
Meanwhile: Hillary supporter

Democrats did not do that. White folks scared of a black man did that two years into Obama power. They had less effect on national and presidential levels. But it was there 2010. He was giving black folks Obama phones. This had to be stopped!Over the previous six years, Democrats had lost 60-plus House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state and local offices. Russians didn’t do that.
Oy, oy, oy. That doesn’t just sound bad. That is bad. And to Sanders partisans, it confirmed every suspicion and then some. Then I started emailing and making some calls. The truth is a little more complicated. There’s a story here, but it isn’t really Hillary’s secret takeover. The story is what the hell happened to the DNC between 2012 and 2016 and why it had—and for that matter, still has—so little money.
But let’s start with the takeover angle. Brazile writes—quite dramatically, it must be said—about a painful phone call she had to make to Sanders in September 2016 to tell him of the “cancer” she found in the DNC: a joint fund-raising agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign that gave the latter full control over the DNC “long before she became its nominee.” And it was pretty thorough, with the Clinton campaign getting to name the DNC’s communications director, for example.
As far as money went, the joint agreement spelled out a complex arrangement whereby Clinton would raise money both for her own PAC, Hillary for America, and for the DNC and its state committees.
The joint agreement between Clinton and the DNC wasn’t exclusive. The DNC routinely enters into such agreements with all presidential candidates. In 2007-2008, a tripartite agreement was struck between the DNC and the Clinton and Obama campaigns. And in November 2015, a joint agreement was reached between the DNC and the Sanders campaign. It was reported on at the time.
Brazile doesn’t mention it. She does make reference to “the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed,” but without more explanation, that’s pretty cryptic. Maybe she mentions it somewhere else in the book, but it seems an odd thing to leave out here.
Brazile’s point, though, is that the Clinton agreement gave her campaign unprecedented control over the DNC before she was the nominee. That sounds like a dubious special deal between the DNC and Clinton, and in some ways, it was. Certainly, getting to dictate DNC staff before becoming the nominee was highly unusual.
But here’s the thing: The deal wasn’t struck for love (of Clinton by the DNC). It was struck for money. The DNC was $25 million in debt, and the Clinton campaign agreed to erase a lot of that debt. Sanders didn’t. Which is not a knock on him. Why should he have? He and his people knew that DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was pro-Clinton all the way, so there’s no reason he should have agreed to bail out the DNC.
But the Clinton people had different motivations. They sized up the situation and thought OK, we’re paying off your bills, but in return why shouldn’t we get some say in how you’re run? So it was in Sanders’ interest not to play ball with the DNC, and it was in Clinton’s interest to do so. Brazile reports that when she told Sanders the news, he didn’t “express outrage.” That may be because he was hardly shocked.
Seabass wrote:Hillary could shoot a man on 5th Avenue, fuck his corpse, and then eat it, and I'd still take her over Fat Donnie aka Orange Menace, aka Tangerine Terror, aka Putin's Orange Poodle.
He climbed Everest with his faithful Sherpa guide, whatsisname...rainbow wrote:Who is Hillary, and why should we give a toss?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests