NOT BREAKING – HRC and DWS were/are pieces of shit
So… it isn’t news that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are deplorable pieces of shit. This is a long standing “known-known” as Donald Rumsfeld might say. The question is – what are Democrats going to do about it? If by “Democrats” you mean Tom Carper and John Carney, the answer must be – Nada. This is the system working from their perspective.
Former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile has accused the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign of exerting improper financial and decision-making control over the Democratic National Committee well before Clinton became the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.
In a scathing piece in Politico Magazine Thursday, Brazile wrote that Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, signed an agreement with the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising operation between the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, in August 2015 — nearly a year before the July 2016 Democratic National Convention — pledging financial support for the DNC in exchange for the Clinton campaign controlling large swaths of the DNC’s internal operations:
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
Later in the piece, Brazile recalled a phone call she had with Bernie Sanders following Clinton’s nomination: “[T]he cancer was that [Clinton] had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee,” she told Sanders. Sanders, she said, “took this stoically.”
Politico reported on Hillary Victory Fund in May 2016. The joint fundraising operation, Politico reported, citing FEC filings, had claimed to fundraise on behalf of state Democratic parties. In reality, according to Politico, those states benefitted little from the operation. The vast majority of the funds went to the national Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
Brazile said her own investigation of the DNC’s fundraising operation had confirmed Politico’s work:
I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
Is Delaware Dem ok?
Ha! Ben wins the day….
Poor Donald Brazile was the last to know…
If true, they stole the nomination, then blew the Presidency.
Great job. Oh well, she’ll still have her book royalties and speech fees to comfort her.
Asked if she thought the nomination process was rigged, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said “Yes”.
Warren is a sexist trump supporter, everyone knows this.
Need I point out that the Third Way types elected a Hillary guy as the DNC chair, and that he has been purging Sanders supporters from key party positions since?
You needn’t, but why not…
I suppose Miss Brazile would understand ‘rigged.’ She was the one who leaked at least two advance debate questions to Mrs Clinton, in preparation for a debate with Mr Sanders, not Mr Trump.
Miss Brazile was not among those authorized to see the debate questions in advance, and CNN launched an internal investigation into how she got the questions. I do not know the result of that investigation.
….you forgot to mention that Brazil was also the one who blew Gore’s campaign vs the mentally retarded George W. Bush.
Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.
The issue remains a simple one: Either Democrats orient themselves toward wooing corporate/rich entrepreneur money, which means accepting their domination of party positions, or it doesn’t.
George W. Bush was not mentally retarded. He was emotionally retarded. It’s different, and I think he actually grew out of it to a large extent by the end of his second term.
One more term and he might have been ready for the job.
So how do we purge the POS party power out?
If either party had run a half decent candidate they would have won.
One thing I keep hearing from the Mammonites is that refusing corporate money is “unilateral disarmament.”
These people have been brainwashed, and until they realize they’re wrong the Democratic Party is doomed.
If both parties cater to corporations and the uber-rich, the distinction comes down to voting for giving power to people who are progressive or regressive on social issues. In case nobody noticed, the Electoral College shows more support for the latter than the former.
Hillary Clinton spent over $1 billion. All she said with it was that Donald Trump was a bad man, which everybody already knew, and that we were “better together,” which only a small minority of Americans believes.
Money is only useful if it spreads a winning message. If Democrats are just GOP Lite, they don’t have a winning message.
Its not a shock.. they were all in the tank for HRC..DNC and party leaders sold their integrity just to win. There was no fair process for Sanders. He got screwed royally. Which is why so many grass roots folks turned off by the corporate Dems who take millions for speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc… the Clintons, Cory Booker, etc..
appreciate Donna Brazile’s candor on this one.
Corporate money is a monkey trap.
Someone at Daily Kos wrote a diary titled “Can we please not do this again?” calling, for the 358th straight day, for a cease-fire. It has more than 650 comments so far, most of them exchanges of fire.
One thing this shouldn’t be about his the people involved. It’s about the money.
Alby is correct. The chief decision facing the Dem party is will it cater to big corporate money or will it appeal to bettering the middle and poor classes. Hillary Clinton favored the former while making token nods to the latter. But that was only part of the baggage she brought to the campaign. She was a flawed candidate, a point that was obvious to all except true believers. She was so flawed that she lost the election to Donald Trump. What a scandal.
Please don’t use the r-word. I have many friends with intellectual and developmental disabilities. That word is cruel.
I’m sorry, Stacey, but the word itself isn’t cruel unless it’s used as a taunt.
For example, a very common schoolyard taunt is, “That’s gay!” or “You’re so gay!” They don’t even mean it literally, it’s just an insult.
Yet gays still call themselves gays.
People like you are the ones who give the words power they don’t carry.
Again, I’m sorry to have to explain this to you, but that’s just the way it is. Political correctness of this sort will get you nowhere in life, and it tends to annoy people who have grown skin to cover their raw emotions, which is most of the rest of us.
Alby, Please don’t confuse political correctness for kindness and civility. If you’re explaning, you’re losing.
Explaining is necessary when dealing with the ignorant.
OTOH, if you’re using cliches, you’re not using original thought.
Call it whatever you want. Kindness and civility have nothing to do with it. I do not owe anyone the “courtesy” of using their preferred language when the language I use instead is descriptive and, in actuality though not in your mind, neutral.
Indeed, when it’s demanded, it’s no courtesy. This is why most people despise what they think “liberals” are. Enforced civility is censorship.
If you’re that sensitive you should definitely stay away from here. We don’t award prizes for wokeness. We definitely don’t play the “winning the argument” game. There is no “losing” or “winning.” There are people who disagree.
Also, it occurs to me, if you’re concerned about kindness and civility in general, rather than the political correctness of a specific term, you would be objecting to a headline that called the last Democratic presidential nominee a “piece of shit.”
Or are you claiming that someone should never be called “emotionally retarded,” as in slow to develop the faculties in question — in short, ban any use of the word at all? If so, that’s silly.
It’s not cool to call someone “gay” as an insult, since it implies that being gay is bad. LIke you said, it’s also a school-yard taunt… as in childish and moronic.
It’s like saying “dont be such a jew”… Sure, you arent saying “kike” but you’re turning the word into an insult.
Being insulting just to be insulting makes you a pizza slicer. all edge, no point.
call them a….
Dickhead
Fuckface
Ass hole
Twatwaffel
Republican
shit eater
or any other wonderful, skewering insults. And yes, I know being offended at a word gives the word “power”, but I dare you to go to north philly (for example) and yell … you know what.. and try to explain that. Sure hurt feelings hurt.. but so does a broken jaw.
I didn’t go to the Elwyn Institute to say this, either.
That’s the point. The term “emotionally retarded” has nothing to do with the insult “you’re retarded,” and it clearly has nothing to do with the formerly common insult. To read it as if it does is obtuse.
If you read again what I wrote, my point was that gays haven’t stopped calling themselves gays just because kids use it as an insult
Alby, You inspired me to learn more about “emotionally retarded.” As in Princess Bride, I don’t think that word means what you think.
Your argument is that you’re being accurate, or saying what you mean. You assert the enforced civility is “censorship.” You can say what you mean without being offensive for its own sake. It’s hard, but with practice can become second nature. Perhaps being offensive is your goal and this is, of course, your prerogative. I’m hoping to change the minds of others using words that advance my ideas.
A headline is not an argument. I thought the headline was harsh, but still an opinion about public figures who probably won’t see this content. And, even if they did, would not comment. I found a number of the comments were robust, but offensive only to MY ideas.
I thought the purpose of a comments section was to argue vigorously. There are over 470,000 entries in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. There are a lot of words to choose from. There is no reason to presume anything by civility other than mutual respect for a reader, or those who engage in the discussion.
Besides, one of my role models, Michelle Obama, entreats us NOT to say whatever is on our minds. We don’t need that, we need to know your well formed ideas.
“You can say what you mean without being offensive for its own sake.”
Since I wasn’t being offensive for its own sake — anything but, in fact — this is a non sequitur.
“It’s hard, but with practice can become second nature.”
You can, with practice, not come off as a condescending jerk, too, but I see you haven’t mastered that.
“I’m hoping to change the minds of others using words that advance my ideas.”
Your ideas will be the same regardless of the term you use to describe them.
“I thought the headline was harsh, but still an opinion about public figures who probably won’t see this content. And, even if they did, would not comment.”
Funny, but isn’t the same thing true of the people you claim to be advocating for? They’re not going to see it, they won’t respond to it and, as a bonus, it’s clearly not employed as an insult in the phrase “emotionally retarded.”
“I thought the purpose of a comments section was to argue vigorously.”
Then why are you advocating for someone who used it to air her sensitivity to a word she didn’t like?
“There is no reason to presume anything by civility other than mutual respect for a reader, or those who engage in the discussion.”
Ah, well there you go, then. I don’t have any respect for her, which is why I showed her none. I have none for your supercilious ass, either.
“Besides, one of my role models, Michelle Obama, entreats us NOT to say whatever is on our minds.”
I couldn’t care less what she says. Also, easy for her to say, since her words automatically get wide coverage, or used to.
“We don’t need that, we need to know your well formed ideas.”
My ideas of censorship, including the kind you deny, are well-formed. You just disagree with them.
This blog is about politics, which ain’t beanbag. I don’t have the time or inclination to worry about stray words that some SJW finds offensive.
If I’m not going to be dictated to by people who have more power than me, I’m certainly not going to be dictated to by people who have less. As with the more powerful, fuck them. Go pick on someone who’s actually working against you.
My brother has Downs syndrome, and at birth medicine and the law both called him retarded. Our family called him retarded. My father was an advocate and officer in the Delaware Association for Retarded Children. I participated in charity events for retarded children.
In the past I worked as a printer, and the thing that holds the paper back from the feeder is called a “REtard belt.” I adjusted and replaced lots of REtard belts.
So no, I’m not offended by the word when it is used correctly and not as a slur.
We use different words for mental retardation now, but people who want to ban the word drive me nuts. I love my brother but I also love language.
If your only contribution to the conversation is to scan for words on your verboten list, you can be replaced by a machine. Just go away.