The fix was in
Not that most people didn't assume it already, but a leaked Democratic National Committee (DNC) document shows the party always was focused on getting Hillary Clinton elected president and not on allowing the liberal electorate to choose its favorite candidate, according to The New York Post.
A month after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced his candidacy, the May 26, 2015, document - whose author was not listed - stated the DNC's "goals & strategy" are to "provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]." It further outlined ways to strike at the then-dozen and a half Republicans running, suggesting the party "use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC."
The document was leaked by the hacker "Guccifer 2.0," who took responsibility for it.
Sanders has made the claim all along that the DNC had a "Hillary only" strategy and now insists on the ouster of DNC chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as one of his demands for party unity.
"With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance," a Sanders supporter tweeted from Chicago, "I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov."
When is a 'right' wrong?
Numerous Democrats explained at the dawn of the Obama administration how health care was "a right," so the soon-to-be-decked-up Affordable Care Act was the proper thing to do.
One of that legion, MSNBC host Chris Matthews, is now not so sure about that with all that socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is advocating.
"He's not going to get all this social stuff that he wants," he said on "Hardball" last week. "If Hillary [Clinton] gives him the social stuff he wants like $15 [minimum wage] and she gives him health - what do you call it? Medi - Social Security benefits way beyond what people are paying into it and turns it into a welfare program or you know life health care as a right."
Matthews even seemed to ponder the ridiculous notion of "a right" for a moment.
"I'm not sure what that means exactly by the way as a right," he said. "You force people to go to medical school or nursing school and administer hospitals because you have to do it because we made this commitment. I mean, how does that actually physically work? That right thing."
Boston Globe reporter Indira Lakshmanan, expected to be unbiased as a journalist, was only too happy to offer the Obama administration side of "the right" argument to Matthews.
"Well, the Obama administration would argue that they have already given the right to health care through Obamacare," she said.
Well, if they decided it, her argument implies, that must settle it. But that doesn't make it so.
Constitution? It's just a piece of paper
A writer for Vox took to Twitter last week to publicly say what President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and most Democrats believe but won't come right out and say.
"This is not Dems' sales pitch," Dylan Matthews wrote, "but I'm totally down with letting the prez unilaterally ban people (hopefully everyone!) from buying guns."
Later, in an exchange with fellow liberal writer Glenn Greenwald, he said, "I don't think there's an individual right to bear arms." Apparently, as long as plans are made to remove them, he added, "I totally respect erring toward due process."
As one might imagine, he had a few people who knew a little bit more about the Constitution disagree with him.
"So when President Trump puts you on a list," asked Mr. x@GlomarResponder, "he can remove whatever constitutional rights he pleases?"
"What a wonderful precedent this sets," said Fitz_DC@Fitz_DC. "Now imagine a political adversary applying this."
"This is kind of a creepy totalitarian view," said Tim Carney@TPCarney. "[But] I don't think you'd consider that characterization a criticism."
A white privilege-hating gator?
The 2-year-old pulled to his death by an alligator at a Disney World lagoon last week may have deserved it because of white privilege, a white, Chicago-based Twitter user tweeted last week.
"I'm so finished with the white men's entitlement lately," she was reported to have said by The Blaze, "that I'm really not sad about a 2yo being eaten by a gator bc his daddy ignored signs.
"You really think there are no (expletive) consequences to anything," the tweeter, known as "Briene of Snarth" and the Twitter handle @femme_esq, added. "A (expletive) SIGN told you to stay out of water in Florida? (Expletive) a SIGN!!"
The tweeter, in time, evidently pulled down her social media account but not before she heard from some Twitter users who begged to differ.
"Tell me more about how a 2 year old deserves to die for his race and gender," Larry@datavortex of Pittsburgh responded.
To another who tweeted about his son being killed when a tornado "ripped apart our home & crushed him," the Windy City windbag responded, "There are consequences to living in Tornado Alley."
Sort of makes you wish for the days when the telephone was the most modern communication tool.