God, the BernieBots are tireless, I'll give them that.

They're probably frothing at the mouth as insanely as the Trumpanzees to see her convicted of something. Nevermind that she was cheated out of the Presidency. Do the Bernie types support the Russians in everything anti-Hillary?

I’m serious too.

Whatever Brazile is trying to do here, I think it will backfire on her badly.

They shoot from the hip

and leaving off huge chunks of context.

Normally I stay out of DU during shit like this, but I had hand surgery today. Brazille is saying the rest of her book is meat and potatoes or some shit like that on twitter. She’s getting hammered.

Thanks for the article, ism. Good read.

Make money. Strange way to do it. She offended the two largest groups who would go buy her book.

or taking Nina Turner's job at "Our Revolution."

Bernie doesn't gain anything from this. Hillary doesn't lose anything from this. All it does is attempt to divide Democrats.

Seems more like what another poster said, she's trying to get a job at Fox. Which would really be a damn shame.

who clearly won't support the idea that Nina is being replaced because of race or gender,

And is responsible for some fundraising - well.

and the urgency of a lot of her workings there. This is excerpted from the ReCode 2017 forum where she explained that her main goals with the DNC was to build up the data infrastructure to be at least partially competitive with what the RNC had done. What was Bernie's contribution? He signed a fund raising letter, too, and failed to perform.

I do notice the JPRers continue the pathetic distortions. Hillary was concerned that the DNC was not able to keep up with the well-funded RNC. She was right.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2017/05/31/read-full-transcript-hillary-clinton-recode-interview/0niING5P2tfNBCnR1lSq9H/story.html
I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it...

Mossberg: This is the DNC you’re talking about.

The DNC to keep it going. Okay. Donald Trump who did nothing about really setting up any kind of data operation, inherits an RNC data foundation that after the Republicans lost in 2012, and they thought they had a very good operation with the setup that Romney did called ORCA, they thought that was really state of the art, they lose.

So they raised - best estimates are close to a hundred million dollars, they brought in their main vendors, they basically said, “We will never be behind the Democrats again,” and they invested between 2012 and 2016 this hundred million dollars to build this data foundation. They beta tested it. They ran it... somebody was able to determine about 227,000 surveys to double check, triple check, quadruple check, the information. So Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and trued, effective foundation. Then you’ve got Cambridge Analytica and you know, you can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they weren’t, but the fact is, they added something. And I think again, we better understand that, the Mercers did not invest all that money just for their own amusement. We know they played in Brexit, and we know that they came to Jared Kushner and basically said, “We will marry our operation,” which was more as it’s been described, psychographic, sentiment, a lot of harvesting of Facebook information, “We will marry that with the RNC.

Fortunately there’s a lot of timeline out there.

they are never placed in an honest context to what the actual circumstances are/were and it's always at the Democrats expense, not the Republicans. They thank him for his attacks on the DNC.

"it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it..."

If DWS was doing such a poor job of managing the DNC, to the point of driving it into the ground financially during a time when Democrats held the White House and thus were in a strong position to seek financial contributions, why did Hillary's campaign do nothing to replace her as DNC Chair? DWS could have been moved out quietly at the time, back in 2015, but she wasn't. She couldn't have stayed if Hillary wanted her out. The deal that was cut to bail out the DNC gave Clinton's team operational control over the DNC.

Some make the case that Hillary's campaign only bailed out a failed and mismanaged DNC, but why then reward the mismanager by allowing DWS to retain her top position in the Democratic Party organization once the degree of her mismanagement was fully revealed?

point fingers at anyone (generally speaking), DWS included. What did Bernie contribute? Did he honor his signed fund raising letter? Again, Hillary's strategic concerns had a lot to do with making the DNC competitive with the RNC, which was well-funded and operational and on the attack with other RW outlets. Instead, Hillary was attacked by them and from the inside, as well, over mostly vanity issues, not much substance.

Look, first of all, in August of 2015, an awful lot of people were assuming that Hillary had it locked up. You really can't blame anyone for that conclusion at the time. So the agreement that was signed wouldn't have seemed all that extraordinary. Hillary at some point was going to get control of the DNC, so why not start now. Of course as the fall developed, that changed quickly. But the reason that DWS doesn't get replaced is because she is basically a go between. She's the conduit between HRC and the DNC. She knew what was going on, who was in charge, and she executed as she had agreed. Furthermore, it was her style anyway. She didn't consult the staff much so there was no real big change here. There would have been no reason to replace her.

The DNC staff on the other hand wasn't really part of the agreement so to speak. So they just kept on doing their jobs. As the race tightened, they moved to be a bit more even handed, not knowing that HRC had virtual control of their strategy and planning. So, yeah, Donna shows up and finds that they were doing anything of which to be concerned. They were professionals.

What made Donna concerned is when she had to call Bernie, it was going to confirm everything he had suspected. The DNC long ago had been taken over by HRC and the planning, strategy, and fundraising was under her control. Of course probably what he DIDN'T know was that the reason it was as such, was because when she first showed up, it was ready to collapse. This wasn't something cooked up to undermine him. It was something that HRC arranged because she needed a functioning DNC if and when she became the nominee and she couldn't wait until June of 2016 to do so.

It probably would have been smart for the DNC to have "fixed" their problems and removed HRC from the loop at the beginning of 2016, at least until March or so, depending upon how the primaries went. But that's on DWS and Obama, not HRC.

A number of media commentators (NOT aligned with the Right) were taking pokes at her for being too blatantly one sided. I remember when even David Axelrod came out and said she was going too far in that regard. DWS was a Hillary person before she was an Obama person, she had been a national chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign. I suspect DWS was kept on because she was a known dependable Clinton loyalist - and Hillary has a well know loyal streak herself. With effective control gained over the DNC anyway - they felt DWS no longer needed to be replaced and could be, as you said, a useful go between perhaps.

I can understand that, but I don't condone it. DWS could have been replaced without much fuss without having to let the whole world know how bad things had gotten at the DNC. And she should have been. She had mismanaged the DNC.

By the way I am otherwise in near total agreement with your analysis in the first paragraph.

the fact is Clinton's people actually wanted her gone before the race even started but Obama refused to remove her and only he could.

actual authority to remove Wasserman-Shultz in 2015?

But, to nobody's shock, there is behind the scenes politics that influences the votes of those Committee members. One "tradition" is mentioned above. An incumbent Democratic Party President in reality gets to choose who will be the Chair. But this is an unusual case - Obama's second term was coming to an end. I have not seen it reported anywhere that Obama was not sympathetic to Hillary running to replace him - she was his defacto heir apparent. So if Hillary wanted to install her own person at DNC, I doubt that Obama would have opposed that. In my opinion it is a red herring to say that Obama would have objected to replacing DWS if Hillary was the person asking for that change to be made in the year leading up to her anticipated nomination.

That's factor one. Factor two is that clearly Hillary's campaign was, to look at this positively, bailing out the DNC. That gave her added bargaining power, in my opinion irresistible bargaining power actually, if she insisted on a change in leadership for DNC head - especially in light of the fact that she was essentially already the presumptive nominee within DNC circles. Factor number three is that DWS was a Clinton loyalist and it has been reported that Obama backed her for DNC Chair as a unity gesture to the Clinton wing of the Party.

DWS was a national Chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign. It is incredulous for me to believe that DWS would have defied Clinton and refused to resign if Hillary insisted on a DNC leadership change. I think they would have worked out a smooth exit scenario behind the scenes - that would have allowed DWS to leave with her political honor intact - at least to the public. If Hillary wanted new leadership that it. Probably she did install some new leadership below the Chair level - allowing DWS to remain the spokesperson for the DNC.

below the chair level, then she would have been able to achieve a result similar to having DWS removed while avoiding a lots of negative publicity?

This is all complete speculation - sometimes partially informed, sometimes not. It's also possible that Hillary was fine with DWS remaining as Chair, or even preferred that, so long as Hillary knew that she could count on a more competent team being put in place below her to make the DNC function better. I think Hillary trusted DWS as being politically loyal to her - and there is nothing wrong with appreciating loyalty, among other qualities, as long as rules are followed fairly and the work gets done.

This is not new to me - it just confirms what I already knew.

Political consultant needs to reinvent herself for future work. Donna Was falsely labeled a "rigger" by the Bernie-sphere over an obvious question about Flint Michigan. Needs those folks to fall in love with her again if she is to have a viable career in the future of Bernie 20/20 so she is recreating herself for the new market.

Donna published an article back in March 2017 that contradicts much of Donna's article published today. All about how fair DNC staff was to Bernie

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559

This is a very cynical view that I,m espousing, but it's a tough career. Especially for a consultant who backed a losing GE candidate. Take poor Tad Devine for example. After Gore and Kerry lost he could not get hired in the US. So bad that he had to go mucking about the Ukraine w Paul Manafort to make a living.

I am really sick of it.

I am a 61 year old woman who marched in the streets in the 70s for equality. I am not a bro.

Stop. Please.

However I am not gullible to Putin "rigged" talking points, and I have zero tolerance for those who promote them. I am really sick of it.

Have a nice night and thanks for your activism.

Seriously - I don't know what Putin has to do with women being fed up being called Bro.

You aren't "Joe941," you are jillian. Joe's a bro, I'm a bro. You're a Jillian.

Making everything else a moot point. The only reason the race appeared remotely close was because of caucuses.

Nobody "stole the primary."

There were two fundraising agreements signed by Hillary, and the one in 2015 required the DNC to remain neutral.

Seattle based—and Seattle is a Bernie town. It’s my town as well though. I love it here

Unless voting machines were tampered with I don't understand this "rigging" claim. "Favoring" I can deal and perhaps is true but to use the term "rigging" is just complete BULLSHIT...as a matter of fact is so full of shit it's downright tRUMPian.

Again...SO WHAT??

But it should help Donna Brazille sell a few books.

The soup was already fully cooked by then. No one who wants to win waits until that late in the process. It started with Tim Kaine as DNC chair, shortly after Obama took office in 2008.

plan before Republicans pass laws that will drain more federal funds into wealthy private pockets.

Here's an educational video about someone, an American Hero I never heard of. He was in Alabama prison for rest of his life because he opposed WW1.

This was posted in the Bernie section of DU (by DU Donkees) and it should be right here for everyone to listen if you can spare 45 seconds of your time, please.

Bernie Sanders recites a speech from Eugene Debs. 45 seconds of your time please.

Link to tweet