A. I didn’t say a thing about the Russians. Contrary to your assertion, I think it’s pretty safe to assume the Russians were behind the hacks based on the circumstantial evidence and common sense.
B. What does 2008 have to do with anything? Regardless, the field in 2008 included several candidates who could’ve been considered rising stars (Obama, Edwards) or party stalwarts (Richardson, Biden, Dodd) and it didn’t end well for Team Clinton, which is why TC learned from its mistake.
C. You’re all over the place on the debates. I’m not sure what the GOP has to do with anything so I’ll just ignore that bird walk. As for the number of 2008 Democratic debates, you’re simply wrong. Really, really, really wrong.
There were 26 debates or forums. It’s very hard to take you seriously when you emphatically make a point that is so laughably off base.
D. “You’re making the argument that them allowing more money donations was bad?” I’m making the argument that allowing more big-money donations was bad for Bernie Sanders and good for Hillary Clinton b/c that’s what this thread is about i.e. Democratic primaries being rigged.
You keep bringing up the GOP; what does the GOP have to do with anything?
E. I repeat: “It defies common sense to look at all of [the Wikileaks] and pretend (a) the full extent of the problematic behavior has been revealed; and (b) the primary was a fair fight with both candidates enjoying a level playing field.”
It’s just adorable that you’re arguing that, despite the fact the DNC was demonstrably lying about being impartial, we now know the full extent of its impartiality. Sure, they claimed to be unbiased about Clinton vs. Sanders and that’s proven to be a lie, but now we can safely believe them when they say, “well, we preferred Clinton and openly discussed ways to sabotage Sanders, but we totes didn’t start those discussions until late in the game and obviously we never acted on them!!!”
I’m sure these highly calculating, highly motivated political operatives routinely spend time and energy discussing things over official channels with zero plans to follow through on those discussions.
The rest is completely off topic, though the all-caps is always compelling.
It’s clear that you don’t actually believe the primary was impartial. You just believe it was appropriate to favor Hillary Clinton. That’s a reasonable position b/c there is merit to the idea that establishment Dems should naturally favor an establishment-approved candidate over one who just signed up to participate in the primary.
Alas, your original position was that the primary wasn’t rigged to favor Hillary Clinton. That remains a ridiculous claim as evidenced by your failure to provide one scintilla of evidence to support the argument or rebut mine.
Incidentally, did Hillary or her supporters ever apologize for their despicable treatment of Barack Obama during the 2008 primary? Say, for raising the specter of assassination? Or for breathing life into all the birther bullshit? Or for the racist overtones of their attacks?
No? Ah, just checking.