http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... ld_we.htmlClinton Ally and Former DNC Chairwoman Turns Tables, Accuses DNC of Rigging Primary Against Bernie
Donna Brazile is an Establishment Democrat with a capital E. She worked for Bill Clinton, ran Al Gore's campaign, and was forced out of her job as a CNN pundit in 2016 after getting caught leaking debate questions to Hillary Clinton's staff. She was a Democratic National Committee officer* and took over interim leadership of the organization after Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned last summer.
Now, in a new book, she's addressed critics who said the DNC ran a primary process that was slanted in Clinton's favor—by declaring that they right all along. From a Politico excerpt (Robby Mook was Clinton's campaign manager and Marc Elias is a Clinton lawyer):
It's hard to know what to make of this. On the one hand, it did seem to many people—both Sanders supporters and outside observers—as if the DNC clearly favored Clinton in the primary, and Brazile is citing a specific document to make her claim about that having been true.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.
On the other, we're relying here on her summary of the document, not its text, and Brazile has a clear personal incentive to distance herself from the DNC and Clinton campaign's 2016 failures. Her personal credibility is called into question by having made statements about the debate questions scandal that do not seem to have been truthful, and as Nate Silver points out, there are other non-DNC claims in the Politico excerpt that appear to be dubious too.
So ... take it all with a grain of salt, I guess? And/or just ignore it because 2016 is, at this point, ancient history? Who knows? Democrats gonna Democrat!
Here's a link to the Brazile book excerpt referenced in the article :
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 016-215774
On the one hand, I don't see a new, huge revelation here...
It was obvious from the very beginning of the nomination campaign that Pinocchio-Shultz and the rest of the DNC hierarchy was completely in the tank for Clinton...
All you had to do was look at the original minimalist primary debate schedule, (which was set-up to favor the front runner) and the way Deb started adding debates like crazy when Hillary needed them to see this, plus something like 90% of all the DNC convention super delegates had endorsed Hillary before the first primary votwe had been cast...
And then when the Russian-hacked email dumps began, many of them shone even more light on the DNC bias, (which undoubtedly had an effect on suppressing Sanders voters to turn out for Hillary)
And also on a human level, the bias is somewhat understandable...
Here you had a lifelong dues paying Democrat running against a guy who wasn't even a member of the party; it's only natural that people who had spent years working hard to elect Democrats, would prefer the former over the latter...
But that having been said, at a time when if they are to re-take the Congress they are going to need the Sanders-lefty types to turn out to vote, (and in many districts, to turn out to vote for candidates that are a lot less "progressive" than they are) the Democratic Party needs this coming from a leader within their own ranks like a friggin' hole in the head...
