Beaker wrote: 
That would be Honorary Chair—so a glorified title for Wasserman.  She has her own re-election to concern her.  But, it can reasonably be inferred, imo, by HRC's choice of Kaine as her VP that she is pivoting  back to the center. Combined with platform and rule changes for the Sandernistas, she feels fine with the situation as her team forecasts it to unfold.  We'll see.

 muzik wrote:
So...none of this is true? Those aren't their emails? The Russians made it all up? Trump wrote all 20,000 himself? We should pay it no mind because the wrong people stand to gain?

Yes, the timing of the release is political. And?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Tweets are declaring the WikiLeaks are out of Russia to aid Donald Trump.

 muzik wrote:
There wouldn't be an opportunity if the DNC hadn't created it.

If the truth shall kill them, let them die.

 Beaker wrote: 
Why is Hillary running her over? Didn't she do it herself and is now getting caught? I would think a better analogy would be putting her with the Watergate folks.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
The difference is that it's meant to blow the wind out of the sails of the democrats.  It's all about perception and tactics.

 Steely_D wrote:
Define "work".

Could it get either of them elected? Of course not. But it could put both of their parties on the ballot in every state they take significant votes in, and it could move either or both of the incumbent parties to adjust their positions to co-opt the votes they couldn't earn this time.

 muzik wrote: 
More simply stated, a fair amount of skepticism pro and con is all you need to ward off  the taffy pulling of political games in the face of real life crisis. Sure, it zaps your energy and saps your assurance, but the truth is subject to blinders only when you choose to wear them...

 muzik wrote: 
Damned spell check.

 oldviolin wrote: 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Inconvenient proof. How banal a concept in predictable derision...

 muzik wrote: 
Well, being true, the only real way to use it as a counter weapon is before the DNC - certainly not after.
So you want it in the news, fresh. It has to be now.

And, if it's true, it's another piece of the puzzle that could drive people towards voting not Hillary. Of course, you can vote Not Hillary AND Not Trump. Folks just have to be willing to do that.
And the Not/Not forces have to agree that there can only be one alternate choice. Having Gary Johnson and Jill Stein split the Not/Not vote won't work. 

 muzik wrote:
What difference, at this point, does it make?

It's not like it's a surprise or anything. The DNC's bias was pretty obvious all along. As was the Republican establishment's—not that it made the slightest difference in that case.

I suppose one could argue that it matters more in a close race. And it will encourage the Sandersnistas to boycott her, possibly seeding a left-wing third (ok, fourth) party movement to turn some of that outrage into better ballot access and a broader political debate.

So I'm gonna go ahead and take it as good news.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
And mighty convenient for this to all come out a day before the DNC.

So, it was true all along...

I had a spine once.

 

Goodness Gracious.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Yep. And that was when terrorists were still burning their lips on school bus tail pipes, trying to blow them up.

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
Oh, well that gets the Cambridge Police Department off the hook, cuz that was way back when Obama was a student at Haaarvaaard.