Donna Brazile: How the Clinton campaign ran the DNC

[Shadows]

A joint fundraising agreement between the Bernie Sanders campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- obtained Friday by ABC News and signed at the start of the primary campaign for the 2016 presidential election -- does not include any language about coordinating on strategic decisions over hiring or budget, unlike a fundraising memo between the Hillary Clinton team and the DNC. In light of the revelation by Brazile, multiple sources have confirmed to ABC News that DNC chair Tom Perez wrote a note to the members of the party Friday, in which he defended the conduct of previous party leadership and stood by the party’s impartiality. "Our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential campaigns the opportunity to set up a [joint-funding agreement] and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those funds were used to best prepare for the general election. Since then, both of those joint fundraising committees have been shut down," he wrote.

The Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their funding agreement. In that memo, Hillary for America (HFA) reportedly agreed to help the DNC raise money and clear its debts, and in exchange, the party consented “HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.”

Weaver, who currently sits on a new unity commission charged with suggesting reforms for the party, said he was surprised that the newly-elected leadership at the party was not taking a more proactive stance to dealing with the old wounds. “A real executive would say, 'This was a terrible thing that went on, we are cleaning it up,'" Weaver said. “[Tom] Perez isn’t tied to this why is he defending this? It's ridiculous.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaign-document-reveals-fundraising-relationship-dnc/story?id=50926505

Ohh Tom Perez - Already caught lying. Guess he is determined to be DWS II.

[136or142]

A joint fundraising agreement between the Bernie Sanders campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- obtained Friday by ABC News and signed at the start of the primary campaign for the 2016 presidential election -- does not include any language about coordinating on strategic decisions over hiring or budget, unlike a fundraising memo between the Hillary Clinton team and the DNC. In light of the revelation by Brazile, multiple sources have confirmed to ABC News that DNC chair Tom Perez wrote a note to the members of the party Friday, in which he defended the conduct of previous party leadership and stood by the party’s impartiality. "Our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential campaigns the opportunity to set up a [joint-funding agreement] and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those funds were used to best prepare for the general election. Since then, both of those joint fundraising committees have been shut down," he wrote.

The Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their funding agreement. In that memo, Hillary for America (HFA) reportedly agreed to help the DNC raise money and clear its debts, and in exchange, the party consented “HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.”

Weaver, who currently sits on a new unity commission charged with suggesting reforms for the party, said he was surprised that the newly-elected leadership at the party was not taking a more proactive stance to dealing with the old wounds. “A real executive would say, 'This was a terrible thing that went on, we are cleaning it up,'" Weaver said. “[Tom] Perez isn’t tied to this why is he defending this? It's ridiculous.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaign-document-reveals-fundraising-relationship-dnc/story?id=50926505

Ohh Tom Perez - Already caught lying. Guess he is determined to be DWS II.

I suppose it's possible (or likely) that the DNC only offered to make similar agreements with Democratic Presidential Primary candidates who are actually members of the Democratic Party, which, as you know, would exclude Bernie Sanders.

If Bernie Sanders wants to enjoy all the benefits of being an independent, why should he and his supporters not have to accept that their are drawbacks to that as well?

It certainly seems fair to me that the Democratic Party would only make such offers to fellow Democrats. I recall several times during the primaries when members of the DNC asked Bernie Sanders to officially become a Democrat (which went public), and this may have been one of the reasons why.

I think it's human nature to be all too ready to accept the benefits of something (like fame or fortune, for instance) while complaining about the drawbacks.  However, professionals and politicians running for President should be above this human defect, which is why it's often said to candiates 'quit whining.' Not necessarily in this case, and I certainly haven't seen Bernie Sanders himself whine in such ways, but that his campaign manager, John Weaver has frequently whined about his campaign not getting a say over the DNC, while wanting to not actually be a Democrat, does not speak well of the Sanders' campaign.  

[Beet]

Oh lookup Donna bsed the contents of the "deal" as it turns out it was an agreement about the GE only https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/amp/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

But of course no one can be racist against whites because reasons.

There is definitely a bigotry among many SJWs against straight cis white males. You don't make up for past discrimination by turning the tables.

This is the sort of hyperbole that the alt-right uses. No progressives posts things like this.

Get off your high horse.  The "ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST" meme wasn't even popular in left-wing circles until fairly recently, when collective guilt became trendy with self-hating upper-class white liberals.

Anyone who actually believes this should actually try to make some non-white friends, or visit South Korea or Japan, probably the most racist developed countries in the world by some distance.

Asians benefit from white privilege.

If they did, they wouldn't be about to be getting nuked.

...

Beet is just a drama-queen.  I'm sure he reported this post.  And I'm sure texasgurl will rape my post to scrub you off the record.

I am rightly upset at the real possibility of nuclear war, as any sane and reasonable person ought to be.

I am reminded of a story I once heard about an employee at a software company who felt mistreated by one of his coworkers. The coworker was being a jerk, to be sure, so this employee spent months documenting all of his coworker's supposed transgressions, and then one day sent it to the boss and got the coworker fired on the same day. I told him that while the coworker's behavior was wrong, he had been unfair and should have confronted the coworker first with what he felt he was doing that was wrong and asked him to make a change. Given a warning, in effect.

You have made it clear that you don't like me, even though through my 21,000 posts you have never, or almost never, challenged anything I said. The only time you did, recently, you misinterpreted what I said, taking a figure of speech I used to mean an attitude of condescension. I've seen this sort of thing on the forum before, where people bash other posters behind their backs. Maybe I deserve it. I admit that I'm not a perfect person, and I'm not even necessarily a particularly good person. I'm just a human who posts here on Atlas, just like everyone else. But I do think I can say I haven't engaged in much of this culture of denigrating other posters personally. To do this kind of thing without being willing to say it to a person's face the precise behavior that one objects to is the worst of gossip culture. But there is nothing one can do about that which one does not know about. It's a limitation of being human.

I do not think anyone deserves to be nuked. To make such a claim about some 170 million people, sight unseen, is heinous. For a person who takes an interest in the region where those 170 million people live because he has lived there, slept there, ate the food there, and spent days seeing people of that region and interacting with them, as Santander has, is downright disturbing. The more one comes into contact with other human beings, the more of their humanity we ought to see, not less. For the opposite to occur is a perverted dynamic. For me to be worth only 1/100,000th of such a person, suggests I think that 17 trillion people deserve to be nuked. If 17 trillion people even exist in the universe, I can assure you, I don't think they deserve to be nuked. I don't think anyone deserves to die. Someone said that he was just trying to "get under my skin" with the comment. It is not his comment that has gotten under my skin by itself, it is the man in the White House contributing to the real possibility of nuclear war that has gotten under my skin. As it should any reasonable person's.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm finished with this Berniebro crap.

Till the next time you post something.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I love how all the Hillarybots here thrashing wildly in desperation. What goes around comes around.

[BudgieForce]

I love how all the Hillarybots here thrashing wildly in desperation. What goes around comes around.

Yes it does, hence why democrats need to focus on Tuesday and 2018 and not 2016.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I love how all the Hillarybots here thrashing wildly in desperation. What goes around comes around.

It is an insane and sad spectacle.  But you do the exact same thing in your defense of Trump.  

[136or142]

Former @DNC chair @donnabrazile backtracks fast..says no evidence of rigging primaries

https://twitter.com/President1Trump/status/927182678415290369

[DrScholl]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Only the anti Hillary Clinton hacks and the mainstream media do, if there is a difference between those two.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

[DrScholl]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

[DrScholl]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

That's been discussed to death and I really do not care about it at all.

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

If you want to bring that up, we should also bring up Trump telling bald face lies on average six times a day.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

If you want to bring that up, we should also bring up Trump telling bald face lies on average six times a day.

Everything you don't want to hear is a "lie."

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

But of course no one can be racist against whites because reasons.

There is definitely a bigotry among many SJWs against straight cis white males. You don't make up for past discrimination by turning the tables.

This is the sort of hyperbole that the alt-right uses. No progressives posts things like this.

Get off your high horse.  The "ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST" meme wasn't even popular in left-wing circles until fairly recently, when collective guilt became trendy with self-hating upper-class white liberals.

99% of people who seriously bitch about " bigotry among many SJWs against straight cis white males." are f**king bigots.

[Green Line]

Donna just sounds sad, desperate, and delusional.   She thought she could remove Hillary from the ticket? LOL.  Cute.

[Fuzzy Bear]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

If you want to bring that up, we should also bring up Trump telling bald face lies on average six times a day.

Everything you don't want to hear is a "lie."

You've finally figured it out, lol!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Donna just sounds sad, desperate, and delusional.   She thought she could remove Hillary from the ticket? LOL.  Cute.

Maybe if she actually did you guys wouldn't have an idiot as president, but you do. Sad.

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

If you want to bring that up, we should also bring up Trump telling bald face lies on average six times a day.

Everything you don't want to hear is a "lie."

No, anything that isn't the truth is a lie.  I disagree that 'all the truth in the world adds up to one big lie.'

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

[136or142]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

The simple fact is, the Clintons were always much more lied about, than they did any lying.

Your lack of historical knowledge seems endless.

I'm not trying to play 'whataboutism' here but there are only three elected Presidents between Nixon and Clinton and 18 years.  Even if you were correct that President Clinton brought back something not seen since Nixon, there was only 26 years between the time Nixon left office and George W Bush was elected.  So, it's not like the political precedents would have been forgotten in that time.

Presidents as celebrities...Ronald Reagan?  I'm not referring even to his movies but that he was known as 'the great communicator.'   You can check out his speeches if you don't think he realized how the power of his acting skills could help him as President. (Or as a candidate: "I paid for that microphone!")

I personally think the Reagan Administration got the two major issues of the day correct: dealing with inflation and with the Soviet Union/Gorbachev and, so, deserves to be regarded as a successful administration, but prior to Trump, the most corrupt Administration in history was the Reagan Administration: The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

You might think that Ed Meese was the biggest political con artist ever prior to Trump until you remember Oliver North.

Reducing objective facts to (partisan) opinions.  
So, do you think ketchup is a vegetable?
Were 'welfare queens driving Cadillacs' ever really a drain on the budget?
Do trees really cause pollution?

[Beet]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

Eh, no I'm pretty sure Donald Trump is going to be it, as far as the Democrats are concerned... they are not going to nominate someone more extreme than Trump. Or even another Clinton for that matter. Most Democrats are sick of both.

[136or142]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

Eh, no I'm pretty sure Donald Trump is going to be it, as far as the Democrats are concerned... they are not going to nominate someone more extreme than Trump. Or even another Clinton for that matter. Most Democrats are sick of both.

I think the only step down from Trump, and if it happens it seems it would be a Republican, is a Presidential candidate gets elected on the promise of setting up an authoritarian dictatorship and suspending the Constitution.