Politico – 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. By DONNA BRAZILE, November 02, 2017.
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. …
So I followed the money. …
Others, myself included, had followed the money months before Ms. Brazile claims to have wandered down that path. Of course, we were limited to inspecting public FEC filings and had no access to DNC internal records. Thus, we had to engage in some dot connecting. Still —
There are several money trails into and out of the HVF which may have led to much of the confusion or inability to grasp the totality of what’s going on with the it. Some of it is perfectly legal, some questionable, and some illegal. The HVF, state parties, and DNC have some easy and ready-made explanation when questioned, …
Nor did it escape our attention that during his tenure as POTUS, particularly after 2012, Obama either had little interest in being more than the nominal leader of the party and therefore, the DNC or had willingly ceded the reins to team Clinton. That “dot” easily connected to the 2016 Democratic primary debate schedule and the September HFA, DNC, and state Democratic parties joint fundraising agreement that wasn’t publicly disclosed and was only began to be discovered by Margot Kidder in April 2016. Something a crack political journalist would have been on months earlier. Alas, they are all too important to do that sort of grunt work.
Yet, the vice-chair of the DNC, Donna Brazile, was totally out of the loop until July 24, 2016 when she became interim chairperson of the DNC. When she managed to get “in the loop,” her heart broke as she made her secret phone call to Bernie Sanders a few weeks before the election and now over a year later wants others to know about.
Perhaps one characteristic of Brazile that differentiates her from other political operative pros — and has made it difficult for me over the years to be too harshly critical of her — is that at certain points in time, she does somewhat come clean. Sometimes because she’s in a box and there are no other good alternatives and sometimes without any pressure. Did she make a promise to Sanders during that secret phone call that someday she would reveal what she knew? If Hillary had won, that “someday” would still be in the future and not today.
So, thanks, Donna for sharing, even if it’s days late and dollars short.
A big tell from Donna: I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails.
Pity Tour – May 31, 2017 – NYPost
…
“So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party,” Clinton said. “I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong…I had to inject money into it…To keep it going.”
Clinton claimed that Republicans, on the other hand, had been funneling money into President Trump’s campaign.
“So Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation,” she said.
Tres riche given the real facts as to when her campaign team took over the DNC.
Oops – February 27, 2014 – NPR – Clintons Provide Firepower Behind DNC ‘Voter Expansion Project’ (IOW the Clintons were instrumental in the DP 2014 midterm election strategy.)
…
At a briefing for reporters, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida said: “We are not just going to be on defense anymore. The DNC is going to dominate offense. We are focused on expanding the map…
…
Starting much earlier in the election year on boosting turnout and voter protection is a big part of the plan, DNC officials said.
“Voter protection has gone from being a bunch of lawyers suing on Election Day to more proactive,” said Pratt Wiley, the DNC’s voter protection director. “It’s gone from being a legal strategy to an organizing strategy.”
UPDATE
Former DNC chair @donnabrazile: For those who are telling me to shut up, I tell them "go to hell. I'm going to tell my story." pic.twitter.com/ppS5allr0O
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 5, 2017
About time!
In this instance, forget about standard Dem tactics for smearing critics, Brazile’s own admitted sleazy/unhanded or incompetent acts don’t do much damage to her likeability quotient with even a lefty like me.
A 4 for the title alone!!!
How I read this?
The ultimate survivor, Donna Brazile is at least acting like she’s jumping ship to the “new” Dem Party. She is…and always has been…a double/triple/quadruple-faced agent for her own fortunes.
She’s good at it, too. She sees the tide shifting; she gets on the next lifeboat.
The Bernie Boat.
Kinda sorta.
Or perhaps…she has been tasked with sabotaging that boat. I wouldn’t trust her with a wooden nickel, myself.
Hmmmm…
Ain’t politics wonderful!!!???
Still here, after all of those mistakes!!!
Is a puzzlement.
AG
How can anyone of a certain age read Brazile’s “I didn’t know but yes they did it” thingy and not hear the opening of that song running through his/her brain?
Brazile is a survivor in part because she doesn’t wait as long as other insiders to acknowledge that the wind has changed and is beyond a gentle breeze. That works well for her because she’s inherently likeable.
Glenn is proving to be mistaken about the readiness of Democrats to use the standard smearing tactics on Brazile, no matter how ludicrous, for the arch-crime of disloyalty to the Clintons.
Over at Wonkette, there are already suggestions – at least from those not making theatrical declarations of how painfully boring this non-story is – that Brazile wants a job with an imagined Sanders 2020 campaign, that the timing of the book excerpt is awfully convenient for Trump, etc.
Thanks for reporting back from one of the Hillary isles of denial (or for some insanity). For my own sanity, I limit my perusal of such derangement to one blog.
Holy shit is this all blowing up. I go to a Manchester Party function tomorrow night: I can’t wait to hear what people think.
Josh Marshall says:
And I think that is what has people stunned. The Sanders message is largely winning – in part because there really isn’t another one people think will work.
Brazile just knifed Clinton – there is no other way to read it – and she wanted to be seen as defending Sanders.
That an inside player wanted to to do that is really interesting.
(Dunwoody posted that yesterday. Marshall starts off well, then rationalizes, etc. to stick with the team.
Is Donna the only one among the insiders that has been reading the polls over the past year?
As she’s younger than most of the old guard, she does have more of an incentive to get onto the current wave. Obama’s focus is on fundraising the billion dollars he needs to build that monument to himself; so, it wouldn’t serve him to split off from the old moneybags.
It really isn’t that interesting, fladem. She’s just a little better hustler than her competitors. A little ahead of the inevitable curve.
So far…
Watch.
The knives will come out, now.
Watch.
AG
And they got beat by an ignorant clown with a twitter account. (Unless one believes that a comparatively handful of tweets, Facebook posts, etc. that could conceivably have originated in the Kremlin and that almost nobody saw had mind-meld level power.)
This was in addition to the NY primary voter registration deadlines. October 9, 2015 to change party affiliation to participate in the NY closed primary. First time voters had until March 25, 2016 to be eligible vote in the April 16, 2016 primary.
From our friends across the aisle:
https:/hotair.com/archives/2017/11/02/brazile-shocked-shocked-hillary-corrupted-dnc
I also prefer honesty in corruption. It creates a much more solid baseline of what we know.
I think this piece is important: “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.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.”
“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.”
So, essentially the Clinton campaign bought and controlled the party. Which means that when the party acted, it was essentially the Clinton campaign acting. Debates scheduling, the data breach between campaigns etc.
No wonder that you could buy a board seat in government with a large donation to either the Clinton campaign or the party, it was for all purposes the same organisation.
A question, can Biden be assumed to have known about this agreement? As I understand it, President Obama was party leader, so I guess he knew? Does a VP have a position in the party?
I mean, if Biden knew that the Clinton campaign had bought the party, then that explains why he didn’t run.
Maybe someday Joe will tell us. That would reveal how authentically tight his relationship with Obama was because objectively this was one area that Obama could have decided that Joe didn’t need to know. If the arrangement between Obama and Clinton goes back to ’08 when Obama had secured the nomination but still needed Clinton on board for the general election. Recall that point in time was before Obama had chosen his VP but would have disclosed to Clinton that it wouldn’t work for him to choose her.
The negotiation with Biden could have been as simple as Obama stating that he wanted a VP for hopefully eight years and not one that would spend Obama’s second term running to replace him. While Joe has always coveted the job of POTUS, it would have been difficult for him in ’08 to imagine that a 73-74 year old would be a viable first term candidate in ’16. To date that cut-off point has been 69 as the older nominees, Dole and McCain went down in part due their age.
That wouldn’t mean that Biden didn’t after ’12 entertain the possibility. But other than his family and closest of long-term associates, nobody encourage him, including his boss. Thus, by early 2015 he had zero in the way of a campaign. Beau’s death is what put him more on the front page, and that is what gave him a slight opening. One that he was reluctant not to pursue even as he had no campaign operation.
Why I lean towards Biden not knowing is that his public mulling over the possibility of running, that period from from June-July to late October, doesn’t fit for someone that knows the nomination has been rigged and decided. Plus I’m not persuaded that the general election polling — Clinton v. undefined GOP — at that time was poor enough for Clinton that another high profile Democrat would jump in to “save the day.”
When AG says, “the ultimate survivor, Donna Brazile” this leads me to think that Tom Perez had to know what was coming out in her book. It will be interesting to see how Perez reacts to this bombshell. Some people inside the DNC know the old Clinton model isn’t working and Brazile’s comments could be cover for making changes. Otherwise, the Dems go the way of the Whigs. If Gillespie wins the election in Virginia Tuesday, the Repubs will have another trifecta feather to put in their cap. How long can this go on?
Eric Levity at nymag.com also smells the Jew behind all this.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/longtime-clinton-ally-says-dnc-rigged-primary-for-hilla
ry.html
[I figure one cheap shot deserves another.]
Brazile may have more than one objective and they need not all be compatible with each other.
There are more than two factions within the Democratic Party. And there’s one faction that seeks to snooker the left as effectively as Obama did in ’07-’08. That’s where I’d say Brazile has gone.
Brazille has made specific factual allegations. If they are even a little false, her ass will get very sued. i have yet to hear a denial from anyone involved. You can’t analyze this as though it were mere rhetoric, where all that matters is the political motivations. She has to have the facts behind her or she is dead, and she knows this.
CNN:
Shockingly:
And “BernieBros” was far from the worst thing that Bernie supporters have been called over the past two plus years.
Warren was great!
Uh oh, — DSCC
This is your typical DC Consultant tell-all cash grab. The more well known ones do this, the less well known just blast the losing candidate after they lost and talk about how if the candidate only listened to them the candidate would have won.
Brazile wanted to pull money from swing states and put in Chicago and NOLA late because she was worried about losing the popular vote.
Which is quote possibly the dumbest idea since Karl Rove decided to dump 10 million in California in 2000.
It is funny to see Clinton people throw Obama under the bus. Make no mistake, Obama kind of deserves it. He never had much interest in merging the OFA with the Democratic Party – for the simple reason that he regarded the DC Party as being dominated by a bunch of high priced DC Consultants expert at bilking campaigns.
And oh is Obama right about that. All establishment campaigns build these large HQ’s filled with expensive staff. They are gigantic wastes of money, and if Shattered is to be believed Mook was obsessed with trying to close the money spigot in Brooklyn.
The first time I was ever involved in a serious race I met a friend at Mondale’ DC HQ – an expensive palace on Connecticut Avenue full of offices with people making lots of money. Gary Hart’s HQ where I worked was a run down brownstone in SE DC, where much of the staff sat in a basement that was subject to periodic flooding.
Our burn rate was next to nothing in DC. When the race turned Mondale was broke because so much of his fundraising went to supporting his DC offices.
I have seen this mistake over and over again. I saw it with Dean – whose burn rate meant he was out of money early because he was running a “national campaign” in the words that idiot Joe Trippi (Trippi worked for Mondale, you would have think he would have learned). Clinton made the same mistake in 2016. Virtually every front runner makes this mistake to some degree.
Brazile deserves credit for discussing the burn rate issue – it’s more important than people know and seldom discussed.
But has she ever actually won anything? Most of the DC people haven’t won shit.
I have been involved in legal protection at various levels since 2000. Pratt Wiley is talking through his ass.
That’s one thing they’re smart enough to take advantage of. A shame there are enough rubes buying this crap that it spawned this publishing genre. (Here I include the ghostwritten tomes by all the politicians.)
However and IMO, Brazile goes beyond a standard “tell-all” in revealing some of the DP/DNC/Clinton ’16 campaign crown jewels. As some have been pointing out for over a year and Brazile now confirms, Clinton didn’t win the nomination “fair and square.” Perhaps now those that say she did will STFU (and here at the Pond, perhaps the mad troll raters will stop tossing out troll ratings whenever I state that she cheated to win the nomination).
Primaries and the DP presidential nomination.
Been discussed on blogs since their inception. While we can dump on Dean and Trippi, let’s not forget that Kerry was broke and had to resort to loaning his campaign several million dollars. Same with Clinton in ’08.
Were you able to see and compare the ’08 HQs for Obama and HRC? Dank, basement digs for Obama ’12?
Did you win?
No question that the political consultant pros take a big chunk out of the campaign and party funds, but so too do media buys (generally inflated to cover a chunk to the campaign media buy person (ie Trippi on the Dean campaign)).
wrt the DNC and RNC, as both can pull in up to $33,400 annually from an individual donor, it’s not surprising that they’re not thrifty. On top of that, donors can purchase a building for the party (ie. Haim Saban DC/DNC facility. No wonder the DP office holders don’t stray from Israel First.)
Now that Brazile and Clinton have trashed Obama for saddling the DNC with millions in debt from his ’12 election, maybe we’ll hear from him. (How does a billion dollar campaign not manage to pay all debts? No wonder that once elected these bozos can’t prudently manage the federal budget.) Didn’t Obama help Clinton retire her ’08 campaign debts? No tears for Obama because officially he could have put one of his own in the DNC chair position. That he deferred to team Clinton on this is a reason why I suspect it was part of his deal with her in ’08.
Warren jumped into this argument last night too.
As I have said here before, the process was rigged long before anyone knew Sanders was running. Super-delegates exist for one reason: to stop another insurgent from winning (ie McGovern). In 2016 their existence, and the fact that the all sided with Clinton, was used to try and drive Bernie from the race on the grounds that the race had been decided. This absolutely had an effect on later primaries.
So too did the front-loading of primaries.
These are the primary tools by which the Party tries to keep the left from winning. They aren’t specific to this race, and I don’t think the other stuff the DNC mattered nearly as much as the super-delegates or the primary calendar did.
As I have also said, I think we would have lost anyway.
We had the money to fight on March 15th, and the press had not written us off at that point. And we lost every state.
Well I was pretty involved in the Hart New England effort and we didn’t lose a state. I was also pretty involved in Tennessee (where we also won).
But no I didn’t. But then I was not head of the Party either.
And I never suggested pulling money out of swing states to focus on the popular vote – an idea so astoundingly stupid it boggles the mind.
Regarding Kerry he shut nearly his entire operation except for Iowa – which was the right thing to do. Clinton was broke in ’08 in part because her burn rate was so high.
No idea regarding Obama’s burn rate in ’08.
Obama handed the keys to the Party over in 2015 as part of the deal in ’08.
I do recall that Clinton’s burn rate in ’08 (at least through ’07) was much higher than Obama’s. That reveals the inflexibility of campaigns organized way in advance. Going into ’08 team Clinton defined Edwards as her main competitor and that she and not he had much better access to big buck donations. Therefore, spend big in IA and NH to knock him down before SC. She and her team never fully grasped how and why Obama could beat her.
The ’08 primary schedule was front-loaded, but the ’16 schedule wasn’t much different from that in prior years and it began a month later than it had in ’08. IA, NH, NV, and SC have been allowed to punch far above their weight and the outcomes of those four sets up what Super Tuesday will look like. So, IMO it’s what comes before IA that’s more instrumental than the primary schedule.
Had the ’08 debate/forum schedule began in mid-September (that would be comparable to the ’16 schedule) instead of the April 26th and been limited to six (eleven had been held by mid-September), Obama wouldn’t have had as much early exposure and as many months to improve his performance which was weak in the first few. In addition to holding them late and limiting them to six, DWS decreed that candidates that participated in an unsanctioned debate wouldn’t be allowed on the sanctioned debate stage. ’16 was tailor made for the candidate with near 100% name ID. That’s rigging.
It’s also possible that the DNC voter file “breach” was a set-up and/or Sanders files were the ones that were snatched. I bring this up because there are reports from Bernie supporting New Yorkers that were purged or party registration changed who can’t figure out how else they would have been identified for selective purging.
You’re convinced that the IA caucus was fair and square. I’m not, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve concluded one way or the other. NH, fair; NV – Clark Co manipulated; SC – fair. Some scrambling went down in Boston — reminded me of FL 2000 on election day.
On the super delegates — party insiders act as if HHH would have beat Nixon in ’72. Bollocks. Nixon had wrapped up the south between ’68 and ’72 as well as the Wallace supporters outside the south. The best of HHH was behind him by ’72. (Plus having HHH shoved down their throats in ’68, that Democratic faction was in no mood to acquiesce a second time.) Had super delegates been weighing in before/during the primaries/caucuses, which one of the other candidates could have moved into the lead? Other than Bayh who declined to run due to his wife’s health, none would have satisfied both the party VIPs and the left wing.
No I am not. In fact I don’t think it was.
I think we needed to win Nevada. HAD we won Iowa and then Nevada I think Clinton might have been close to finished.
Because Front-loading can backfire. It did in 2008. Obama was pretty close to dead in the water after NH. He won SC (in part because Edwards closed strong among the white vote there). Super Tuesday was pretty close to SC, and the resulting bounce out of SC allowed Obama to survive.
The basic pattern of Super Tuesday goes all the way back to Pat Caddell, who set-up a string of early southern primaries to help Carter against Kennedy.
The 2016 Super Tuesday was tailor made for Clinton. That Sanders was able to win 4 of 9 was pretty shocking in itself.
I have said before that Nixon’s approval rating suggests no one would have gotten within 10 of him.
Okay. On IA. Neither of us are convinced, and all we can say is that the true results were likely closer than the official results. I’d say the same about NV.
So, let’s say that HRC more narrowly won in IA and NV, lost big in NH, and won big time in SC. Until someone with solid data can convince me otherwise, those first four contests impact the next round. How Super Tuesday voters read those first four as they make their final decision is a guessing game, but it’s difficult to dismiss that in ’16 a south v. north and west divide emerged with two exceptions. Why was OK — by ten points — so far away from the results in TX? What Sanders needed was MA. Would a narrow Sanders win in IA have altered the dynamics?
wrt ’08, Obama was in good shape after NH. He had a solid win in IA and a strong second place in NH. Clinton had a third place in IA and a modest win in NH. However, to get that NH win, she had to pull out the tears and the race card and unlike the old days, the latter was heard in SC. Obama also had money in the bank and Clinton didn’t.
But back up to the set-up. For most of ’07 it was the inevitable nominee with either Obama or Edwards (depending on one’s perspective) shooting to turn it into a two person race. Whereas ’16 was a foregone conclusion. IA spoiled the set-up both times. It made Obama viable. NH ’08 put Clinton back into the race and in ’16 made Sanders more viable.
A purely quantitative interpretation of the ’08 primary leads to the conclusion that there was a lot of excitement for both Obama and Clinton. Voter turnout was exceptionally high. But where was it in ’16? Adding Obama’s ’08 partisan Dem votes to Clinton’s should have led to a blowout for her in ’16. Yet in state after state, turnout was down and she struggled to match her ’08 vote totals. So, perhaps that ’08 energy for Clinton was an artifact of her running against a Black man — an uncomfortable interpretation for Democrats.
My favorite thing about the DNC scandal are the usual liberal Democrat barnacles who have for years whined “we NEED that plutocrat sellout money to fight reactionaries! Sucking up to billionaires is the only way we can defend minorities, so shut up emoprogs” now suddenly have no answer as to why Obama and then Hillary completely mismanaged all that money.
I’m interested in seeing how the donors react to the revelation that, contrary to what the well-heeled manager of the Washington Generals says, they don’t actually need that much Billionaire Sellout Money in order to prop up a credible party of liberal Minnesota Fats? I can understand giving the Democratic Party a billion dollars in order to keep the left down, but why spend a billion when you could just spend 50 million and get the same results?
Josh Marshall, hilariously:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donna-brazile-needs-to-back-up-her-self-serving-claims
It’s OK, Josh. By protecting the Clintons, you’re honoring a higher principle.
What a stupid “principle.” It’s the same operating principle that Trump ascribes to his fans; those that like the persona will overlook any and all despicable acts. Brazile was blessed with a pleasing persona — so pleasing that it even works well on me — but I never confound the persona with the behavior and therefore, have had no illusions about who and what Brazile is.
How often do we hear, “He was just a nice, normal guy” when confronted with a horror perpetrated by that “nice, normal guy?”
Didn’t get very far into Josh’s jumping through hoops piece. He doesn’t even seem to have a command of the facts that could be known by May ’16. For example, those mega-buck contributions to the HVF (capped by the allowable donations to HFA, DNC, and state DP signatories) only hit the HFA coffers in full and quickly. Plus HVF picked up the merchandise and collection costs; so, HFA had no costs associated with its fundraising. That’s illegal.
The last line of defense is Russia.
Booman effectively red baited the opposition here. Markos is doing the same today.
It is all that there is left.
At some point the fact that the Clinton people lost to the most unpopular candidate in modern political history was going to matter.
When it did the knives would come out not just from the progressive wing of the party, but from the establishment.
A good summary of the DNC troubles and Brazile’s charges, by Ryan “Things Are Getting Kinda” Grim, but assigning ultimate primary blame to Obama. I concur.
Also questions about the curious timing of the disclosures by Brazile. Plenty of self-serving by DB in waiting so long to tell us this.
Obama never trusted the DNC or the state parties, which is why the OFA remained separate.
Yes, separate, quiet, defunded and a non factor Not a whole lotta organizing from them, and to the extent they did any, well look at the results.
Distrust by Obama of party institutions and also a strong self-inflated sense of his own political power as if he alone could deliver Dems to the Promised Land.
LBJ in his presidency also emasculated the DNC , with similar disastrous (1966) results, though for hm it was more about pure power grabbing.
Disagree.
First, Organizing For Action (OFA) isn’t comparable to the DNC. It’s like Democracy For America (DFA). As DFA was operational while Howard Dean was DNC Chair, it’s rather silly of Grim to assert that OFA depreciated the DNC.
Second, Grim has no insider information as to how much control Obama exerted over the DNC and why publicly he seemed uninterested in it. It’s entirely possible that this was a concession he made to get Clinton on board with his ’08 general election campaign. Or he was wary of the DNC because it was staffed with long-term Clinton associates. Howard Dean didn’t do any internal house cleaning during his tenure as chair, 2005-2008. Plus institutional cultures live on if turnover is normal.
Team Clinton was in full command of the DNC from 1993 through 2004 — thus, it was a Clinton creature. Why expend political capital butting heads with it when it was just as easy to run his re-election campaign the way he’d run the first time around? That also avoided a possibility of a serious and damaging DNC coup not unlike what Carter faced in 1980.
Operationally, DWS was responsible for the fiscal matters of the DNC. It took in $30 million more in the ’12 election cycle than it had in the ’08 election cycle. Why did it spend $34 million more and end up with $16 million more in debt? ($10 million of that debt was subsequently written off by Duke Energy.) The ’16 election cycle receipt were $64 million more than that of ’12 (twice the ’12 increase from four years earlier). A key difference is that in ’16 lobbyist money was accepted.
Brazile is a party loyalist but has never been within the Clinton inner circle. (Probably knows first hand some dirt from the 2000 election.)
My take is that Obama really, really wanted to be viewed as a post-partisan president and so avoided getting his hands dirty with the internals of the Democratic party in his ongoing attempt to gain the affirmation of all those mythical moderate Republicans and the decidedly non-mythical beltway lobbyists and billionaire donors. What he never seemed to realize was that the Republican party was lost and the last thing the rest of the voters wanted was the corrupt, establishment friendly party he left in place. But of course, for some reason he cared enough about the party to intervene when Keith Ellison was up for the chair. Most likely he was just trying to get a job for one of his guys, but I also wouldn’t discount the possibility that he was doing a favor for all those presidential library donors or future speaking engagement customers…
Sounds about right to me. Too much ego and too few principles to become what most people want, a dedicated public servant. He’ll discover soon enough that one can’t mold and protect one’s legacy.
Interesting item that Donald’s campaign pollster recently said that Bernie “or just about anyone other than Hillary” would have beaten Donald. Bernie would have appealed more to the less-than-college whites.
Silence would have made them look less guilty.
Two more to read:
Steven D – What We Know About Collusion by Obama, the DNC and Hillary to Rig the Primaries – Part 1. Steven picks up one important and very early piece that I never saw in real time or subsequently. Also very interesting that ousting DWS long predated giving her the ax over the revelations in the DNC emails.
GG – Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That are False.
It’s a meme, Donna. Utter a disparaging word about Hillary and/or her campaign and that makes one a Putin stooge.
Donna Brazile Says She Faced Sexism From Top Hillary Clinton Aides In her new book, the former DNC chair is particularly critical of Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook.
The fine tradition of Roy Cohn and David Brock? Things were better when these vermints stayed on the right side of the aisle.