What the fuck is 45 on about?
He called her “Pocahontas” all through the campaign to mock her claim of having a small bit of Native American ancestry.
In 2000, he tried to get the Reform Party nomination, so maybe he’s unaware of fuggit He hasn’t got a clue.
he’s such a douchebag
I missed that during the campaign somehow. What a sad, shitty thing to say.
Here’s some evidence that Brazile’s claims are either bad memory or outright lies:
I can’t verify, but it sounds like a lot of people here have already decided to crucify Clinton, and they’re just looking for a reason to do so.
Perez just made DAMN sure of that, in fact.
I’ll bet the GOP wishes that they had rigged their primary too at this point. It seems like both parties are in a crisis where gatekeepers are becoming irrelevant…
Um… No. Brazile isn’t innocent, herself, by any means, but you’re not going to be able to give Hillary a pass on this one.
And I’m sure there are people who have already decided to defend Clinton to the death and they are going to say whatever they have to.
Looks alot like republican government, break the org, sell the pieces.
Well, I’ve built up an useful heuristic over years of paying attention to US politics:
Whenever a new attack on Clintons comes up, the prudent assumption is that it’s partisan bullshit.
Over the years, they’ve been attacked and investigated so many times, by people with vested interests in finding them corrupt and criminal, and what tangible results have there been? Pretty much nothing.
So, until and unless corroboration comes up, I’m going to assume that this is more bullshit, and the whole thing is Brazile’s attempt at scapegoating and drawing attention to her new book, with a side dish of bitter Bernie fans taking stabs at Clinton for daring to be more popular than he was, yet losing the election. (By a hair-thread margin…)
I come from a land where political parties, in choosing their leader, would naturally stack the deck in favor of a person who devoted a lifetime of service to their organization over an independent who just showed up.
The fact that people in United States believe this is unfair is fascinating to me, and I don’t mean that with any snark or sarcasm. I’m genuinely fascinated.
Quite frankly, I don’t see how this is in any way newsworthy.
Sanders was always the underdog in the campaign, by a very wide margin. Despite his very loud fanbase, yes, of course the DNC was biased towards the candidate that everyone assumed (and had assumed, for years) would be the frontrunner. And then Hillary bailed out the DNC and self-funded her campaign. This is somehow scandal material, a year later?
I think that is an extremely rational point of view.
I don’t think Clinton did anything nefarious to win the nomination. I do think that the reality of the internal workings of the party would be disappointing and disillusioning to many of the people the party should be trying to attract, especially younger people. I think that somehow those ideas have to be synthesized to find a way forward.
But my post was replying to a post that linked two articles, both of which I was pretty repulsed by. I don’t think Donna Brazile is any more nefarious than Clinton. Coming out swinging trying to paint her as a stupid liar, attacking her for sucking up to Bernie fans, under the guise of trying to help the party, was a little much for me.
Oh good, let’s re-fight this battle. With a little luck and hard work, we can rescue the GOP in the midterm election.
As usual, Charlie Pierce has a cogent take on this current flap. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13148225/donna-brazile-dnc/
I wouldn’t crucify her. I would just prefer that she go away. Enough Clinton’s, already. Enough Bush’s. And WAY more than enough Trump’s!
Yeah, darn those effective, progressive, intelligent politicians who win popular elections!
1990 is “just showed up”?
Arguably, the guy was doing public service in the early 60’s