Brazille considered replacing Clinton with Biden last September

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brazille is looking more and more like a looney gadfly.

It's weird, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Did she join the Wikileaks side or something? Her facts are in some cases wrong, and in other cases, just her opinions.

[Anonymous]

New WAPO article mentions that she kept waiting for Hillary to call her and thank her after the election. She didn't call her until February and felt like she was treated distantly or something like that. Payback is a mother. Hill should have called sooner!

Of course, she denied sending HRC the debate questions from CNN and then later admitted she had. Her story changes from time to time. Likely, her consideration of replacing Clinton was a "what if"--not a real intention.

However, there is enough to substantiate some things. Clearly, Clintons had control of the DNC long before the primaries. There is documentation on that now. Others have acknowledged this. Some try to make it seem normal---but it was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary's tribute to the Twin Towers following the 9/11 Memorial didn't go over so well with anyone but the most ardent kool-aider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.28559e513cbf

According to the article's summary of the book, Biden/Booker was who she would have gone with.

They would have won.

Biden would not have won and Booker is as big a jerk as t-rump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New WAPO article mentions that she kept waiting for Hillary to call her and thank her after the election. She didn't call her until February and felt like she was treated distantly or something like that. Payback is a mother. Hill should have called sooner!

Of course, she denied sending HRC the debate questions from CNN and then later admitted she had. Her story changes from time to time. Likely, her consideration of replacing Clinton was a "what if"--not a real intention.

However, there is enough to substantiate some things. Clearly, Clintons had control of the DNC long before the primaries. There is documentation on that now. Others have acknowledged this. Some try to make it seem normal---but it was not.

The contract specifically stipulates control AFTER the primaries. What are you basing your comment on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brazille likes to think she’s relevant to Democratic politics.

She needs to go to prison

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did she join the Wikileaks side or something? Her facts are in some cases wrong, and in other cases, just her opinions.

Maybe she right or maybe not. But she's definitely challenging the establishment narratives. Given that
Billary, Inc. exerted inordinate power over the DNC for ages, she must see an opportunity to get us beyond them and their cronies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New WAPO article mentions that she kept waiting for Hillary to call her and thank her after the election. She didn't call her until February and felt like she was treated distantly or something like that. Payback is a mother. Hill should have called sooner!

Of course, she denied sending HRC the debate questions from CNN and then later admitted she had. Her story changes from time to time. Likely, her consideration of replacing Clinton was a "what if"--not a real intention.

However, there is enough to substantiate some things. Clearly, Clintons had control of the DNC long before the primaries. There is documentation on that now. Others have acknowledged this. Some try to make it seem normal---but it was not.

The contract specifically stipulates control AFTER the primaries. What are you basing your comment on?

http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

September 2015 was long before she won the primaries.
The agreement is displayed at the end of the above link.
Thanks for trying, Chelsea.

[Anonymous]

She is a lunatic and I hope she never works in DC again.

She could not replace the nominee as the DNC chair. The candidate had to agree to step down.

But it sounds like she certainly liked to consistently threaten HRC's staff with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get this. She has run twice and lost. She isn't doing it again. Why does anyone think so? Or is this just to continue to have a scapegoat from the right?

Please ......... Hillary is running. Why do you think that she blames anything and everything for her loss except her own failings?

The Clintons never give up and Hillary in particular feels that she is entitled to another shot. From the reaction of some posters on this forum, her support is still there but unless the Democrats have a death wish they will reject her. My hope is that Donna B's disclosures are the equivalent of a stake through her heart but I would not count on it.

[Anonymous]

Read the agreement, yes it was signed before the primaries, but the spoils take place during he General election per contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New WAPO article mentions that she kept waiting for Hillary to call her and thank her after the election. She didn't call her until February and felt like she was treated distantly or something like that. Payback is a mother. Hill should have called sooner!

Of course, she denied sending HRC the debate questions from CNN and then later admitted she had. Her story changes from time to time. Likely, her consideration of replacing Clinton was a "what if"--not a real intention.

However, there is enough to substantiate some things. Clearly, Clintons had control of the DNC long before the primaries. There is documentation on that now. Others have acknowledged this. Some try to make it seem normal---but it was not.

The contract specifically stipulates control AFTER the primaries. What are you basing your comment on?

http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

September 2015 was long before she won the primaries.
The agreement is displayed at the end of the above link.
Thanks for trying, Chelsea.

DP. but it was going to apply if she won the nomination, yes?
Who bailed out DNC IN 2015, BTW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get this. What do you mean by she considered replacing Hillary with Biden? She doesn't have that power.

+1. She alone overrides all the Democratic voters and delegates and superdelegates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get this. She has run twice and lost. She isn't doing it again. Why does anyone think so? Or is this just to continue to have a scapegoat from the right?

Please ......... Hillary is running. Why do you think that she blames anything and everything for her loss except her own failings?

The Clintons never give up and Hillary in particular feels that she is entitled to another shot. From the reaction of some posters on this forum, her support is still there but unless the Democrats have a death wish they will reject her. My hope is that Donna B's disclosures are the equivalent of a stake through her heart but I would not count on it.

Because she's a delusional narcissist.

[Anonymous]

She's not going to run; she is a two-time loser and will be way too old.