Donna Brazile throws Hillary under the bus. (Merged) (supporter, Florida, work)

[Oklazona Bound]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

If, indeed, he lost them, at least he had them to lose, unlike the current inhabitant of the White House.

Flush the toilet!

I did not like a lot of Sanders ideals but he was head and shoulders above Trump and Clinton. What horrible choices in 2016.

And if he had become POTUS he would never gotten anything that he wanted passed so he would have been a harmless president. Also Larry David would have been part of the regular cast of SNL.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by lisanicole1

You are ignoring pertinent parts, to be fair.


The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.


When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination."

You are reading this as Brazile having a problem with joint fundraising when clearly she doesnt, if she had, this article wouldnt exist because Bernie had an agreement as well and he didnt even become the nominee.


The problem she is mentioning in the aticle is the structure of the agreement. Allowing Clinton and her team final approval on staff. I get why you would be against that. She also mentions that she doesn like that the Clinton campaign took so much money.

I agree with Brazile on the first, Clinton shouldnt be picking staff. But only partially on the second ( its Clinton's money and yes she should help down party candidates, but it is hers, she raised it, not DNC).

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ks-2016-215774

Is this not Donna's "Yes, I am gay" moment? While the basis is correct and this hopefully does throw the last shovel of dirt on the grave of Hillary's political aspirations, she still will not come completely clean.

She knew what was going on well before being asked to take over. It doesn't excuse her cheating to help Hillary and there is still NO proof the Russians stole the emails.

As an aside......my wife is the treasurer of the local High School band boosters. She must provide a financial statement to every officer once a month. Donna can not claim ignorance here.

Dirty.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by moneill

Wasn't Bernie always an independent anyways. He only joined the Democratic party to run for President right?

He was a Democrat when he was running for President. I guess that he didn't like what he saw. So he kissed Hillary's ass in the end, took their money, then did a runner. So much for the people who supported him. Got to hand it to Bernie for thinking ahead.

The Democrat party is getting ready to have a classic battle royal. Who knows who will be left standing. But you can be sure, no Clinton will be harmed by the outcome.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by jackwinkelman

Big difference is Hillary's agreement put all operational control under her domain. Bernie's was simply how his fundraising was split.

It was a brilliant scheme by Clinton. She controlled the DNC and had a virtual guarantee of being the nominee. If you don't see a problem with all this then you really are a hardcore democrat.

I will state this to get it out of the way. I do indeed have a problem with the agreement.


Now that being said, reread the post you are responding to. The person I was responding to says Brazile has a problem with the very existence of an agreement which isnt true. That is what I was responding to.

Also, Clinton did not gaurantee being the nominee. the DNC does not control a single primary, nor would its control if it had it have helped clinton win.

[lisanicole1]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I will state this to get it out of the way. I do indeed have a problem with the agreement.


Now that being said, reread the post you are responding to. The person I was responding to says Brazile has a problem with the very existence of an agreement which isnt true. That is what I was responding to.

Also, Clinton did not gaurantee being the nominee. the DNC does not control a single primary, nor would its control if it had it have helped clinton win.

No I am saying that her Agreement gave her control of finances and staff of DNC before she was nominated. A year before.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Also, Clinton did not gaurantee being the nominee. the DNC does not control a single primary, nor would its control if it had it have helped clinton win.

DNC doesn't need to control those primaries because of the Super Delegates.

Super Delegates picked Hillary. Not the primary voters.



(of course they do completely control the arcane caucus rules that turned it for Hillary in the first place)

[doggiedog9]

Your votes don't matter during the nomination process Sanders complained about the super delegates and the rigged system. Dems will get force fed another maybe Biden or a minority...sorry Sanders has no shot

[Oklazona Bound]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I will state this to get it out of the way. I do indeed have a problem with the agreement.


Now that being said, reread the post you are responding to. The person I was responding to says Brazile has a problem with the very existence of an agreement which isnt true. That is what I was responding to.

Also, Clinton did not gaurantee being the nominee. the DNC does not control a single primary, nor would its control if it had it have helped clinton win.

She had the super delegates locked up. She controlled the message of the DNC which helps. And I believe the DNC scheduled the debate dates. Sanders complained they put them when the least amount of people would be watching. If Sanders had a knockout debate performance they wanted the least impact. All these things add up.

And it seems she assumed she would be the nominee from the outset. It was almost like a incumbent presidential campaign.

True no guarantees but if there was ever any candidate close to a guarantee it was Clinton. I don't know how it was in 2008 but she did not want another Obama like candidate to steal why she though was hers.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

DNC doesn't need to control those primaries because of the Super Delegates.

Super Delegates picked Hillary. Not the primary voters.



(of course they do completely control the arcane caucus rules that turned it for Hillary in the first place)

There are 700 superdelegates, and 4000 regular delegates. No one can win the nomination with super delegates alone.

and to be clear, her margin of victory was more than 700. She could have lost every superdelegate and still won.

Super delegates are also not DNC members on a year to year basis, they only exist during the primary and they are mostly elected Democrats from across the nation.