Susan Sarandon Says ‘DNC Is Completely Corrupt’

[centiMac]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/susan-sarandon...30872.html

[$tevie]

I thought right wingers HATED it when Hollywood stars talked about politics. In fact, I know they do.

[Onamuji]

I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now:

Why does anyone pay attention to Susan Sarandon? She doesn't seem to have a filter on her speech. Tomorrow she'll be ranting about sunspots and the lack of nudity on broadcast television again.

[$tevie]

Because she is their only "star" right now that isn't famous for being bat-shit crazy.

Oh, and I forgot, she is a "famous lefty" so we are supposed to be cowed by her rejection of Clinton.

[Ca Bob]

The DNC is full of idealistic people with a lot of real world, practical experience. I've known quite a few of them. They are also part of a political organization that tries to straddle a lot of gulfs created by competing interests. The environmentalists and labor organizers don't always agree on some specific item, and back in the day, the pro-Israel and anti-Israel groups would put forward competing resolutions at the state convention. When the DNC members from all over the country get together, they can't seem to find and execute a suitable reform for the Iowa/New Hampshire first caucus/primary system, even though it's worked mainly to the advantage of northeastern candidates over the years. But when Donald Trump claimed that everything was fixed against Bernie ("He never had a chance."), I am not so swayed. Sanders was getting huge crowds all over California before the primaries got started. He was developing a following even then, and it grew. What he couldn't do was get enough votes in the early primaries, and he fell further and further behind in the late primaries. I don't think that anything the DNC did this year or last year had anything to do with those losses. I do think that the order in which we hold primaries is of some importance, and I fault the DNC and the RNC (not to mention state legislatures) for this problem.

In addition, Jill Stein is not my idea of a deep thinker.

[vision63]

Ca Bob wrote:
The DNC is full of idealistic people with a lot of real world, practical experience. I've known quite a few of them. They are also part of a political organization that tries to straddle a lot of gulfs created by competing interests. The environmentalists and labor organizers don't always agree on some specific item, and back in the day, the pro-Israel and anti-Israel groups would put forward competing resolutions at the state convention. When the DNC members from all over the country get together, they can't seem to find and execute a suitable reform for the Iowa/New Hampshire first caucus/primary system, even though it's worked mainly to the advantage of northeastern candidates over the years. But when Donald Trump claimed that everything was fixed against Bernie ("He never had a chance."), I am not so swayed. Sanders was getting huge crowds all over California before the primaries got started. He was developing a following even then, and it grew. What he couldn't do was get enough votes in the early primaries, and he fell further and further behind in the late primaries. I don't think that anything the DNC did this year or last year had anything to do with those losses. I do think that the order in which we hold primaries is of some importance, and I fault the DNC and the RNC (not to mention state legislatures) for this problem.

In addition, Jill Stein is not my idea of a deep thinker.

Bernie would have lost regardless of the order of the primaries. Certain constituencies had their minds already made up. He should have joined the party about 5 years prior and worked specifically withe black and latino caucuses. When he then choose to run this cycle he would have developed the proper credibility within those caucuses and been more effective. He was an outsider.