Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

NRaleighLiberal

(61,915 posts)
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 05:03 PM Nov 2017

TPM - Josh's take "The DNC/HFA Agreement & Donna Braziles Growing Pile of Nonsense" [View all]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-dnchfa-agreement-donna-braziles-growing-pile-of-nonsense

By JOSH MARSHALL Published NOVEMBER 4, 2017 4:26 PM
0Views
Last night NBC published the DNC/Clinton campaign memo that Donna Brazile was apparently referring to. It’s not actually the Joint Fundraising Agreement. It’s a side agreement. But that’s just a semantic distinction. Here’s my take on where this new revelation leaves the story.

Reviewing the document, I think it’s a fair read the the Clinton campaign wanted control over things during the general election. That’s fair and normal. But they also wanted control over the building of the what they expected to inherit for the general election once Clinton became the nominee. That’s not unreasonable in itself. But that also meant having a veto power over things that were happening during the primaries, particularly hiring of key staff. So while the document says explicitly that these agreements apply exclusively to the general election, the Clinton campaign was also getting veto rights over organizational decisions during the primaries, even if they weren’t about the primaries.

There are also lines in the agreement about the campaign’s rights to review emails that went out about any primary candidate. That might create more control. But it’s not clear to me what that amounted to in practice. Those parts aren’t entirely clear to me.

The upshot is that this is significantly different from what Donna Brazile claimed in the book excerpt published in Politico. But it also includes levels of control pre-general election that would have have as a surprise to many. It’s a surprise to me. As I wrote in yesterday’s post, there’s nothing here that remotely qualifies as “rigging” the election. That is inflammatory talk and frankly a smear. Just why Brazile went that route I do not know and don’t care to speculate. But she did everyone involved a grave disservice by being willfully misleading, deeply self-serving and inflaming already existing divisions in the party that will be hard to repair as it is.

______________________

snip - much more at the link


at the every end - last sentence

++++++++++++

It is a genuine shame that someone like Donna Brazile, who has worked so hard and so consistently in Democratic politics for decades, has now chosen to make it all about herself.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»TPM - Josh's take "The DN...