TPM - Marshall "Donna Brazile Needs to Back Up Her Self-Serving Claims"

[NRaleighLiberal]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donna-brazile-needs-to-back-up-her-self-serving-claims

By JOSH MARSHALL Published NOVEMBER 3, 2017 12:15 PM

I have always had a great deal of respect for Donna Brazile. And I have tried to keep to a long time principle of not revising my view of a person simply because they do something I disagree with. I was stunned when I first read Brazile’s piece in Politico. But now having read it over a few times, I have a hard time not concluding that she’s done a serious disservice to the historical record and to all Democrats. Why this is the case, I truly don’t know. And there may be more facts to emerge that I’m not yet aware of. But here’s why I think this.

Brazile claims that the Clinton campaign and the DNC entered into a joint fundraising agreement in 2015 which gave her campaign control of the DNC long before she was the nominee – ability to sign off on messaging, hiring etc. If that’s true, that is definitely not kosher. The party is supposed to be formally neutral while a presidential primary is going on.

Whether this is actually true is not really clear to me. The existence of this joint fundraising agreement was public at the time. As NBC’s Mark Murray notes here, Sanders also had such an agreement with the DNC. The key difference is that he didn’t end up raising money through it while Clinton did. There are lots of reasons why this may have been the case, all reasonable, all tied to different campaign strategies, different fundraising bases, etc.

(David Graham has a general look at Brazile’s story and questions it raises. I strongly recommend it.)

But Brazile makes very specific allegations about the Clinton/DNC agreement.

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.



snip - much, much more to read at the link

[hlthe2b]

1. I am so angry at Brazille I can't hardly voice it... How on earth is anything she is doing helping?

IF she is right about this issue, I can think of at least a hundred ways to have constructively dealt with it. What she has done leaves me NO WAY to conclude her motivation to be anything other than self-serving (and in total denial/disregard for the damage being done to the party and its supporters).

Again, I have no problem addressing an issue, if there is indeed evidence of what she is purporting, but damn it, do so in a way to effect solid and constructive change--not to erupt a new civil war among Democrats or arm the REPUGS against us.

[BannonsLiver]

3. Her intention wasnt to help, it was to make money.

[Madam45for2923]

2. Howard Dean: Turns out the memo Donna spoke about applied only to the general election.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Turns out the memo Donna spoke about applied only to the general election. If so then this memo is standard operating procedure for 15 years

Memo reveals details of Hillary Clinton-DNC deal https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411 … via @nbcnews