Discussion: Brazile: I Found 'No Evidence' That Dem Primaries Were 'Rigged'

TPM Article Topics
1
Brazile: I Found 'No Evidence' That Dem Primaries Were 'Rigged' Brazile: I Found 'No Evidence' That Dem Primaries Were 'Rigged' Back to article
4 Likes
2

Wait, WHAT!?

12 Likes
3

Is she old friends with Ed Gillespie by any chance ?

7 Likes
4

My first question when reading the original base story of Donna Brazile’s attack on the Democratic Party primary process by Hillary was whether the reporter writing this piece originally was doing an hit job on the Democrats.

Looks like I was right to ask. He or she was doing a hit job instead of reporting.

This hit job is the story, not Hillary’s alleged wrongdoing.

22 Likes
5

Very poor choice of words on Brazile’s part. Makes we wonder how she ever rose to interim chairwoman of the DNC. And as much as I like and respect Senator Warren, I thought her response was intemperate as well. And all this just a few days before the big VA gubernatorial election. Who needs Comey when Dems are so good at shooting themselves in the foot? When will we ever learn?

38 Likes
6

I’ve always had quite a bit of respect for Donna Brazile, but this seems to be friendly fire by using an uzi. Donna, what of your (supposed) call to Bernie, informing him you’d found the evidence of a rigging? And, Elizabeth Warren, wtf?

27 Likes
7

I hope so! If this was a fake-news hit job (ala Fox or BrickShit style), then that reporter needs to be called on the carpet.

5 Likes
8

marketing!

sell that book!

11 Likes
9

After reading Josh’s second editorial note (on this story) from yesterday, I am getting the impression Brazile 1) Didn’t (still doesn’t?) understand how the DNC works and the limitations of the chair’s powers and 2) Brazile has an inflated sense of self and ego.

We have enough shit stirrers. Same goes for you, Elizabeth Warren. Both of you owe Hillary (and us!) an enormous ass-kissing apology – as well as a media tour setting the record straight. Idiots.

I’m waiting.

38 Likes
10

It started with a self-serving book promo article on Politico… and then another “bombshell” excerpt reported in the WaPo that as to be re-written in real time.

She really stepped in it and is completely contradicted by the facts.

Sanders had the same opportunity to sign a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC but chose not to (purity and all that). The DNC was broke and in debt (thanks to Obama shifting everything away to OFA and not spending any time building the party). DWS was pretty useless as Party Chair - but she was installed by Obama who chose to have a full-time Congresswoman instead of a full-time party chair like the GOP. Instead of talking about that, Brazile chose a storyline that was designed to instill division.

I guess she’s gunning for Juan William’s spot on Bullshit Mountain.

22 Likes
11
  1. Most VA/NJ Democrats don’t give a flying fuck who Donna Brazile is.
  2. CNN and Fox News will run with this story, which will distract Trump from Mueller.
  3. At least Gowdy won’t have to say “Benghazi” for a little while.
7 Likes
12

That’s a good thing, right?

4 Likes
13

I assume most of us have seen the actual memo by now, but in case anyone hasn’t, here it is:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo%20(002).pdf

Most of it is no big deal. But the part that gave veto power over DNC hires to a candidate committee, long before that candidate was the nominee (in fact long before the first primary voter was even cast), and does so in exchange for a payment of $1.2 million a month – well, that creates, at a minimum, an “appearance of impropriety.”

At any rate, we now have the answer to some of the questions I raised in the comments on the original article:

Was Brazile just talking about the draft memo that was available on the Wikileaks site? No,

Was the agreement in question the same as that signed by the Sanders campaign? No, this was an additional “side agreement.”

As to the “was it ‘rigged’” question, the problem here is that “rigged” could mean a lot of different things. Was the outcome fixed / predetermined? No. Did the DNC violate its neutrality and take tangible actions to benefit Hillary’s campaign over Bernie’s? Brazile says she found no evidence of that, and one of the few examples that we know of that does kind of fit the bill was Brazile’s own action in forwarding debate questions to the Clinton campaign (which I doubt had much effect, as the questions weren’t anything surprising…but still, not kosher).

The veto-power-over-new-hires part, which applied immediately, not just after the nomination had been clinched, does seem improper to me, and should not be allowed in the future.

Brazile’s broader claim that the Clinton campaign was given control over all strategy, data analytics, etc., is misleading, at least insofar as this agreement, because clearly those provisions only applied after the primary. Now it may have worked differently in practice, but the document doesn’t prove that.

All in all, I’d rate Brazile’s claims as half-true, at best. She definitely engaged in exaggeration and hyperbole.

As to the “was it rigged” question, that depends on one’s definition of “rigged.” I wouldn’t use that term based on the information in the document. I think it’s fair to say that the document did give the Clinton campaign some undue influence on the party apparatus, which in turn opened the door for undue influence on the primary. But again, we haven’t seen much evidence that this influence was actually used to “rig” or fix" the primary contest in any significant way.

This whole episode does raise some issues that are worth airing and correcting, at a minimum it raises “appearance” issues that must be addressed. It’s unfortunate that Brazile’s overly dramatic presentation of the issues – and downright misleading presentation of some of her points – has created so much heat, where a cooler light would have been more constructive.

20 Likes
14

Yeah. This story showed up in my feed this morning. The way it’s written – “sources familiar with the investigation” – suggests a leak from Flynn’s lawyers. Coupled with Flynn Jr. having a little panic attack on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/mflynnJR/status/927200333234950144 ), looks like neither has flipped but Mueller is piling on the pressure.

6 Likes
15

Poll: 65 percent say Trump has accomplished little

Should be:
Poll: 95 percent say Trump has accomplished liddle…

5 Likes
16

Then why did you say it was and why did Warren say it was and why in the hell did you start this war?

14 Likes
17

And why couldn’t it have waited until after the elections on Tuesday ?

20 Likes
18

No shit!

3 Likes
19

Agreed. And thanks for your well-read post – very informative. I suspect the reason the prior DNC chair (or whoever was responsible) agreed to the hires part was due to Hillary assisting the DNC to get back on its feet financially. Either way, I have trouble with that part of this agreement – and, like you, I believe we should not repeat that bad judgment.

I may not be the fairest person to ask the rigged question, but I do not see this as rigging. I’d like to know if Bernie and the others (known of at that time) was even approached about any sort of agreement in-kind? I doubt it, but I don’t know.

The structure of the nature of the relationship(s) between the DNC and declared (and non-declared) candidates needs to be redefined so nothing like this happens again – as well as so the organization depends less so on whoever the big-named candidates are.

All that said, I still believe Brazile and Warren owe Hillary a serious apology, as well as us. I’d like to see the DNC formally review this whole affair–quickly but thoroughly–and set out steps it will take to rectify the situation. We need to move forward. Those who continue to gnaw on this wound can go pound sand.

9 Likes
20

CNN reporting that she “mulled over” replacing Hillary and Kaine as the candidate with Biden and Booker… I mean who the hell does this woman think she is??? got a God complex anyone

14 Likes