Democratic National Committeewoman says her party is 'clearing a path' for Hillary because 'the women in charge' want it that way The Democratic National Committee is 'clearing a path' for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday's primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn't identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it 'early on.' The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary's rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lary-women-charge-want-way.html#ixzz3og9mHcAA Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook -------------------------------------- I believe it with Donna Brazille, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake in charge. The CNN debate was won by Bernie Sanders by all polls, yet the CNN pundits ALL said Hillary won. WTF was that? The fix is in. Democrats / Liberals are just sheep. Being mindless and being led by bigots.
In my opinion, Hillary is the only choice right now to get the Democratic Nomination unless a dark horse candidate comes along.
No suprise to anyone. They've been planning to use Gender ever since they saw how popular "Historic Firsts " were the last go around. Hillary even made a couple gender plugs in the debate, just so noone would miss that shes a woman lol.
I see. #1, The Daily Mail? Good Lord. #2, an anonymous quote from someone supporting a Hillary rival. Nah, no ax to grind there. #3, if you're a DNC member and want to leak a story about the U.S. election, why would you choose a British outlet like the Daily Mail? #4, The Daily Mail? Good Lord. The other things that cries "BS" is the anonymous person's claim that she's worried Hillary won't be "tested", and will collapse in the general. Nobody who knows anything would seriously claim Hillary has not been "tested" politically. And the first declared Socialist. And only the third Vermonter.
I believe it. Usually endorsements are rare this far out, but Hillary has already secured the endorsements of 114 of the 188 Democratic House members. She has the endorsement of 32 of the 46 democratic senators and 9 of the Democratic sitting governors. By contrast only 4 of the 31 Republican Governors have endorsed a candidate, 7 Republican senators out of 54 and 58 out of 247 House Republicans have give endorsements. Now most of the big money donors have given their support to Hillary. Only a couple of the big money donors have given their support to any of the Republican candidates. Most years only a few endorsements and pledges of financial support have been given this far out. The amount of endorsement and pledges to Hillary for financial support give great credence to what you just said.
With all the Democrats have invested in Hillary I believe you are right. She is the only choice if that is the word you want to use. The DNC and the leaders/establishment of the Democratic Party decided long ago Hillary was to be their 2016 nominee.
It's deja vu. Watching such a simple question go unanswered feels like I was watching the videos of people asking Hillary Supporters to name her Achievements....and none of them could. This is the thing with many Hillary supporters...they don't even know why they want to vote for her...but they are going to.
It's the feminist movement that make Democrats enjoy being controlled, they want a woman as President rather than someone as genuine as Bernie. I think Sanders would lose to Trump, but at least it would be a legitimate and honest election for once.
The irony here is that, even if this story were accurate, the RNC can only WISH that they could do the same. Right now, the Republcian National Committee can't even convince the television networks that air their debates to behave, much less rally behind a candidate of the Party's choice. - - - Updated - - - They don't tell you much. The do reflect the flux that's common in the "Silly season".
I think the guy who thought FDR got on TV and explained what happened when the stock market crashed in 1929 would be a better choice.
Trump and Carson just told CNBC to get bent. I am not a Republican, but I would say you are correct, but I don't think you understand why being correct makes Liberals / Democrats look like such sheep and it makes Republicans look like they are thoughtful.
This does illustrate Democrats are more likely to 'sell out' than conservatives, who are more likely to be principled with conviction, however good or bad their principles are.
Then the Dems are in big trouble. The woman is a walking scandal, pathological liar ,with no morals or values and a megalomaniac who will say or do whatever advances her. THIS is the best you could come up with? Very very pathetic...
Clearing a path? It's not like the "path" has many obstacles to begin with. Maybe if Joe gets in but that seems unlikely
The American public at large want the Democrats to nominate someone else besides Hillary at the tune of 54%.
There will be presidential debates between the Dem and the Gop candidate. If the GOP candidate goes in thinking that he will make these accusations, he will end up looking like a fool.
I disagree. I think it's a matter of who is most likely to win against a GOP nominee. Sanders is too far left to win a general election. That's the bottom line.
