"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"

Gary

It may be kicking a dead horse but Donna Brazile gives a detailed account of how the DNC became an arm or the Clinton campaign during the primaries in her new book as excerpted in Politico.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-dnc-clinton-campaign_us_59fb1a5ce4b0b0c7fa3866ea



Like  1 Like
drummerboy

I read an excerpt somewhere else. It's pretty much an inside baseball account. It's hard to be really shocked about things that you didn't know about in the first place. A bunch of arcane details about the DNC and who controls what when.

What struck me was the tone. Brazile comes off pretty badly if you ask me. Lots of self-congratulations about her amazing integrity. Almost embarrassing to read. I've never really cared for her.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

ska said:

It may be kicking a dead horse but Donna Brazile gives a detailed account of how the DNC became an arm or the Clinton campaign during the primaries in her new book as excerpted in Politico.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-dnc-clinton-campaign_us_59fb1a5ce4b0b0c7fa3866ea



Like  2 Likes
yahooyahoo

Brazile is part of the problem.


Like  2 Likes
LOST

I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.


Like  2 Likes
drummerboy

I think the point of the outrage is that she took over well before she was the nominee.

Again, w-a-a-a-y inside baseball.

And anyway, Hillary was probably a lot better than Wasserman.



LOST said:

I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.



Like  
Norman Bates


LOST said:

I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.

I cannot ascertain if you are being facetious or not.  However, the following excerpt from Brazile's book clearly explains that the HRC takeover of the DNC occurred well before she was the nominee:

"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."

As per Brazile's book, Wasserman-Schultz, via a combination of ineptitude and allegiance to HRC, ceded control of the DNC to the Clinton campaign well before she was the nominee.  Was it ethical corruption by Wasserman-Schultz and other DNC leaders?  Or was it because they felt no allegiance to Sanders who was viewed as an outsider attempting to hijack the Democratic party for his presidential run?   Or was it HRC simply being the consummate party insider, taking control and setting things up to benefit herself?  Everyone can do their own math.


Like  1 Like
ml1

while a political party can certainly make rules that favor one candidate or one type of candidate over another, this kind of activity by the DNC starts to border on fraud.  They were out soliciting donations from people who didn't necessarily support Hillary Clinton for president, and didn't know the process they were supporting was stacked in one candidate's favor.


Like  1 Like
Nancy

I've had a thread on the DNC corruption for awhile and I just posted Brazille's article in The Hill that came out yesterday.  This is quite an incendary piece.  I am very surprised she came out with this--perhaps because her book is coming out this week, but I'm glad she did.  I have not been a Donna Brazille fan, since she admitted she gave Hillary the debate questions ahead of time, but this redeems her some, that's for sure.  Those who were calling Bernnie supporters nuts for saying the primary was rigged should rethink what really happended and start paying attention to what is going on now in the DNC, which is just as bad.


Like  2 Likes
paulsurovell

Here's the key excerpt from Donna Brazile's bombshell book (my bold). Note the appearance of Marc Elias in this, the General Counsel of Hillary's campaign who also secretly contracted for the Russian dossier on Trump and lied to media about Hillary's involvement in it:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
By DONNA BRAZILE  November 02, 2017
[ . . . ]
I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
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.
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.
[ . . . ]

Like  1 Like
Nancy

Well, Donna's book seems to much better than Hillary's.


Like  
Dennis

Geez...prattle on about pols who are " over with "...I'd rather talk about current,  relative folks who have the capacity to maybe mean something. 


Like  
drummerboy

welcome to the Semi-Annual Democratic Circular Firing Squad!


Like  
Nancy


Dennis_Seelbach said:

Geez...prattle on about pols who are " over with "...I'd rather talk about current,  relative folks who have the capacity to maybe mean something. 

It's not "over with."   The DNC is still totally corrupt and on board to lose in 2020.  


Like  2 Likes
Elizabeth

Given how much rage there was among Democrats, it seems that perhaps some of the Bernicrats' rage was justified, while the Hillary folks derided and upbraided and hounded the Sanders supporters for no reason, other than their choice of candidate. Full stop.


Like  1 Like
author


LOST said:

I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.

Her Highness was merely a candidate at the time.  She did not have the nomination


Like  1 Like
Nancy

She took it over a year before the primary.  The DNC was in debt and Hillary paid it off and then they only worked for her.  She had final say on who was hired and fired.  She was the boss.  This was in place before Sanders was even running.  

author said:



LOST said:

I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.

Her Highness was merely a candidate at the time.  She did not have the nomination



Like  1 Like
paulsurovell


author said:



LOST said:

I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.

Her Highness was merely a candidate at the time.  She did not have the nomination

Four months after she declared her candidacy, 11 months before she "won" the nomination.


Like  1 Like
drummerboy

so, she paid off the debt of the DNC?

I see.

What other horror did she perpetrate?


Like  
Nancy

She paid off the debt and kept them afloat working only for her, while lying to the American people about the Democratic system.  She was the DNC.  It was the HNC, and only H mattered.  The primary was a sham, a total waste of time.  Her book, "What Happened?" did not tell what really happened.  More lies.


Like  1 Like
drummerboy

read my post in the other thread. You're being hosed by Donna Brazile.

nan said:

She paid off the debt and kept them afloat working only for her, while lying to the American people about the Democratic system.  She was the DNC.  It was the HNC, and only H mattered.  The primary was a sham, a total waste of time.  Her book, "What Happened?" did not tell what really happened.  More lies.



Like  
Mike

The only thing that shocks me is that this was released by Brazile.  I thought she was a Clinton loyalist.


Like  
Nancy

Donna Brazille was named DNC head after Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down because of Wikileaks.  So, she was an insider.  She was the one who gave Clinton the questions before the debate.  


Like  
paulsurovell

People are having fun with this on Twitter:


Like  1 Like
BG9


nan said:

Donna Brazille was named DNC head after Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down because of Wikileaks.  So, she was an insider.  She was the one who gave Clinton the questions before the debate.  

A Clinton loyalist when she thought Clinton would win and be an administration insider, be in the news, headlines, etc. Didn't work out as planned.

She's now desperately trying remain relevant.


Like  
Ridley


nan said:

She paid off the debt and kept them afloat working only for her, while lying to the American people about the Democratic system.  She was the DNC.  It was the HNC, and only H mattered.  The primary was a sham, a total waste of time.  Her book, "What Happened?" did not tell what really happened.  More lies.

In what universe is the primary system democratic? 


How much influence did your vote in NJ have on who was to be the Democratic Party candidate? 


After your vote was cast, were you allowed to go to the convention and tell them who you wanted to be the candidate? 


Are you a super-delegate? 


What kind of system do you believe you actually have?


Like  1 Like
Nancy

So what? Do you think this is acceptable? They should get rid of superdelegates. This is massive corruption. She bought the nomination. 

ridski said:



nan said:

She paid off the debt and kept them afloat working only for her, while lying to the American people about the Democratic system.  She was the DNC.  It was the HNC, and only H mattered.  The primary was a sham, a total waste of time.  Her book, "What Happened?" did not tell what really happened.  More lies.

In what universe is the primary system democratic? 




How much influence did your vote in NJ have on who was to be the Democratic Party candidate? 




After your vote was cast, were you allowed to go to the convention and tell them who you wanted to be the candidate? 




Are you a super-delegate? 




What kind of system do you believe you actually have?



Like  2 Likes
cramer

Brazille seeks to indict Obama as much as she seeks to indict the Clinton campaign and DNC.


Like  1 Like
drummerboy

She was outspent by Bernie.

Let's repeat that.

Bernie spent more money than Hillary during the primaries.

So how did she "buy" anything? Was their a discount being offered? Or was she just a better shopper than Bernie?

nan said:

So what? Do you think this is acceptable? They should get rid of superdelegates. This is massive corruption. She bought the nomination. 



Like  
drummerboy

p.s. of course they should get rid of super-delegates. Has nothing to do with anything.


Like  
ml1

putting all of these arguments aside, it's a fair bet that Sanders would have beaten Trump.  There isn't likely one single state that Clinton would have won and Sanders wouldn't.  He had a better chance than Clinton in PA, WI, and MI.  Overall, more voters under 35 likely would have come out to vote.

so liberals on MOL can insult each other all we want, there's pretty strong evidence that the DNC shot itself in the foot by tilting the field so severely toward Clinton.  They misjudged the electorate in a time when insiders were distrusted on both the left and the right, and particularly among younger Democratic voters.

So anyone who thinks the main job of a party is to win elections should probably not be making excuses for the mammoth misjudgment of the DNC which was one of the biggest reasons we got stuck with Trump.  

You'd think there might be some thought of how to change strategy for 2018 and 2020 within the DNC.  Maybe craft a proactive message of what policies they want to bring forward to make Americans' lives better.  But no, it looks like it's going to be more tepid, spinelessness and a message of "hey, we're not as crazy as the Republicans."


Like  1 Like

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.