Why Hillary Clinton Squashed Sanders-Supporter Nina Turner

Eric Zuesse

On Tuesday night July 26th, when Nina Turner was supposed to be onstage delivering the nominating speech for Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton’s people — at the last moment — barred her from going onstage, and offered no explanation. Hillary, not Bernie, would determine who would go up onstage to deliver the nominating-speech for him. The candidate, Bernie, couldn’t make that choice — not even prior to Hillary’s winning the Party’s nomination after the delegate-votes were counted. The DNC, the Democratic National Committee — under first the Hillary friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and then the Hillary friend Donna Brazile — controlled things, and they were taking their instructions ultimately from Hillary Clinton. (But, actually, Wasserman Schultz had been made the leader of the DNC by Obama, and was now at least as much a friend of his, as of Hillary’s, because Wasserman Schultz had delivered one of the three seconding-speeches for his 2008 nomination, not one of the three speeches — one nominating speech, plus two seconding — for Hillary. Originally, Wasserman Schultz had backed Hillary in 2007, and had even been co-chair of Hillary’s campaign against Obama. In other words: Wasserman Schultz represented both Hillary and Obama, and Obama chose her to rig the primaries for Hillary — and there were even news reports about some details of that rigging. Obama wanted Hillary to be his successor. But after Wasserman Schultz got fired for being exposed to have been rigging it, Obama placed long-time Hillary friend Donna Brazile in charge of the DNC. And, so, it was Brazile who actually made this decision against Turner, on behalf of Brazile’s longtime friends, the Clintons.)

Turner had arrived in Philadelphia on Tuesday afternoon, after great anticipation that she would make what she had been hoping would be the speech of her life, the speech that could quite possibly (and Bernie ardently wished would) catapult her into top-level Democratic politics in the way that Barack Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention did. Bernie wanted Turner to take his movement forward, to ultimate victory after 2016. Turner — as Bernie knew well, from his own experience seeing her address crowds — can get an audience out of their seats and onto their feet applauding, as Obama had done at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, though in her own distinctive crossover Black-and-White way, not Obama-cool, but instead soul-hot. Her style fuses references to Euro cultural heroes such as Dante, with references to Afro cultural heroes such as Martin Luther King, all joined together in advocacy of the peoples’ progress toward equality, both of justice and of economic opportunity. But her hope was not to be, by Clinton and Obama, allowed to fruition.

A friend of Turner said that both Turner and Rosario Dawson — who is another extremely effective public speaker and advocate of Bernie — were edited by the Hillary people, out of the promotional video that had been prepared by Bernie’s people, for presentation leading up to the nominating speech for him. The DNC’s objective was to do everything they can to crush that movement, so as to enable Clinton to avoid any effective organized Democratic opposition to her re-election run in 2020, like Obama had been unopposed to become the Party’s nominee in 2012.

Hillary doesn’t want anyone to represent the Bernie movement who is as effective a proponent of that movement as Turner is — who had even whipped the famously articulate debater Barney Frank, proponent of Hillary, when Turner argued against him for Bernie on MSNBC — Hillary doesn’t want someone like that, to be a competitor against her in 2020.

The way this zapping of Turner was done is that Hillary’s people told Sanders to tell Turner not to deliver his nominating-speech. They would allow only Tulsi Gabbard (whom Bernie had chosen to deliver the seconding speech) to do that. Gabbard is a flat, Hillary-like, public speaker — and Sanders would now need to choose someone other than Turner to second the nomination by Gabbard. Turner couldn’t be any part of it, at all. They wouldn’t let her onto the stage, at all.

At some time on Monday night, July 25th, Paul Feeney, the legislative director of the Dorchester Massachusetts-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222, received a phone call from his longtime friend Bernie Sanders, asking him to deliver the seconding speech for Sanders. (You can see Fenney’s address at 57:00 here.) Gabbard now was to become the person delivering the nominating speech (it’s at 51:30 there), and so Sanders needed quickly to find someone who would do this seconding.

Whereas Obama in 2008 allowed Hillary one nomination speech and two seconding speeches — all by speakers of her choosing — Hillary in 2016 would allow Bernie only one nominating speech and one seconding speech, and blocked him from having Turner deliver either of those speeches.

Turner, evidently, didn’t find out until sometime early Tuesday morning, that she wouldn’t be allowed on the stage at all — not even to deliver the seconding speech. At 4:12 AM on the 26th, Turner tweeted, “DNC betrayed Bernie Sanders and the rest of America.”

Though Gabbard’s speech was flat, her beauty-queen-like looks, and terrific progressive record in Congress, caused Bernie supporters to comment at the youtube of her nominating-speech for Sanders, extremely favorable things, like “Man, she is beautiful,” and, “Tulsi Gabbard deserves to be first female president.” However, Hillary evidently still prefers to be running against her, instead of to be running against Turner.

The reasons for that are sound. Either way, it would be a woman-against-woman race. But, if Turner were to become the opponent, then how would Hillary be able to retain the support of her 76% share of the Black vote, when running against a Black — and not only a Black but one who has “soul” (which neither Hillary nor Gabbard does)? Gabbard isn’t the type of person to lead a movement; she (like Turner — but certainly not like Hillary) would be a progressive President, but (unlike Sanders and Turner) Gabbard cannot inspire the type of “political revolution” that Sanders wants. She wouldn’t make it to the Presidency. Hillary, running as the incumbent against Gabbard in 2020, would easily win, no matter how bad Hillary’s term in office might turn out to be. By contrast, Turner would win the support not only of progressives but of Blacks — which even Sanders didn’t manage to pull off against Hillary. Hillary would thus lose a very large percentage of what has been (for no sound reason, but just because of the Clintons’ superficial rhetoric against racism — and despite Hillary’s actual policies favoring Wall Street against Main Street and thus hurt Blacks especially) a huge chunk of the Clintons’ support-base: black voters. Without Blacks, Hillary doesn’t stand a chance. So, Hillary has always “talked the talk” but never walked the walk.

Clinton did what was best for herself. She made a well-advised political decison for her personal benefit, and for the benefit of her Wall Street and her other donors.

When Mother Jones asked Turner whether Sanders stood up against Clinton, and had insisted that Turner must be allowed to go onstage, Turner responded (tactfully ignoring that MJ was asking a leading question in order to extract from her any ill-will she might be feeling against Sanders for having given her the bad news), “Sen. Sanders is in a difficult position. I don’t know. I don’t want to say.” That’s code for: So that Sanders not be absolutely iced out of the Democratic Party, he had needed to do whatever he was being instructed to do; Turner bore no resentment against him for what had happened to her. Her “I don’t want to say” meant: I don’t want to make things even worse, either for Sanders, or for myself, than they already are, and I won’t bite your bait. You’re hoping to destroy this movement; I am not.

Mother Jones is funded by Democratic-Party billionaires, who donate heavily to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Democratic Party’s newsmedia are run like that. This is the sort of thing that Sanders has been running against.

What Sanders was being instructed to do — to boot his own nominating speaker, and to get some last-minute person to deliver his seconding speech; and not even to be allowed more than a single seconding speaker — was not what’s normal in such a situation. Normally, each candidate gets one nominating speech, and at least one seconding speech. When Obama was running the Democratic National Convention in 2008, he allowed his former opponent, Hillary Clinton, to select one person to make her nominating speech, and two people to deliver seconding speeches for her; Obama then selected one person to deliver his nominating speech, and three people (one of them being Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as was noted) to second it. Whereas Obama treated his fellow-Wall-Street stooge Clinton with decency and respect, neither Obama nor Clinton treated Wall Street’s opponent, Sanders, that way. They despise him; they just can’t afford to state it publicly. (One might say instead that they do what their funders want them to do to him, but this way of phrasing the matter amounts really to saying practically the same thing, and semantics is not at all important here — it’s diversionary from the reality, which is the reason so many people prefer to get into it.)

At 7:44 PM on July 26th, the leader of the largest labor union for nurses, National Nurses United, RoseAnn DeMoro tweeted:

“Nina Turner was treated horribly by the Clinton Campaign today. The story is out there. They also took Bernie’s staff’s credentials. Evil.”

At 1:17 AM on July 27th. Chris Kott Toepfer posted a comment at facebook:

“Are any of you still thinking that the Dem’s have your back or best interest at heart? That the Dem’s are the party of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness? Dem’s are the party of dependence, not independence. The Dem’s are the party of depression, oppression & recession. Dem’s are not the party of lifting you up, there [they’re] about holding you down.”

Many other comments at that facebook page were asking questions such as this: “Skinner Vance There is nothing online about this. What happened???”

What’s most important in history happens usually behind closed doors and in private, and the public usually get wind of it too late, or else never.


There were no further public statements from either Sanders or Turner about the matter. Sanders’s hardworking devoted followers were simply left to wonder. But this silence from them is the reason why, for example, another comment there (at that facebook page), at 12:27 AM on July 27th, posted:

“Roland Vincent There is no question but that Bernie is playing the long game. …Were he to do a Ted Cruz and decline to endorse Hillary, the repercussions that would blow back on him if she were to lose would be a real problem for him in consolidating power within the Democratic party. The best case scenario, of course, would be for Bernie to be seen as Hillary’s loyal, enthusiastic supporter, and then having her lose. Bernie can never state that publicly. He can never admit that would be the best way to ensure the future of the revolution. He must go through the motions of embracing all he loathes, of supporting all he knows to be evil, of paying lip service to the oligarchy and its whore. And praying each night that Trump cleans her clock.”

Others were joining the Green Party, which stands no chance of winning the election unless it’s on the ballot in all states (which it’s nowhere near) and has an already-established star U.S. Senator or else state governor, such as Sanders was, heading its ticket (which it never did); so, that’s purely a throw-away vote, a mere ‘protest vote’, protesting to the wind. Stupidity, really. None of the ‘third parties’ is even on the ballot in a majority of states; each of these ‘parties’ is a play for suckers’ votes and nothing more than the candidate’s hope, like Ralph Nader’s one successful shot at doing this in 2000 turned out to be, of throwing the election to whichever major-party nominee is the farther of the two from the mouthed positions that the given ‘third party’ nominee espouses. (Nader was actually campaigning for Bush.) In the present instance, Clinton is probably actually farther from Sanders than is Trump, especially because her record in public office exists and is catastrophic, whereas Trump has none at all and self-contradicts as much as Hillary’s record contradicts her statements. But most of all: Trump’s victory would present at least a high likelihood of the Sanders movement taking over the Democratic Party, taking it away from the billionaires — and so forcing the billionaires to choose between the Sanders movement and the Trump Presidency. If Clinton goes up against Trump in 2020, the billionaires won’t be nearly as disturbed as would be the case Sanders-Trump, or even the case Sanders-Anyone. The billionaires fear Sanders above all else.)

Of course, Toepfer had it correct: All intelligent Bernie supporters will be voting for Trump. If Hillary wins, the turnout on November 8th will still be so lackluster that Republicans will almost certainly hold Congress, and President Hillary Clinton will fail to muster even as much from that resistant Congress as Obama did, since Obama is a vastly more effective deceiver than she is. At the end of her Presidential term, she’d be hated overwhelmingly: recognized as a Wall Street stooge even by the people who had voted for her — and despised as an incompetent one, by those who did not.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • jadan

    Bernie should never have used the term “political revolution”. It’s an abuse of the language. What he meant to say was “political accommodation”. And so far as throwing away votes for the Green Party goes, no one has any assurance that their vote is actually counted and honestly tallied anyway. The electoral apparatus has been broken for some time now. We haven’t had a honest vote count since the black boxes were installed. A large number of votes for the Greens will at least help establish the party. Bernie has already betrayed his so-called “movement” and these people need a place to go. His temperament is so completely unrevolutionary, we need a strong third party to do what he was too old and too chicken to do now. If these Green votes help defeat Clinton and elect Trump, it probably means no nuclear war with Russia.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Yes, but though it’s helpful to draw off from voting for Clinton those people, the more intelligent people will simply vote for Trump, which is twice as good because it doesn’t merely reduce Hillary’s vote, it increases Trump’s. The only real candidates (possible winners) in this race are Clinton and Trump, and intelligent people act accordingly.

    • kathleen

      Really, we should all use absentee ballots. You can do it on your own schedule so there’s no chance that you won’t be able to get to the polls on election day, no long lines, and so far, at least, they seem to be counting those. If you have a tender conscience (not a bad thing) just be sure to cross your town or county boundary once during election day, thus you will be “out of town.”

  • Brockland A.T.

    Its a bit much to say Obama ‘wanted’ Hilary to be his successor.

    The same people who chose him, a black man to continue wars against brown peoples, are now choosing Hilary to be ‘First Woman President’ and sell their wars for another eight years.

    Trump 2016

    Jill Stein 2016

    • Eric Zuesse

      Obama certainly did want Hillary to be his successor!

      • Brockland A.T.

        Neither of us can prove what Obama really thinks and wants.

        However, Hilary was responsible for some of the greatest embarrassments of his regime and theirs was an alliance of convenience.



        If Obama really wants someone other than Hilary to succeed him, its probably only known to Michelle Obama and his most trusted aides. Politically, there no other choice for him to make but Hilary.

        • Eric Zuesse

          Obama’s actions throughout were intelligently designed to maximize the likelihood that Hillary would become his successor. Actions speak far louder than words, to any intelligent ‘listener’.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Obama also could have squelched the first e-mail scandal and Libya Benghazi-gate, but chose to let it go through appropriate channels. It was the Clintons who lowered the boom, and Attorney General Lynch and FBI Director Comer probably sleep easier, if not soundly, over the futures of their grandchildren as a result.

            As much as I disagree with many of Obama’s policies, he did at least prevent outright American boots-officially-bleeding-on-the-ground involvement in Syria and Ukraine. These were major Hilary/Neocon priorities.

            Given the power of the neocons, the very act of slowing them down to prevent abruptly destroying America and the West in one Barbarossa gamble, despite being so beholden to the neocons, is no small accomplishment unto itself.

            Even as I write, Obama is planning his last ‘October Surprise’, which may usher in a new phase of the Daesh war, towards its end or to continue it in a new direction.

            Its all up to the next President.


  • Oct 20, 2011 Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died!


    • eupf

      Hillary thinks she’s Caesar, but is really just a half-rate Crassus. May she meet the same fate.

      • History has shown most do!

  • LCC

    You are very out of touch with reality. Bernie had little Black support and his zealot, Nina Turna, will have the same or less. “Blacks” are not monolithic and, contrary to ignorant stereotypes, will not vote for Nina Turner because she is Black. I have such a negative impression of her selfish attitude when it comes to the Democratic Party, that I would not be inclined to vote for her. And, after she refused to accept and endorse Hillary as the Democratic nominee AND she refused to submit her comments beforehand, I wouldn’t have let her loose on stage either. I would not put it past her to attack Hillary and put a complete damper on the convention. It was not about Nina Turner and promoting her political career. She and Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover and Rosario Dawson need to accept that fact

    • william william

      “Blacks” are not monolithic and, contrary to ignorant stereotypes, will not vote for Nina Turner because she is Black.” Agreed! However, I do wonder about the decision to allow Madeline Albright to speak who, by your own example of Nina Turner, herself asserted a very disturbing and ignorant stereotype about women, when she said “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t vote for Hillary.” How does that work, exactly? Are women monolithic and should all vote for Hillary because she is a woman, as Albright suggested?

    • Baby_Jesus

      So, why then did African-Americans vote for Obama?

  • Angie

    What’s this author’s agenda?? I was at the convention and Tulsi Gabbard gave a beautiful speech full of love and compassion, spoken from the heart, which inspired all of us who truly want change in this country.

    Hillary talks for the sake of boosting her own ego and power. She is corrupt to the core. There is no comparison.

    To think that Tulsi could not lead this movement means you do not know Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi has the integrity and determination to stand up against unjust power and corruption, such as that of the Clintons, and has proven so by standing by Bernie against the odds, regardless of the cost to her political career. We as Bernie supporters acknowledge this and respect Tulsi enormously for it. Yes, Tulsi’s beautiful – but her real beauty comes from her beautiful heart full of love for the people, and we see that. Sorry the author doesn’t.

    • Eric Zuesse

      I strongly support Tulsi Gabbard, but her speaking-style is almost as wooden as is Hillary’s. Gabbard isn’t the type of person who would be able to carry forward Bernie’s movement to victory. Turner, in my opinion, is — for the reasons the article states, including that Hillary now obviously fears Turner but doesn’t fear Gabbard. For once, I agree with Hillary’s judgment.

  • william william

    Margaret Sanger, famed eugenicist, in her own book, described being the keynote speaker at a
    KKK rally in Silver Lake, N.J. She was so well received that she was
    then invited to speak at a dozen more.

    “Colored people are like human weeds and need to be exterminated.” Margaret Sanger

    “I have to tell you that it was a great privilege, when I was told that I would receive this
    (The Margaret Sanger Award) award.” Hillary Clinton

    “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.” Margaret

    “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously…I am really in awe of her. …we can learn from her life
    and from the cause she launched and fought for…” Hillary

    “We have to bring them to heel.” Hillary Clinton

    “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Bill Clinton, referring
    to Barack Obama

  • Jim Smith

    Vote for President: Jill Stein / Nina Turner 2016 Green Party. Poor Hillary, she doesn’t understand Karma.

  • tiger

    Please why don’t you all just go, regroup and come back in 8 years or better yet, go to your Independent Party and see where you get to. It may have been easy for Bernie to get in, but just wait, things are being changed so this doesn’t happen again. Mark my word.

  • Somesh

    Brilliant analysis Eric. I am surprised I missed seeing this article in July. I agree 100% with your comments. I am a former Sanders supporter. Would love to see Nina as president. But agree that voting for Trump is doubling the vote against Clinton.