Donna Brazile: How the Clinton campaign ran the DNC

[JA]

Isn't this the Clinton model? Do something unethical, but not illegal, then pretend (or have surrogates/supporters) pretend like it's all blown out of proportion and somebody else's fault because you did some shady business, yet still able to say "but we didn't violate any laws!"

True, the Clinton Campaign didn't "rig" the election in the sense that they conjured up votes out of thin air. However, the campaign had an unprecedented degree of influence and control over the DNC for a pre-nominated candidate or non-sitting President, which had a significant amount of control over the primary process, debates, the tone, resources, and so on. There was significant institutional bias and ethically questionable deals. That wouldn't have likely arisen at all had DWS and Obama run the organization properly in the first place, but the Clinton campaign was more than happy to lend aid and considerably tip the scales in her favor.

People complain that the media was unfair to Clinton and provided Trump with the unprecedented amount of free coverage, which are both true (especially the latter). Yet, they're so quick to downplay the severity of institutional bias against the Sanders campaign (and any other campaign that might've posed a credible challenge). This is exactly why Clinton manages to have even lower favorability numbers than Trump today, why her vote total declined by millions from Obama in 2012 against Donald freaking Trump, why she lost the election, and why so many would never trust her.

[JA]

How is "Undemocratic" to ask people to engage & talk over an election?

Hillary supporters have jobs. They didn't have 12 hours out of the day to sit around defending their vote and being shouted down by Bernie supporters.

That’s exactly what Republicans love to say. Nice.

[JA]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness. 

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders. 

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances. 

In a multiparty democracy Sanders voters and Clinton voters wouldn’t be in the same party; that’s pretty obvious. As far as I’m concerned everything associated with the Clintons needs to be purged and burned. Everything about them screams unethical behavior, yet her loyalists will always find some way to excuse their actions and blame everyone else. Bernie didn’t hurt Hillary’s camping one bit; Hillary hurt Hillary’s campaign. Hell, she even did worse to Obama in ‘08 than Bernie did to her (even more of her supporters switched to McCainnthan Bernie’s switched to Trump). Hillary lost the election to a scandal plagued reality TV star and it’s 100% due to her being so unlikable and untrustworthy. She was even able to be seriously challenged in a primary unethically tilted heavily in her favor by a 70 some year old crank Socialist from Vermont.

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure. The Clintons together have brought the party to its lowest level since the 1920s (with the help of their allies). And yet they still cling bitterly to power in a failing political organization bereft of new ideas, incapable of generating enthusiasm, and unwilling to represent the working class which FDR molded the party into representing (which also led it to its political high point).

[JA]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness.  

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders.  

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances.  

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure.

Its comments like this that make alot of us liberals struggle to unify with the radical left. Just move on, we'll vote for a Berniecrat in 2020 if they win the nomination, so putting down Hillary wont do anything but further an unnecessary divide.

It’s amazing to me that anyone could think Sanders supporters (a candidate whose most radical policy is universal healthcare, which every other developed country posses) are “radical left.” It shows how truly right-wing American politics really is.

I don’t think anyone’s really going to “just move on,” at least not until Hillary and her supporters concede that Clinton and her campaign engaged in unethical behavior to heavily tilt the DNC and, by extension, the primaries in her favor. And, more importantly than that, that her allies in the infrastructure of the Democratic Party stop using their power to disempower and disregard Sanders supporters and allies.