General Discussion

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

363. The lesson, to me, is that we should never treat anyone as "the presumed nominee".

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 04:42 PM

Nov 2017

I've never seen any good come from the party putting any candidate in "presumed" status.

We did that in the run-up to '72 with Ed Muskie.
We did that in the run-up to '84 with Walter Mondale.
We did that in the run-up to '88 with Michael Dukakis.
We did that in the run-up to '00 with Al Gore.
We did that in the run-up to '04 with John Kerry.

Not a particularly good series of result from all of that presuming.

It doesn't work to try to settle the nomination before anybody votes, to try to make the nominating process into a mere formality.

We are the DEMOCRATIC Party. We should trust democracy and let the process play out organically, without trying to privilege any candidate over any others and without trying to force anybody out of the race.

And I think Hillary would have been nominated anyway had we done that, and would have come out of Philly with a more unified party, and would have won the votes she needed to win in the places she needed to win.

We had a excellent nominee-it's just that the process didn't end up doing her any favors.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

459 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Inside Hillary Clintons Secret Takeover of the DNC (By DONNA BRAZILE November 02, 2017) [View all] Omaha Steve Nov 2017 OP

K & R Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #1

Lots of cya going on joeybee12 Nov 2017 #2

exactly OKNancy Nov 2017 #4

I've read it three times. Still wondering what the hell hillary did that was so bad. She bailed out boston bean Nov 2017 #5

I couldn't see what was so terrible either. But the "OMG CLINTON MACHINE" people will love it. betsuni Nov 2017 #13

It's the political equivalent of a bodice-ripper. Even the writing... (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #63

I know. NastyRiffraff Nov 2017 #185

"Broke my heart..." ehrnst Nov 2017 #210

"Cancer?" This woman is dead to me. How dare she Hortensis Nov 2017 #365

Well, she's already bringing the lucre in. ehrnst Nov 2017 #411

This could be Russian propaganda, but of course who needs Hortensis Nov 2017 #412

If OR wasn't getting the $$ from this email ehrnst Nov 2017 #413

Well, the more the radical bent is exposed the better. Hortensis Nov 2017 #424

If the DNC was broke and in debt radical noodle Nov 2017 #406

my thought as well. I wondered if it was satire at first. Amaryllis Nov 2017 #451

It's already a YUUUUGE hit with the deplorables. highplainsdem Nov 2017 #271

I think people are retweeting this without even reading the article Pugster Nov 2017 #17

The DNC was bankrupt and Hillary's campaign bought a controlling interest for pennies on the dollar Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #86

The thing is the DNC couldn't wait for 2015 to start the process ehrnst Nov 2017 #91

Actually, I do understand that Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #124

Telling the DNC to ignore the common wisdom of starting the groundswell and mechanisms ehrnst Nov 2017 #202

I disagree that the DNC was right Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #219

You were the one who brought up the "choice of voters" ehrnst Nov 2017 #226

OK, fine about the "goalposts" Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #245

15% - yeah in elections that's pretty overwhelming. ehrnst Nov 2017 #248

Now you are the one who introduced wording Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #258

Mea cupla - I introduced the word rigging. ehrnst Nov 2017 #266

This is ridiculous. The DNC did not rig the primary, nor did they have the ability to. StevieM Nov 2017 #299

This is what I think the DNC (probably - still needs to vbe verified) did Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #308

As Melissa McEwen put it: ehrnst Nov 2017 #374

There's a little more to it -- RandomAccess Nov 2017 #437

What harm would have been done by keeping the DNC neutral in the nominating process Ken Burch Nov 2017 #368

What was Bernie's contribution to the DNC? R B Garr Nov 2017 #389

That isn't the point. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #399

The slams against Hillary and the DNC are money related, so why not examine for Bernie...? R B Garr Nov 2017 #408

As I understand it, the question is whether the bailout came with strings. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #410

How much did he contribute? R B Garr Nov 2017 #416

This isn't about Hillary vs. Bernie Ken Burch Nov 2017 #418

Except that wasn't what was going on here. This was set up as an "anti-establishment" R B Garr Nov 2017 #422

BAILOUT???? RandomAccess Nov 2017 #432

+27 chwaliszewski Nov 2017 #203

You have a cart - horse problem there. nt fleabiscuit Nov 2017 #375

The lesson, to me, is that we should never treat anyone as "the presumed nominee". Ken Burch Nov 2017 #363

Oh bs. For real. She helped save the committee and she is the bad guy now. boston bean Nov 2017 #97

Yes, that is how democracy works. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2017 #125

Campaigns and political parties work in various ways in a Democracy ehrnst Nov 2017 #194

Bookmarking. n/t rzemanfl Nov 2017 #131

Not Hillary, the DNC zipplewrath Nov 2017 #107

But any Dem candidate for 2016 would have to start in 2014 ehrnst Nov 2017 #127

Yes, but they don't control the party zipplewrath Nov 2017 #136

I get that, but am not seeing how this was "control" over the party ehrnst Nov 2017 #164

Dunno why you put it quotes zipplewrath Nov 2017 #223

Hillary was the running the debate schedule and clearing press releases? ehrnst Nov 2017 #224

Strategy zipplewrath Nov 2017 #228

What about the debates? ehrnst Nov 2017 #230

That's strategy zipplewrath Nov 2017 #233

Tactics and planning are not the same as "rigging" ehrnst Nov 2017 #259

Number and timing zipplewrath Nov 2017 #275

letting the repubs have a couple monthes headstart debating is what killed us questionseverything Nov 2017 #356

Wait... the "Hillary Clinton Victory Fund" contributions were used by Hillary??? WTH?? boston bean Nov 2017 #138

Funded by the DNC zipplewrath Nov 2017 #142

We didn't know it was going to that fund when we were writing checks to the DNC. Baitball Blogger Nov 2017 #158

I donated to her victory fund. It was called that. boston bean Nov 2017 #167

I donated to the Democratic Party. Baitball Blogger Nov 2017 #172

you are making an assumption or claim that is not in that breathless expose. boston bean Nov 2017 #180

I read the article and applied the information to my personal experience Baitball Blogger Nov 2017 #187

you had to notate it was for that. Next time pay closer attention if it bothered u that much. boston bean Nov 2017 #189

I don't think it would have mattered, in this case. Baitball Blogger Nov 2017 #215

Lol. At the time the "victory" was supposed to be for down ticket races too. Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2017 #261

I seem to remember her oft criticized choices where to campaign were often in support of down ticket bettyellen Nov 2017 #281

I'm sure that's what you seem to remember. Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2017 #283

Your rude reply is noted. bettyellen Nov 2017 #285

Thank you for noting HRC's bailout of the DNC. democratisphere Nov 2017 #145

Agreed . . . peggysue2 Nov 2017 #169

What's so bad about it is the violation of neutrality. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #268

Post the preceding paragraph to give some context. boston bean Nov 2017 #280

Sorry, I'm not following you. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #286

No. Post the preceding paragraph to the one you posted. It provides wonderul context. boston bean Nov 2017 #291

Enough with the game-playing. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #296

The paragraph preceding the one you already posted. boston bean Nov 2017 #298

The "secret plan" was publicly announced in August 2015. lapucelle Nov 2017 #329

That is simply and demonstrably false. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #332

No, your claim is simply and demonstrably false. lapucelle Nov 2017 #337

Then please quote the 2015 Politico language that disclosed the part I highlighted. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #341

"Then please quote the 2015 Politico language that disclosed the part I highlighted"... lapucelle Nov 2017 #388

You said in #329 that it was "publicly announced". Jim Lane Nov 2017 #421

Both agreements were announced in the press at the time they were signed. lapucelle Nov 2017 #428

There was no public announcement of the Clinton campaign's control over the DNC. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #439

The details of both agreements were and remain confidential information. lapucelle Nov 2017 #443

Everything lapucelle posted has been either posted in this thread R B Garr Nov 2017 #430

Doesn't the problem stem from the Clinton campaign having control over the purse strings of the JCanete Nov 2017 #350

I think that is a twisted reading of an account. boston bean Nov 2017 #351

I'm twisting Braziles account? Really? Or is she twisting the reality first? I can't dispute the JCanete Nov 2017 #353

Yes. boston bean Nov 2017 #358

Why don't you tell me what she's actually saying? This should be interesting. nt JCanete Nov 2017 #361

No boston bean Nov 2017 #366

Yeah, Bernie could have contributed millions and worked to bring the DNC R B Garr Nov 2017 #384

This from me, who was a strong Bernie supporter during the primary: Clinton did what she had to do PatrickforO Nov 2017 #419

shoot the messenger. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #9

No. joeybee12 Nov 2017 #12

Whats the one side? former9thward Nov 2017 #25

Nope. It's the salaciously written implications. ehrnst Nov 2017 #65

Thanks for saying it. The hate on Hillary group can't wait to snip & send. Wwcd Nov 2017 #120

Yep, she was fantastic. ehrnst Nov 2017 #128

I do not want Hillary Clinton to shut up and go away. I want her to speak. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #270

what were those, so that I can understand what she said versus what she implied? It sounds to me JCanete Nov 2017 #352

Yeah, especially in light of this piece she wrote in March. ehrnst Nov 2017 #238

Read the whole article before commenting OKNancy Nov 2017 #3

Sander's ran as a Democrat. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #7

Knowing full well what that would involve. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #53

Yes, for sinister reasons even HE admits to. Tavarious Jackson Nov 2017 #122

If by "Sinister" you mean as "mathematically required by the Constitution," then I agree. Gore1FL Nov 2017 #157

What are you referring to ehrnst Nov 2017 #249

Yes Gore1FL Nov 2017 #355

I guess.. disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #11

If by "control" you mean a fiduciary duty to the party that will support their campaign ehrnst Nov 2017 #55

It was more than just that Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #143

I'm glad someone did that had knowledge of finances ehrnst Nov 2017 #254

More like this RandomAccess Nov 2017 #438

It's really not about Bernie Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #140

DING DING DING Lazy Daisy Nov 2017 #220

And they all knew that she was the front runner, and they all knew what year it was ehrnst Nov 2017 #234

That quote you included was her progress report Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #241

The realities of campaigns aren't for everyone. ehrnst Nov 2017 #243

I thought whe was well qualified Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #250

I understand the difference between criticism. Many on DU don't. ehrnst Nov 2017 #252

OK Tom Rinaldo Nov 2017 #263

Indeed. ehrnst Nov 2017 #264

This G_j Nov 2017 #312

You see "nothing...that is really bad on Hillary's part. What about on the DNC's part? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #272

+ 1 musette_sf Nov 2017 #339

I was just about to post this.. disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #6

+100 Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #8

It requires actually reading and not easily digested in 140 character snarky retorts Blue_Adept Nov 2017 #14

I agree. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author WinkyDink Nov 2017 #32

I completely agree.. disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #52

Party is in trouble romana Nov 2017 #51

Your entitled to that opinion.. disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #57

My opinion is that romana Nov 2017 #99

I'm of the opinion... tonedevil Nov 2017 #247

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #73

"Obama screwed it (Democratic Party) over"??? Really now?! InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2017 #90

Financially /nt romana Nov 2017 #95

Nonsense. BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #115

Blame It On The Black Guy BS..... LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #197

So, you think that Donna Brazile is blaming Obama because he is black? virtualobserver Nov 2017 #251

The posts here read as if they come from a party incapable of self-correcting virtualobserver Nov 2017 #256

Fortunately, the posts here are not a representative sample. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #273

One of your favorite strawmen. emulatorloo Nov 2017 #294

I have yet to see any criticism of the DNC that is met with anything other than absolute rejection virtualobserver Nov 2017 #372

Thats because of your confirmation bias. emulatorloo Nov 2017 #373

when she was on the outside, she had one perception......when she was put in charge... virtualobserver Nov 2017 #380

She wrote that when she was on the inside. BTW A truth Donna left out emulatorloo Nov 2017 #405

but she wasn't in charge and things were concealed from her virtualobserver Nov 2017 #429

She was in charge when she wrote that. Sorry emulatorloo Nov 2017 #448

That Time article did not debunk the DNC rigging charge virtualobserver Nov 2017 #449

Reading comprehension please emulatorloo Nov 2017 #450

the "rigging" occurred early on, not in the behavior of the staff and their emails virtualobserver Nov 2017 #452

SECOND THAT onetexan Nov 2017 #165

I suppose the DNC could have been more machiavellian in their financial dealings ehrnst Nov 2017 #59

Oh I bet you are disappointed. BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #121

Disappointed, not suprised.. disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #168

I doubt there would ever be any form of atonement that would satisfy Bernie supporters. BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #218

You say "more airing out" but AFAIK this is the first time this deal has come to light. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #276

The facts that HRC saved the party finances? ehrnst Nov 2017 #235

Fine, we get it, DWS was a shitty leader Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #211

THIS KPN Nov 2017 #255

Hillary mathematically clinched in March.. Tavarious Jackson Nov 2017 #10

Yep. Interesting how Brazille throws Obama under the bus as well. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #61

If you count ONLY regular delegates - as superdelegates can change their positions - she had NOT karynnj Nov 2017 #153

But this agreement was signed in 2015, before one single vote had been cast. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #278

No she didn't. Only if you count the supers Cuthbert Allgood Nov 2017 #301

Post removed Post removed Nov 2017 #15

I had always thought snowybirdie Nov 2017 #16

One of the reasons I supported Perez over Ellison. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #76

Though to be fair, Ellison was clear in saying he'd give up his seat in Congress if he were PatsFan87 Nov 2017 #84

I think Perez was more prepared for the office ehrnst Nov 2017 #93

Completely fair. I just think the "we need a full time chair" criticism of Ellison that was going PatsFan87 Nov 2017 #111

Totally agree. They cannot focus on the job when involved with other activities. LiberalFighter Nov 2017 #200

Donna Brazile was/is a centrist, overly-polite Dem that was ALWAYS TheDebbieDee Nov 2017 #18

Another circular firing squad hit on HRC. CYA for Donna. Why would she do this at this time? coolsandy Nov 2017 #19

uuummm Omaha Steve Nov 2017 #29

I'm Assuming That You KNow Me. Nov 2017 #152

He's a fond memory at this point & that's ok. Wwcd Nov 2017 #159

... Me. Nov 2017 #160

..... (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #253

Here here BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #174

This message was self-deleted by its author Wwcd Nov 2017 #196

It's called "retro rationalization, seeking to justify what was already done to cause harm." coolsandy Nov 2017 #274

Indeed Me. Nov 2017 #292

Are you now insinuating Bernie 2016 misused our Donations? emulatorloo Nov 2017 #284

"the money drained from the party that went to an Independent candidate running as a Democrat" Omaha Steve Nov 2017 #307

Hope the hand heals soon, I hate being on painkillers emulatorloo Nov 2017 #313

No, never Sanders wont unify self-identified Democrats. David__77 Nov 2017 #31

Candidates share funds with the party ehrnst Nov 2017 #117

MSNBC just had a discussion about the fund-raising letters both candidates signed, R B Garr Nov 2017 #166

She is selling a book. Getting out in front of anyone else is good for sales. ehrnst Nov 2017 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author Wwcd Nov 2017 #155

I'm sure that the investigations into Russian interference would make ehrnst Nov 2017 #257

Manafort .. yikes! Wwcd Nov 2017 #262

Here's a question I keep asking without getting a good answer Jim Lane Nov 2017 #282

Rational self interest. joshcryer Nov 2017 #387

And after all that time defending Brazile and saying she did nothing wrong... vi5 Nov 2017 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author WinkyDink Nov 2017 #30

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Gimble. ehrnst Nov 2017 #130

I think that making money with a book that implies corruption where there isn't any ehrnst Nov 2017 #38

Seems you are right. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #41

Exactamundo.. disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #66

Yeah, because someone is always "wrong" or always "right" ehrnst Nov 2017 #72

I can distinguish. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #287

This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst Nov 2017 #295

She shouldn't have forwarded the questions. ehrnst Nov 2017 #305

Yes, but in this case... vi5 Nov 2017 #345

What you just stated is a big deal around here. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #394

Well, it wasn't a secret takeover... Orsino Nov 2017 #204

My goodness. DURHAM D Nov 2017 #21

Whataboutism. David__77 Nov 2017 #34

I did not mention emailism.. DURHAM D Nov 2017 #44

It amuses me when people think that Bernie turning over his donor list shanny Nov 2017 #176

You mean the 80% that went on to support Hillary? (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #237

"Vote for" does not equal "support"--especially in the face of Cheeto. nt shanny Nov 2017 #309

You say she's "desperate for attention". Is what she wrote true? (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #288

Well if she says that she "discovered" the joint financial agreement... ehrnst Nov 2017 #306

You keep trying to make this JUST about the money. The issue is the control. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #315

This seems very negative Not Ruth Nov 2017 #22

Ahh yes those dirty rotten Clintons again. Republicans have been warning us about them for Wwcd Nov 2017 #23

I know! the party's been doing so well, and winning so much! Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #37

Are you aware that this is a board that supports Democrats? ehrnst Nov 2017 #42

we don't all march in lockstep. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #54

What threat? ehrnst Nov 2017 #67

"but you soon will be" is a threat. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #75

How so? (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #77

How silly of me to not recognize your exalted position here. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #94

So how did I "threaten" you? ehrnst Nov 2017 #96

How much longer do I have to wait? Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #103

Yes that is what I said. ehrnst Nov 2017 #105

I never said anything "awful" would come from anything happening here. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #126

That's what threat means.... ehrnst Nov 2017 #135

If I were to say I was mad I would be lying. I have never been mad during our discussion. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #149

Oh, so you think I have the power to wave my wand and get you kicked off DU... ehrnst Nov 2017 #178

ehrnst, I too am curious about what you mean by "you will be soon." Demit Nov 2017 #170

See my response to cobalt above. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #236

I saw no threat either. Control-Z Nov 2017 #267

Cobalt V has been a member since 2004. I doubt she needs to be taught DU's purpose. Demit Nov 2017 #277

Agreed melman Nov 2017 #324

I am also unsettled by this post LeonardShelby Nov 2017 #232

"aware that this is a board that supports Democrat" is what they said. uppityperson Nov 2017 #447

What does this mean LeonardShelby Nov 2017 #455

You may not understand that this is a board that supports Democrats, but read more uppityperson Nov 2017 #456

This message was self-deleted by its author Wwcd Nov 2017 #141

I didn't know Russia caused the states to keep less than half of 1% of the $82 million they raised. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #161

This message was self-deleted by its author Wwcd Nov 2017 #188

sorry, you aren't making sense to me but we tried talk. Cobalt Violet Nov 2017 #290

Donna Braziles comments should be banned? David__77 Nov 2017 #40

Who is saying that her comments should be banned? (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #69

Here: Ask the Administrators or ATA Madam45for2923 Nov 2017 #47

A prominent Democrat disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #70

Doesn't mean that it's accurate or well-meaning. ehrnst Nov 2017 #81

Well, IS it accurate? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #289

Been a loophole for years zipplewrath Nov 2017 #109

LOL took me a minute to figure out you meant "loophole." Demit Nov 2017 #173

Yeah, I knew it was wrong but I couldn't figure it out zipplewrath Nov 2017 #225

... LexVegas Nov 2017 #24

It's abundantly clear, Donna's not the person you'd want in your lifeboat. oasis Nov 2017 #27

For obvious practical reasons also.... AngryAmish Nov 2017 #83

Well said comradebillyboy Nov 2017 #229

This message was self-deleted by its author WinkyDink Nov 2017 #28

K&Fuckin'R Guy Whitey Corngood Nov 2017 #35

Secret takeover? NCTraveler Nov 2017 #36

That's my favorite part, "secret takeover." It must be Christmas and New Year's over at JPR. betsuni Nov 2017 #45

I know. ehrnst Nov 2017 #46

She built her power base within the Democratic party for decades The Mouth Nov 2017 #64

And she cravenly "worked closely" with people "inside the beltway" for decades ehrnst Nov 2017 #106

This is such an intelligent (and knowledgeable) comment. Demit Nov 2017 #181

Thank you The Mouth Nov 2017 #217

+1 Exactly. n/t FSogol Nov 2017 #101

The secret was that the Officers didn't know zipplewrath Nov 2017 #112

The officers didn't know something rank and file Democrats knew? NCTraveler Nov 2017 #116

No one really knew zipplewrath Nov 2017 #129

"No one really knew" NCTraveler Nov 2017 #139

No, you wouldn't have found 5 people zipplewrath Nov 2017 #239

wow. I can't wait to read it!! Interesting book title, "Hacks"! m-lekktor Nov 2017 #39

The title of the article is clearly trying to gin up divisiveness in the party. rogue emissary Nov 2017 #43

The JPR nutjobs are gonna LOVE Donna now! ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #48

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #49

So if Clinton wanted to run in 2016 she had to delisen Nov 2017 #89

Any Dem candidate for 2016 had to start the process in 2014 ehrnst Nov 2017 #110

Oh, well, if people on JPR say something, that PROVES it's false. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #293

Glenn is already speaking out, all aquiver ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #325

Is what Donna Brazile wrote true? (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #328

That a secret deal was made? Yeah she said that ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #331

Let's put aside all the discussion about things she didn't say. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #335

Shes inferring that the Joint Funding agreement was unusual. Its not. ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #348

The defenders keep wanting to talk ONLY about the money. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #360

Hillary seems to me a very organized person who sees possibilities and likes to clean up messes. Madam45for2923 Nov 2017 #50

Yep. During the primary I watched as her staff members DURHAM D Nov 2017 #62

Post removed Post removed Nov 2017 #56

Its the worst writing since HA Goodman ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #71

LOL nt DURHAM D Nov 2017 #74

Are we throwing Donna Brazile under the bus now? InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2017 #85

Not me ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #92

Post removed Post removed Nov 2017 #113

First of all ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #133

The secrecy isn't about the money, it's about one campaign's control of the DNC. (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #314

To critique her implications is "throwing her under the bus?" ehrnst Nov 2017 #104

Not necessarily, you have a point... guess it depends on HOW those implications are being critiqued. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2017 #118

Also, in converse, Julian Assange has suddenly decided that she's ehrnst Nov 2017 #191

It reads like a bodice-ripper. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #114

If Bernie Wanted Democratic Party Resources and the Nomination, Why Didn't He Join the Party? dlk Nov 2017 #58

If There Is A Primary.... LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #206

it is like the dnc is finally admitting primaries are just for show questionseverything Nov 2017 #370

Pretty Much.... LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #458

O'Malley was a Democrat. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #304

Brazile was a Clinton ally marylandblue Nov 2017 #60

Back in the 90's yes. But she made a fatal mistake in the 2000 campaign in not VermontKevin Nov 2017 #132

Oh look, more anti-Hillary porn. MrsCoffee Nov 2017 #68

Well hey, Glen Greenwald LOVES it ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #78

Ha, it IS porn! betsuni Nov 2017 #79

Agreed MFM008 Nov 2017 #80

The writing is kind of like the acting in porn JI7 Nov 2017 #82

Ok, you got a lol out of me. MrsCoffee Nov 2017 #88

Yeah, I get a bodice-ripper vibe from it ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #98

Exactly - titillating the Hillary hating crowd ehrnst Nov 2017 #119

Are Donna Brazile's statements true? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #318

Oh, good grief... Mike Nelson Nov 2017 #87

The principle fault here is certainly the DNC's. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #320

Agreed. n/t Mike Nelson Nov 2017 #322

Oops, I just noticed an error in my post. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #327

Both Donna and Debbie awesomerwb1 Nov 2017 #100

The person who looks the worst in this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. PatsFan87 Nov 2017 #102

DWS.... LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #214

As with everything else that happened on earth between 2007-17, it was Obamas fault, eh Donna? BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #108

Sorta zipplewrath Nov 2017 #123

Yes, I remember thinking often during his administration BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #171

I do not like the optics of this at all superpatriotman Nov 2017 #134

Yep, especially when it's ginned up with bodice-ripper style titilation ehrnst Nov 2017 #147

Post removed Post removed Nov 2017 #137

We are not the opposition party. VermontKevin Nov 2017 #146

This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst Nov 2017 #144

Okay, she lost me at the lighting a candle.... VermontKevin Nov 2017 #148

The DNC was heavily in debt mercuryblues Nov 2017 #150

LMAO, now Brazile is a "solid D, former DNC chair", instead of a R B Garr Nov 2017 #151

+1 betsuni Nov 2017 #183

I believe her. These are the undercurrents that have eroded trust in the Democratic party. Baitball Blogger Nov 2017 #154

Whether you agree or disagree with brazille, I think the takeaway is that there is significant SweetieD Nov 2017 #156

Yep loyalsister Nov 2017 #433

sounds like someone is looking for a Fox News gig. nt procon Nov 2017 #162

Is what she wrote true? (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #321

Over here in Wisconsin jodymarie aimee Nov 2017 #163

She was caught leaking a debate question while working for CNN and subsequently resigned. jalan48 Nov 2017 #175

The DNC did indeed tip the scales in HRC's favor. kytngirl Nov 2017 #177

What Brazille describes is more than tipping the scales. The Dem Party agreed to let Bernie run Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #201

Do you have a link about "agreed to let Bernie run"? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #323

No resolution that I know of. It's an obvious thing. Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #390

I disagree, because the Democratic Party is not a private boys' club. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #392

The DNC controls who is on the ticket. Ted Cruz can't run for the Dem Party primary.nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #396

I believe that to be incorrect. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #434

What's with the resolution fixation? Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #435

I don't know about "fixation", but there are two reasons I'm curious. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #440

I don't know about all that. Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #441

Then why was he so concerned about the DNC debates if he could have done R B Garr Nov 2017 #391

Please try to focus. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #393

Yes, I've seen the pointless Clinton/DNC bashing at JPR, but why focus only on the DNC when the R B Garr Nov 2017 #404

I think you make perfect sense, Jim Lane. FourScore Nov 2017 #453

Your argument is with Skinner PDittie Nov 2017 #205

He's a democratic socialist who caucuses more TexasBushwhacker Nov 2017 #212

Exactly. CentralMass Nov 2017 #457

Sounds like MAJOR sour grapes and excuse-making. George II Nov 2017 #179

Is what Donna Brazile wrote true? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #330

Nobody knows for sure, the book hasn't even been released yet. What we're seeing is.... George II Nov 2017 #334

I don't know for sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #336

The sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates. George II Nov 2017 #344

Ah, that's what they'd LIKE you to believe. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #362

Never been a fan of DB. Part of the problem, not the solution. democratisphere Nov 2017 #182

Trump needs the cover BainsBane Nov 2017 #184

In reality then... sagesnow Nov 2017 #186

Were "Bernie and his gang" offered the same deal that the Clinton campaign got? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #340

This is the paragraph that describes the problem. aikoaiko Nov 2017 #190

Put it in context of the prior paragraph. It doesnt mean what you think it does. boston bean Nov 2017 #199

Here are the four paragraphs prior to the one I quoted. aikoaiko Nov 2017 #213

Exactly, the prior paragraphs showed that Clinton was doing all the fund raising, R B Garr Nov 2017 #227

Post removed Post removed Nov 2017 #192

Oooooo. That's dynamite. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #193

Thanks for posting without spin bucolic_frolic Nov 2017 #195

Well she got a book to sell ... just disgraceful Fullduplexxx Nov 2017 #198

Is what she wrote true? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #342

Wonkette says she is not correct Fullduplexxx Nov 2017 #376

Wonkette says no such thing. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #431

What about donna herself Fullduplexxx Nov 2017 #459

Brazile had next to no credibility left on DU Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #207

So now you are throwing her under the bus? Cuthbert Allgood Nov 2017 #302

You must be new here Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #379

What a load of BS. What? I screamed. "I had promised Bernie..." "So I followed the money..." Nitram Nov 2017 #208

Nice timing. Who does this help again? Jim Dandy Nov 2017 #209

Democratic party members only from now on thanks... stonecutter357 Nov 2017 #216

In other words, Clinton saved the Democratic party from financial ruin, KitSileya Nov 2017 #221

Inside HRC's bailout of broke DNC and limiting incompetent Wasserman-Schultz's spendthrift ways. emulatorloo Nov 2017 #222

FUCK THIS, you don't get to rewrite history krawhitham Nov 2017 #231

Thank you. MrsCoffee Nov 2017 #240

This from April 2016 seems to cast a lot of doubt about these charges ehrnst Nov 2017 #242

Supposing for a second that all of this is true Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2017 #244

Here is another take... Beantighe Nov 2017 #246

Thanks for the reality check. And welcome to Democratic Underground! n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #343

Thanks pnwmom! eom Beantighe Nov 2017 #395

The posts here read as if they come from a party incapable of self-correcting virtualobserver Nov 2017 #260

... emulatorloo Nov 2017 #297

Exactly. azmom Nov 2017 #319

Thank you, Omaha Steve saidsimplesimon Nov 2017 #265

"It is not in my nature to "trust" anyone who makes a living working party politics." emulatorloo Nov 2017 #311

CNN headline now... Beantighe Nov 2017 #269

Could also be named How Clinton helped the DNC retire debt and raise funds... Fresh_Start Nov 2017 #279

Exactly. Kind of like the way she is condemned for having a husband who started a global charity StevieM Nov 2017 #300

...and bought a primary. Cuthbert Allgood Nov 2017 #303

Bullshit. KitSileya Nov 2017 #316

Except, not bullshit. WoonTars Nov 2017 #359

"Inside Hillary's Rescue of a Bankrupt Democratic Party" by Donna Brazille. pnwmom Nov 2017 #310

yes, that should be the headline OKNancy Nov 2017 #326

+ 1 musette_sf Nov 2017 #338

But that would mean it was bankrupted by... vi5 Nov 2017 #346

No, it wouldn't. Obama didn't run the party. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #347

No wonder we lost. What a clusterfuck! Nt azmom Nov 2017 #317

SHOCKED! A-Schwarzenegger Nov 2017 #333

I see the republican/Russian plan on strife/division/defeat for the democratic party workinclasszero Nov 2017 #349

THANK YOU! You are NOT alone! VOX Nov 2017 #383

It's big on freakrepublic right now... workinclasszero Nov 2017 #423

Do you blame the original actors, or the truthful public disclosure of what they did? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #444

Timing is everything workinclasszero Nov 2017 #445

See!!! I knew it!!! WoonTars Nov 2017 #354

If you bailed out the DNC, would you not expect a controlling interest? ProudLib72 Nov 2017 #357

Then they should have put a sign on the front door -- "Under New Management" Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2017 #364

You have a point ProudLib72 Nov 2017 #367

or she could of raised money for the dnc and let them use it fairly questionseverything Nov 2017 #377

She did raise money for the DNC ProudLib72 Nov 2017 #397

umm u just said it wasnt "fair" questionseverything Nov 2017 #398

Notice the sarcastic use of quotation marks? nt ProudLib72 Nov 2017 #402

Did you really say that? Curmudgeoness Nov 2017 #369

That is not what I wrote ProudLib72 Nov 2017 #371

Well, yes it seems that is what you wrote. Curmudgeoness Nov 2017 #400

Thanks, Donna Brazile, for binding wounds and making us stronger to battle the Russian coup. VOX Nov 2017 #378

Thanks, Steve. elleng Nov 2017 #381

Missing facts emulatorloo Nov 2017 #403

We O'Malley supporters recall both of these. elleng Nov 2017 #407

Yes, me too. Both were covered in Politico. But Donna forgot I guess emulatorloo Nov 2017 #409

Seems obvious... fleabiscuit Nov 2017 #382

Who cares what Donna Brazils says or thinks. Polly Hennessey Nov 2017 #385

This is all the Dem Party needs now. More division. 4 more years of Republican rule and Trump. kerry-is-my-prez Nov 2017 #386

Me too. It's beating a dead horse, Ilsa Nov 2017 #425

Omaha or Odessa? Jakes Progress Nov 2017 #401

This message was self-deleted by its author NCTraveler Nov 2017 #414

This is a really interesting article. PatrickforO Nov 2017 #415

Wish I could like this post. It summarizes my thoughts, perfectly. Tatiana Nov 2017 #417

k&r joet67 Nov 2017 #420

So what is the secret exactly???? This is kinda like Sessions admitting he lied. Freethinker65 Nov 2017 #426

Donna will not be welcomed in the African American community underthematrix Nov 2017 #427

OK, let's be blunt DonCoquixote Nov 2017 #436

Thread... fleabiscuit Nov 2017 #442

ask voters how much anything the DNC did influenced their decision bigtree Nov 2017 #446

Or not... fleabiscuit Nov 2017 #454