Brazille considered replacing Clinton with Biden last September

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dislike Clinton but she’s better than Biden

Biden is a total clown and has a low IQ

Just curious--given that average range includes standard scores of 90 - 109, please throw out a number to let us know what you view as a low IQ.

And then also provide Joe Biden's IQ.

[Anonymous]

If you haven't seen the Donna Brazile interview with George Stephanopoulous, recoomend The saddest thing Brazile said was that she had to bury Seth Rich. She was very emotional about it. To me that made her very human and more than a cut above Hillary Clinton. I am buying Brazile's book, because a human being wrote it. Clinton's book is as fake as her candidacy and everything she has done from the coattails of her accomplished husband.

[Anonymous]

Bunch of losers in that party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is running again. She did the “I couldn’t possibly” thing last time too. If she didn’t intend to run again, there would be no reason for her to continually try to steer the Democrat Party. If there would be a plausible reason that she would do that other than maintaining her base so she can run again (a reason apart from being unable to give up power even when it cripples the party and eats the young), I would like to hear it.

1. You don’t know any Democrats if you think she would be nominated. Even the strong Hillary supporters have moved on. This isn’t losing in the primaries. She lost the General. Against Trump. For the the Bernie Bros, Bernie had problems. Too far left and he would have had problems governing. If someone more in the mainstream Democratic Party had run, she might have lost in the primaries.

2. Try to steer the Democratic Party???? Perez is an Obama guy.

DP: I do know Democrats and she will likely not be nominated but she will run and in the process divide the party. She is all about herself - always has been. How many losers in presidential elections have insisted on being in limelight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Get you head out of the sand, PP. There are thousands of women in elected offices throughout the US. The fact that the Democratic party has not developed female presidential candidates is because they had to hold the place for Hillary Clinton. The fact that the party was cowled by Bill Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schulz (under the thumb of the Clintons) into pushing down other women is disgraceful. It has nothing to do with shill (sic), unlikeable, ambitious. It has to do with a woman who cannot win an election. If I couldn't get the business I must get each year for my company, I would be sacked. The fact that the Dems sent a woman out to get the order who had failed before, is on the Dems, not on anyone else. If you are a woman, you should be ashamed for trying to hold other women back in defense of the weak one.

This is the essence of it! She lost the 2008 nomination to a first term senator with no real record of accomplishment as a senator and whose prior history was as a state senator. He had charisma which she decidedly did not.

She then faced a major challenge from an independent senator from Vermont in 2016 - he was in his mid-seventies but he actually had a message and it was the one that he had been advocating for decades unlike Hillary who changed her position to whatever polled well at any point in time. This was despite the entire primaries being rigged to favor her candidacy.

Then she lost an election to a reality show host who also had a message while she repeated ad nauseum things that she did not believe but felt was what she needed to say. She was a lousy candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

In fact, the only election that she has ever won was when she was running for senate - and that in a safe seat in a very blue state.

Why would anyone be surprised that she lost? To make matters worse her capacity for introspection is so appalling that she blames anyone and everyone for her failures ....... except herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're probably aware that Hilary also lost the white female vote? That's a big voting block - would you say a bossy woman makes them feel inadequate too?

+1

No, they just did what their husbands told them. Like good little wives. Women can be each other's worst enemy

Proof that Michele Obama reads DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're probably aware that Hilary also lost the white female vote? That's a big voting block - would you say a bossy woman makes them feel inadequate too?

+1

No, they just did what their husbands told them. Like good little wives. Women can be each other's worst enemy

Proof that Michele Obama reads DCUM.

But most of her posts are in "Entertainment" discussing rap music or in "Fashion and Beauty" asking where to buy size 10 high heels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really am trying to figure out what exactly Donna's endgame is. What does she get out of this?

+1. She thinks the Warren/Sanders wing is going to take over the party, thank her for telling it like it is, and make her relevant again? Hard to see. She has firmly cemented her position as a two bit snake who can’t be trusted.

She is trying to sell books? That is the only explanation I see for trying to sabotage the VA election. Screw her.

How can she sabotage the VA election? NOVA supports much of the state and has high property taxes. VA state income tax is 5.75% for most people with NO deductions.
0 - $3,000
2%
$3,001 - $5,000
$60 + 3% of excess over $3,000
$5,001 - $17,000
$120 + 5% of excess over $5,000
$17,001 -
$720 + 5.75% of excess over $17,000

Where is the outrage like that coming from NJ and NY on this new tax plan? Gillespie has an idea for state income tax cuts. Northam does not. I don't care about political parties - would vote for a member of either party. Whether this fed tax thing passes in some form or not, the ridiculous Trump does have a point on some things. One looks at me as a human being and the other a checkbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

The funny thing is, "that woman" will never be electable. She will always be "too shill." "too unlikeable.""too ambitious." etc etc etc.


Do you think it only happened to Clinton? LOL forever

No one will EVER come close to Hillary R. Clinton.
No one.

Well her first problem is that she is "Hillary R. Clinton" rather than "Hillary Rodham." She chose to give up her identity to bow to her husband's political amibitions in Arkansas. Weak sister 101.

Attacking the husband's victims was terrible. Then NOT divorcing him?

[Anonymous]

Brazile has been a DNC insider for more than 30 years, so it is ridiculous for her to pretend to be naive about the standard agreements and operating procedures for campaigns raising funds for the party for the general election. The Clinton campaign bailed the DNC out of debt & raised money for the DNC & state parties to get out the vote. Brazile came in and wanted to control the money the Clinton campaign had raised and wanted to use the DNC post to promote herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brazile has been a DNC insider for more than 30 years, so it is ridiculous for her to pretend to be naive about the standard agreements and operating procedures for campaigns raising funds for the party for the general election. The Clinton campaign bailed the DNC out of debt & raised money for the DNC & state parties to get out the vote. Brazile came in and wanted to control the money the Clinton campaign had raised and wanted to use the DNC post to promote herself.

I think she was stunned that the DNC was in such debt after Obama.
I find it easier to believe Brazile’s version of “what happened” than Hillary’s.

[Anonymous]

If I had to choose between believing Hillary or Donna, it would be the latter in a heart beat.

Hillary is a pathological liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brazile has been a DNC insider for more than 30 years, so it is ridiculous for her to pretend to be naive about the standard agreements and operating procedures for campaigns raising funds for the party for the general election. The Clinton campaign bailed the DNC out of debt & raised money for the DNC & state parties to get out the vote. Brazile came in and wanted to control the money the Clinton campaign had raised and wanted to use the DNC post to promote herself.

/\/\/\/\/\/\ So says a big Hillary supporter.

[Anonymous]

If she cared one iota for the party she would be working to encourage the next generation of leaders in the Democratic party but she will not do that because she sees herself as the savior of the party.

I know this comment was about Hillary, but it also applies to Donna. Why the hell is this book coming out the day of an important election, so all of the promotion was going to be the week prior? Just terrible to relitigate all of this shite this week. If she cared about Democrats winning she would not have scheduled it this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If she cared one iota for the party she would be working to encourage the next generation of leaders in the Democratic party but she will not do that because she sees herself as the savior of the party.

I know this comment was about Hillary, but it also applies to Donna. Why the hell is this book coming out the day of an important election, so all of the promotion was going to be the week prior? Just terrible to relitigate all of this shite this week. If she cared about Democrats winning she would not have scheduled it this way.

Her timing is actually perfect.