her:
“Correct The Record is a strong brand in its own right and now that Democrats are announcing their candidacies (emphasis mine), it’s the right time to separate it from American Bridge, which focuses on opposition research on Republicans running for office,” Brad Woodhouse said. “Going forward, Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President, aggressively responding to false attacks and misstatements of the Secretary’s exemplary record.”
Put simply, Correct the Record is a propaganda mouthpiece built specifically to go after members of her own party. I've seen a small collection of articles lately describing what have been called false attacks or misstatements which haven't looked so false to my eye, they just weren't positive for her, and the arguments in these pieces correcting the record, as it were, seemed to be kinda splitting hairs or parsing semantics - my gut reaction when I saw the titles was that they looked like PR pieces (the point of the article seemed to BE the title as opposed to the content). This press release increases my confidence that my instinct may have been correct. Anyone here aware if there is any precedent for a super PAC with this purpose (going after primary opponents) previous to now? I don't want to EVER hear again that calling out HRC on her own words or her own loyalties and priorities is unacceptable because it would damage the inevitable nominee. SHE HAS A WHOLE FREAKING SUPER PAC JUST TO GO AFTER HER DEM OPPONENTS, so my little DK comments or FB posts in secret Dem groups are nothing in the face of the coordinated and MEGA-MONIED attacks on the other candidates. It is my strong position that until the primary votes are cast and counted, inevitability is not a truism, it is merely an on-going strategy in meme form, an attempt at strong-armed persuasion. If the HRC supporters here (and elsewhere on social media) reflect what's coming out of the campaign, it would appear that part of Clinton's strategy has been to tell people to STFU about opposing her. The frequent repetition that anything critical of her MUST be a repetition of a RW talking point (and could not POSSIBLY be an opinion formed by a Dem because Republicans are pretending to be Dems, therefore anything critical is from a Right Winger, is the best sense I can make of the logic of the insistence that no one utter anything critical). I believe her people feel shaming is an acceptable form of coercion, and I know any number of Dems who pause and do some introspection when accused of acting shamefully (interrupting momentum in their advocacy). I think the tendency to consider one's actions is a virtue which is deliberately being exploited. In case anyone has not given him or herself permission, I hereby give any and all Sanders' supporters permission to speak truth to power (please do so honorably, of course) in the face of being told that by championing the non-inevitable candidate you are hurting the party or causing us to lose the White House. And here's the second quote:
Correct The Record, though a SuperPac, will not be engaged in paid media and thus will be allowed to coordinate with campaigns and Party Committees. (emphasis mine)
This is THEIR words, certainly NOT MINE, and I do not want to be challenged again on whether HRC is involved in the campaigns and strategies coming out of super PACs because this super PAC, ITSELF is proclaiming that it is coordinating with her in the press release about its founding (I can't speak for any others, but for THIS one, they are crystal clear). So on the one hand, Clinton is pushing Citizens United away and claiming she'd call for a Constitutional Amendment, on the other, she is using it to collect BIG funds to go after opponents running in the primary. I understand the theory, and while it may not be entirely vile, but it stinks of hypocrisy. * * * *. This National Journal article was written in January, but I find it either (you choose) prescient or telling:
“We’ve met with [the DNC], I know others have as well—but they just don’t know what the field is going to look like,” said one TV network source. “There’s a scenario where Hillary is the only kind of serious credible candidate, in which case they might want zero debates or very, very few.”
Until quite recently, it was still fashionable to say that there was only one credible candidate in the Democratic primary. There began to be some hesitation when Sanders moved ahead in New Hampshire. The article goes ahead to describe how HRC could have a direct hand in shaping the what the DNC would do with respect to debates:
...if the field is small and Clinton is far ahead in polling, insiders expect her to have a lot of sway over the debate process and schedule—which may mean a much trimmer debate schedule than in years past. “In a prospective Clinton candidacy “¦ there’s a very strong chance she’ll start off with a very strong lead,” said veteran Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. “That would give her a little bit of a stronger hand to play in terms of both determining how many debates are actually proposed and which ones she actually agrees to.”
I think a very strong argument can be made that there is at least a blurring of lines and walls in her campaign where there are supposed to be boundaries, and THIS (and NOT Republican talking points) has many Dems uncomfortable that there is a prioritization of expediency and the influence of big money over the needs of the middle class (including economic injustice and everything else in the Democratic platform). It's this sort of behavior on her behalf IN THE PRESENT (and not just the history of controversy of the Clintons plural) which has Americans of all stripes saying in polls that they just are not sure where she is with that whole trustworthiness thang. For instance, this POLITICO piece from 6/3/15 'Impartial' DNC finance chief helps Hillary (hat tip to TJ and Betty Pinson) sure looks like an example of a conflict of interest in the DNC leadership:
Henry R. Muñoz III, a former fundraiser for President Barack Obama who became DNC finance chairman in 2013, is helping organize a Wednesday fundraising event for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, according to longtime Democratic operative Gilberto Ocañas and Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina. “I know he’s made a few calls to raise money,” Medina said of Muñoz on Tuesday. “He’s certainly taking it upon himself to make tomorrow’s fundraiser a success.” Muñoz was also present at a Clinton campaign kickoff breakfast in San Antonio last month at which local supporters met the campaign’s national political director, Amanda Renteria, and other staff, according to Ocañas.
What follows is unlikely to give comfort to those who currently wonder whether it's the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary National Committee:
DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
Yeah, this (former Clinton campaign co-chair) chairperson doesn't exactly seem to have 'maintaining impartiality' as a priority. Her intransigence with the debate schedule doesn't seem to pass the sniff test of impartiality. * * * I've said here previously that I feel the inevitability meme is insulting and anti-democratic (and, hence, vile). Let's count the votes AFTER they have been cast. Please - that's what democracy is all about. Presuming to know the outcome in advance says to people their vote doesn't mean anything, and while folks HERE may push back on that sort of abject arrogance, there are other Americans (millions of them) who do not feel as confident about the importance of their franchise as most do here. Inevitability did not rule the day in 2008, and I'm not sure why doubling-down on that theme is likely to make it more likely this cycle. The meme should die. EVERY. VOTE. COUNTS. * * * I think it is fair game to refer to what a candidate has said and what is said on his or her behalf by individuals and organizations officially supporting that candidate. Running for the highest office in the land means that one has put oneself up for criticism. That said, I think it is important to be both truthful and kind. Here's my bias: I happen to think that Hillary Clinton would NOT likely win in a general election. I think there are too many people on the other side who would have a tooth extracted without anesthesia before they would vote for her, and I think her appeal to the Democratic base is too limited to carry her over the line to victory. I agree with the media meme this summer that there is an enthusiasm gap* about her candidacy (and yes, I understand she's still ahead nationally, but we haven't yet had a Democratic debate and I believe Bernie only has staff in four states so far).
"One major difference right now is enthusiasm," a CBS spokesman said in a news release. "Sanders is generating it and Clinton is not. Seventy-eight percent of Sanders voters in New Hampshire, and 63 percent of his voters in Iowa, say they enthusiastically support him, while just 39 percent of Clinton's backers in New Hampshire and 49 percent in Iowa say they enthusiastically support her." -U.S. News
While I appreciate much that she has done (I am not a hater), I would DEEPLY prefer another person win the White House who more closely reflects my values and priorities. I am enthusiastic about Bernie's race and I am collecting signatures to get him on the ballot in Texas (see comments). I think we have a very special moment in time where a righting of the course of our nation is possible, and that we can make our country great again by focusing on the middle class and helping people climb into it. I believe it is not only possible, but getting more likely by the day that this will transpire by our electing Bernie Sanders. Others here feel that electing Clinton is more likely and would accomplish this objective. We disagree on that. I believe the primaries are a time when we tussle for control of the heart and mind of our party in choosing whom to represent us in the general election. I think NOW is the time to debate among ourselves about whom we want collectively. I see inclusiveness as a common Democratic value - our strategy should include having the highest possible voter turn-out because that will benefit our candidate in the general election. I believe this election cycle is ours to lose, but only if we choose wisely. I believe that AFTER the nomination process is complete that we should come together to stand with that person through the general election, and I hope we will. *Article on general Democratic enthusiasm gap with Republicans.