Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 19, 2016 in 2016 Presidential Election | 23 comments

Democrats – Not Russians – Sunk Clinton

Dear Democrats: If you want to find who is responsible for Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, then look inside your own political party.

Democrats – not Russians – sank Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Yes, the federal government says that it has evidence that Russians hacked into the DNC – just as Russians tried to hack into the RNC the same way.

Yet, the federal government hasn’t demonstrated that the hackers gave anything that they obtained to either Wikileaks or the Trump campaign. The claim that Russian hackers gave stolen information to Wikileaks is an unproven claim.

However, we now know that the Clinton-campaign information that Wikileaks revealed came from . . .

(Drum roll please!)

. . . disgruntled Democrats.

From the Daily Mail:

“A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by ‘disgusted’ whisteblowers – and not hacked by Russia. Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September. . . He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'”

Now, who could have tilted the primary-election playing field against Bernie Sanders?

From The Hill: “The Podesta leaks dominated the news cycle toward the end of the presidential campaign. The leaked material brought to light the fact that then-CNN contributor and now-interim Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Donna Brazile gave the Clinton camp advance warning of questions that would be asked during primary debates.”

One disgruntled Democrat went public about why she is disgruntled. From Politico:

“Three weeks before Election Day, as she sat at her kitchen table to fill out her ballot, Kim McKinney Cohen was angry and fed up. The Democratic Party, to which she had been unswervingly loyal for four decades, had sabotaged her chosen candidate, Bernie Sanders, and then lectured her about the need to vote for a woman whose hawkishness and arrogance rubbed her the wrong way. When Hillary Clinton said dismissively supporters of Donald Trump were “a basket of deplorables,” Cohen had heard enough. “Well, then,” she sighed, “I guess I’m a deplorable.” She took a black ink pen and carefully shaded in the rectangle next to the name Donald J. Trump.”

Now, President Obama himself is admitting that Democrats are responsible for Clinton’s defeat.

Then there is this:

It is one thing to prove that Russians hacked into the DNC and tried to hack into the RNC. It is another thing to prove that such hacking had any influence on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Again, nobody has proven that the factual data revealed by Wikileaks came from Russia.

Besides, that factual data wouldn’t have been harmful to Hillary Clinton if Clinton or her aides hadn’t been doing or saying anything wrong.

Boris Badenov might have pointed his periscope toward Clinton, but he isn’t responsible for what he saw. That responsibility lies totally within the Democratic Party.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The Moderate Voice
  • Ballard Burgher

    Your appetite for trolling appears to be limitless. To use one of your favorite words—pathetic.

  • Brownies girl

    Sheeesh, DR — you’re so transparent. I wonder if you would have posted a headline that reads:

    Fox News Poll: Majority Says Russian Hacking Made No Difference in 2016 Election

    …if Hillary had won the election. Don’t think so. If you’re looking to be taken seriously here, or anywhere else … well, don’t give up your day job. BG

    • dduck

      Yeah, DR, stick to your day job. The people who hate your columns and think they are not transparent and should not be taken seriously, are having kittens instead of just not reading them. I think they are either masochists or need other reading materials.

      • Brownies girl

        Actually, as stated, I think they’re incredibly transparent, but OK — I’ll plead guilty to “need other reading materials”. Ya happy now?

        • dduck

          One suggestion if you are into history: Blood and Sand
          Suez, Hungary and the Crisis That Shook the World
          By Alex von Tunzelmann
          If you want to read how governments can screw up.

          • Brownies girl

            Will check it out, thanks. Keeping track of gov’t screw ups takes a lot of time since I’m trying to keep track of your country — and MINE, which ain’t easy. (sigh) I missed meeting our Finance minister, who’s my MP in Ottawa, at a Christmas party because some dope rear ended me in the latest snow storm and little Ramsey got pitched into the front seat and broke two teeth on the gear shift. $300 at the vet. Plus am getting a head cold, just drank an extra strong Neo C*tran with a shot of rye, a glob of honey and three asprins, life goes on — am heading for the sack. cheers dear dd! BG

          • dduck

            Sorry to hear about you and Ramsey. Hope the rest of the year is better.

      • Ballard Burgher

        No kittens here. I don’t need to give these more than a scan to know they are trolling. I have plenty of other more worthwhile things to read, thanks.


    Oh dear, I agree with the premise of the article. Dems need to face facts, not make excuses. If they don’t face facts and take corrective action, they’ll be on course to loose again in the mid terms and in 2020. This became clear to me when I heard Joan Walsh discussing the competition for minority House Leader. She considered it a truism that a vote for a (straight) white male would be unconscionable, and, against a woman candidate, would be an act misogyny. Performance, or lack thereof, during years of leadership bore no relation to the preferred result, nor did any other qualification.

    It was pure identity politics. And, that’s what the Dems have become. To vote for a white male has become an unacceptable option on the left. That is the clear impression the Dems are giving, and so long as Dems insist on playing the identity politics game in which they only represent people of color, women, religious/cultural minorities and LGBT, and are dismissive of whites and men as being undeserving, they will continue to suffer at the polls. Listening to Joan Walsh, I understood why Dems are bleeding white voters and white males in particular. I honestly felt personally unwelcome in her version of the Democratic Party.

    David has everyone here up in arms and looking for a reason to take shots at him. But he’s not entirely off base this time just because he pissed you off last time. 🙂

    • Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist

      A lot to digest here, Elijah.

      Thank you.

      Personally, as a Democrat I accept and have always accepted and valued “‘people of color, women, religious/cultural minorities and LGBT,” and, of course, I also value and respect whites and men – and I would be perfectly comfortable with a black, or Latino, or Jewish or gay, or female or ‘even’ a white male in the highest office.

      But perhaps I am not Liberal enough, or politically savvy enough to discern such nuances.

      I would love to hear the opinions of others on this and wish all a very Merry Christmas/happy holidays.

    • dduck

      Thanks, ES. Nice to see a non-angry comment.


    Just saw this on Facebook. It’s from a liberal, but I don’t know the origin of the quote,”
    “The ‘white men’ slur erases the social, cultural and political differences between white men. It treats a vast group of people that includes rich and poor, the toffee-nosed and the back-broken, the manicured middle classes and labourers with hands like leather, as a faceless horde, all privileged, all comfortable, all probably horrible. Its greatest wrong is to overlook, and in fact negate, the most important difference between people: the class one. Indeed, that’s what identity politics is ultimately designed to do: replace the edgy, destabilising politics of class with the fundamentally conservative politics of identity. This is a tragedy. For whatever you may have thought of the class politics of old, it at least contained within it the ideal of solidarity, where people of all kinds of backgrounds might come together to demand a better, fairer deal. The politics of identity, by contrast, is separatist, and fatalistic, dividing us into biological, racial and gender boxes and telling us we will never understand each other.”

    Is it true that the new, and most generalized and dehumanizing, insult of our time is “white men”? I hope not, but I fear it might be to some. I’ll shut up now.

    • dduck

      ES, I think a rightie said that, and it seems a little whiny to me.


        Yes, you are correct, as I have learned since my original comment. I believe it was written in support of an article in The Guardian. For me rightie or leftie matter less than truthie, and I found some truth here.

        Now here’s the dilemma. I’m inclined to write a whole piece on this topic and how D’s dismissing the interests of white voters and male voters is costing them elections, state and national. But, I fear being branded (racist, misogynist, whatever) for even raising the issue. My head tells me I’m onto something, but my gut tells me to get back in the foxhole and make as little noise as possible.

        • dduck

          No fears, we are the moderates of the TMV battalion, defenders of and respecters of others views and ever open minded with our label makers holstered.

          • The Ohioan


          • Brownies girl


        • Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist

          Hi Elijah,

          Although your answer/comment was directed at dduck, I am taking the liberty of making a couple of remarks since my initials were mentioned.

          1. I am not dismissing the interests of white voters, or of any voters. just expressing my personal and probably uniformed views.

          2. I would love to see you expand your views on this issue and I am pretty sure no one here at TMV will brand you “racist, misogynist, whatever.”

          • Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist

            Double apologies are due.

            First, for arrogantly assuming that “D’s” was referring to my initial

            Second for jumping to conclusions about Elijah even referring to me.

            Having said all those mea culpas, I still would love to see your article on this, Elijah, and promise to read it more carefully, not to jump to any conclusions and, more important, to live up to dduck’s so well expressed expectations of us Moderates. .

        • Brownies girl

          ES writes:

          I fear being branded (racist, misogynist, whatever) for even raising the issue. My head tells me I’m onto something, but my gut tells me to get back in the foxhole and make as little noise as possible.

          Don’t be so fearful – write the darn article! I for one would love to read it! BG

    • DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist

      It isnt new Elijah. It is old and the word ‘men’ need not go with it. To call people ‘white’ or ‘black’ or whatever, ERASES individuals COMPLETELY– in the same way calling people who are giving their lives ‘troops’ … and I’ve been saying it and saying this publicly in every keynote, every visiting scholar gig, every training I’ve given to professional groups I’ve taken up, to anyone who will listen, and for decades.

      It is not new. Just as an aside, We mestizo Latinos are counted as ‘caucasian’ whatever THAT means, on US census since forever. It is non-radiant BS. It is a fake label that is a social construct, in no way a factual or accurate way of knowing persons, seeing them as real

      Personally, I can read literally thousands of writers across the vast millions of sites on the internet, people who stay in their chairs at home, at work who have NO idea who is living in our nation, how many universities are guided by damn good people, how many are serving in military, how many are caught in war and hell, who would as soon spit in the ranter’s eye as listen to one more peeve about glommed and nondifferentiated labels such as diversity, feminism, immigrants, namecalling whichever micro or macro group, and whatever else –while the men and women- of all kinds and backgrounds and lives– are laying their asses on the line every day trying to stay alive.

      I personally hold out daily for reading original thought by stakeholders who are in the midst of it all, or who have discerned responses, and who offer original insights.

      Just my .02 hopes as an editor.


    Thanks for the support from all. I will probably write the piece. But understand that I am talking about challenging some very sacrosanct notions here, including (to name just a few) feminist orthodoxy, sanctuary protection for undocumented aliens, university enforced politically correct censorship, coastal liberal elites, and Black Lives Matter.

    Many a tombstone reads “My, but wasn’t he brave, sticking his head out of the foxhole like that”. Oh, don’t worry. I’ll do it. Hell, I accused the Obama administration of illegally assassinating Osama bin Laden… even called it murder. How hard can this be? Your job – when the piece appears – will be to remember how tolerant and open minded you promised to be. See you soon. Merry Christmas.

    • JSpencer

      I never made any promises, and I urge you to jump into the briar patch! 😉 😉 😉

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :