Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee - Polidicks

[quote]Former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile writes in a new book that she seriously contemplated setting in motion a process to replace Hillary Clinton as the party's 2016 presidential nominee with then-Vice President Biden in the aftermath of Clinton's fainting spell, in part because Clinton's campaign was "anemic" and had taken on "the odor of failure." In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the process of removing Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton's Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.[/quote] [quote]Brazile paints a scathing portrait of Clinton as a well-intentioned, historic candidate whose campaign was badly mismanaged, took minority constituencies for granted and made blunders with "stiff" and "stupid" messages. The campaign was so lacking in passion for the candidate, she writes, that its New York headquarters felt like a sterile hospital ward where "someone had died." Brazile alleges that Clinton's top aides routinely disrespected her and put the DNC on a "starvation diet," depriving it of funding for voter turnout operations.[/quote] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html]SOURCE[/url] Side note, Brazile is on ABC with Stephanopoulos at the moment talking about how the Clinton campaign basically sucked the DNC dry, leaving it underfunded and understaffed for down-ballot races. Also clarifying that the Clinton-DNC deal was a separate deal, independent from standard arrangements, to “bail out” the DNC (her words) which was deeply in debt at the time.

Oh man Biden would have buttfucked Trump, without lube. He actually had charisma, could dish/take, and wasn’t an enormous moron.

If Trump had been a stronger candidate I imagine they would have. Instead they went "lol, no way we can lose to Trump" and proceeded down the dark path. It's good to see senior Democrats standing up and admitting the fault of the campaign instead of continuing the screech "misogyny" and "racism" over and over again.

Brazile’s interview with Stephanopolous just now was solid. She was direct, didn’t equivocate, and called for a Democratic Party with a “50 state strategy.” Her main concern seems to be rebuilding the strength of the party at all levels of government. So naturally, she’s already being smeared as a sexist/BernieBro/HillaryHater/saboteur/etc. brainwashed by Russian propaganda.

Isn't Brazile the one who gave Clinton questions before the presidential debate?

I don't think she had the power to replace Clinton anyway...

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52858020]I don't think she had the power to replace Clinton anyway...[/QUOTE] yeah p much everything coming out of donna brazile recently makes it look like she's losing the fucking plot, accusing them of rigging the primary (then the next day saying they didn't?) because of a fundraising agreement, and then saying that despite hilary's dastardly takeover of the DNC through said agreement that she still had the power to replace her on a whim???

This just seems like revisionism. Could she have done that? Biden wasn't even running.

But Biden didn't want to run and for very good reasons. And how many Vice Presidents have become Presidents (besides those that became President after well... the previous President died?)

Donna's like a louse fleeing a burning wig

[QUOTE=Cone;52858072]Donna's like a louse fleeing a burning wig[/QUOTE] gotta sell those books at the expense of everyone else

I thought the fundraising agreement was a pretty big revelation and assumed she was a pretty good source as a former Clinton supporter, but it does seem more and more like she is just trying to wash her hands of the whole thing Regardless, would this even be a good idea? It would have infuriated Clinton's supporters, who were a majority of the Democratic base

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52858101]I thought the fundraising agreement was a pretty big revelation and assumed she was a pretty good source as a former Clinton supporter, but it does seem more and more like she is just trying to wash her hands of the whole thing Regardless, would this even be a good idea? It would have infuriated Clinton's supporters, who were a majority of the Democratic base[/QUOTE] She's done with the DNC AFAIK and her book (which nobody knows about) is coming out so it's in her interest to start shit. She played coy with the fundraising story at first but then when the media actually released the documents (revealing the actual details, plus the reveal that Sanders was given a similar arrangement) she back-pedalled so hard she could have won the Tour de France. [media]https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777[/media]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52858063]This just seems like revisionism. Could she have done that? Biden wasn't even running.[/QUOTE] Probably could have. The GOP and DNC are private organizations, despite popular belief. If they wanted, they could just pick who they are running without having primaries and caucuses.

[QUOTE=Streecer;52858040]yeah p much everything coming out of donna brazile recently makes it look like she's losing the fucking plot, accusing them of rigging the primary (then the next day saying they didn't?) because of a fundraising agreement, and then saying that despite hilary's dastardly takeover of the DNC through said agreement that she still had the power to replace her on a whim???[/QUOTE] What fucking plot?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52858277]Probably could have. The GOP and DNC are private organizations, despite popular belief. If they wanted, they could just pick who they are running without having primaries and caucuses.[/QUOTE] And have argued in court that yes, they could do exactly that, and reserve the right to do that. But they won't because they swear to not be evil. The people who will look over their shoulder to ensure that they not become evil: themselves.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52858016]Isn't Brazile the one who gave Clinton questions before the presidential debate?[/QUOTE] Yeah, she was. Almost everything she's been saying is half-bullshit to make herself look better. She's just as crooked as the rest of the DNC.

Even assuming a mechanism exists for the DNC chair to unilaterally change nominees, Biden wasn't even interested in running. But more to the point, this would be way more explicitly undemocratic than any shenanigans the DNC pulled in securing Clinton's nomination in the first place. I'd take everything Brazile says with a large grain of salt considering she outright lied about the CNN questions. A lot of the excerpts from her book seem conveniently worded to portray her as some insurgent hero of the left within "Clinton's DNC", like her plug about workers in this one.

Take it with a grain of salt, aye, but also recognize that the DNC hasn't stated her allegations are false; instead preferring to simply state 'we're not under that agreement anymore' and 'we need to be a unified party going forward' to paraphrase.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52859296]Take it with a grain of salt, aye, but also recognize that the DNC hasn't stated her allegations are false; instead preferring to simply state 'we're not under that agreement anymore' and 'we need to be a unified party going forward' to paraphrase.[/QUOTE] I believe the stuff about Clinton effectively "buying out" the DNC because that stuff is corroborated by outside reporting.

Keith Ellison (DNC deputy chair) talked about this on the most recent Pod Save America and he seemed confident that changes were being made/worked so that the type of bias' in this past primary doesn't repeat. On this specific story, this would've been interesting to watch. Of course I would've preferred Biden over Hillary but imagine the rage from voters that the actual people who ran in the primaries (Bernie getting 43%) were ignored for the DNC's personal pick. I would've been glad to compromise and get a Biden/Bernie ticket though.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;52859379]I would've been glad to compromise and get a Biden/Bernie ticket though.[/QUOTE] The 'Lovable Grandpa' ticket?

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;52859379]Keith Ellison (DNC deputy chair) talked about this on the most recent Pod Save America and he seemed confident that changes were being made/worked so that the type of bias' in this past primary doesn't repeat. On this specific story, this would've been interesting to watch. Of course I would've preferred Biden over Hillary but imagine the rage from voters that the actual people who ran in the primaries (Bernie getting 43%) were ignored for the DNC's personal pick. I would've been glad to compromise and get a Biden/Bernie ticket though.[/QUOTE] They could've been partially pacified with a [I]Clinton/Sanders[/I] ticket but apparently the DNC felt that just adopting his platform (which was entirely non-binding and which has been ignored in the past) 'was enough to pacify' in the midst of a scandal. Instead of doing that, she instead picked up all the leadership from the DNC, put them into her campaign, and said to Sanders supporters 'Well, your choices are Trump or me. We both know which you'll choose *wink*' They chose to unify the party by, instead of literally unifying the party with a Clinton/Sanders ticket, say the party was united and continue on like it was, ignoring that it wasn't.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52858016]Isn't Brazile the one who gave Clinton questions before the presidential debate?[/QUOTE] She wants to look less corporate and have her immediate past character and actions buried.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52858332]Yeah, she was. Almost everything she's been saying is half-bullshit to make herself look better. She's just as crooked as the rest of the DNC.[/QUOTE] Yeah, no, Brazile was thrown into a very complicated situation in the midst of a presidential election year. DWS deserves the blame for completely skimping on fundraising and gimping the entire financial arm of the DNC, forcing it to take on exceptional debt. The reality of the situation is way more complicated than "they're all corrupt, fuck 'em all." DWS fucked the DNC up so hard that it had little to no choice other than to become a secondary arm of the Clinton campaign. Brazile criticizing that is a good thing. Perez has made steps to repair that, with Ellison at his side. Party unification is occurring, since the DNC is trying to channel the popular energy of Berniecrats and progressives to help fundraise. They've out-fundraised the GOP in senatorial and house races to an absurd degree. DWS basically didn't fundraise at all. In doing so, the DNC has brought safe Republican seats in Georgia and other deeply red states within 5 points of victory. Brazile was basically an interim chairman of the DNC for the election. She likely didn't have the time or resources (considering the debt) to really figure out how to solve the party crisis. Perez does, and fundraising has gone through the goddamn roof. They're out of the debt situation, they're no longer tied so stupidly close with the Clinton campaign, and they're making significant efforts to push populist Democratic legislators in all 50 states. Beto O'Rourke is challenging Ted Cruz in deep red Texas, and he has the DNC backing him, and he's making money hand over fist through fundraising and donations. After the 2016 trainwreck, the DNC has cleared the rubble and they're starting to get back on track. DWS royally fucked the party for the 2016 elections, maybe intentionally, maybe not - but they're rapidly changing course now, regardless of what the media claims. They're focusing on financials and fundraising (outraising Republicans repeatedly) and running candidates in red states like Georgia, Texas, Montana, and so on - and they're doing a pretty good job narrowing those margins.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52860118]Yeah, no, Brazile was thrown into a very complicated situation in the midst of a presidential election year. DWS deserves the blame for completely skimping on fundraising and gimping the entire financial arm of the DNC, forcing it to take on exceptional debt. The reality of the situation is way more complicated than "they're all corrupt, fuck 'em all." DWS fucked the DNC up so hard that it had little to no choice other than to become a secondary arm of the Clinton campaign. Brazile criticizing that is a good thing. Perez has made steps to repair that, with Ellison at his side. Party unification is occurring, since the DNC is trying to channel the popular energy of Berniecrats and progressives to help fundraise. They've out-fundraised the GOP in senatorial and house races to an absurd degree. DWS basically didn't fundraise at all. In doing so, the DNC has brought safe Republican seats in Georgia and other deeply red states within 5 points of victory. Brazile was basically an interim chairman of the DNC for the election. She likely didn't have the time or resources (considering the debt) to really figure out how to solve the party crisis. Perez does, and fundraising has gone through the goddamn roof. They're out of the debt situation, they're no longer tied so stupidly close with the Clinton campaign, and they're making significant efforts to push populist Democratic legislators in all 50 states. Beto O'Rourke is challenging Ted Cruz in deep red Texas, and he has the DNC backing him, and he's making money hand over fist through fundraising and donations. After the 2016 trainwreck, the DNC has cleared the rubble and they're starting to get back on track. DWS royally fucked the party for the 2016 elections, maybe intentionally, maybe not - but they're rapidly changing course now, regardless of what the media claims. They're focusing on financials and fundraising (outraising Republicans repeatedly) and running candidates in red states like Georgia, Texas, Montana, and so on - and they're doing a pretty good job narrowing those margins.[/QUOTE] None of your post actually responded in any way to how Donna Brazile is a corrupt piece of shit. Your post basically reads "yeah she helped clinton cheat at a debate but it was hard to lead the dnc at the time."