Brazille considered replacing Clinton with Biden last September

[Anonymous]

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

[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?

What are you talking about. She's out campaigning now on her book tour....

[Anonymous]

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

$$$$$$$

[Anonymous]

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


http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-ca...ned-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?

Don't quite get your point. Yes, she bailed them out--but they took control in Sept 2015. Remember, DWS (HRC's surrogate) had been running the DNC. Obama had broken the bank and the funds were depleted and in debt. Does that make it okay for Clinton to control the DNC?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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?

$$$$$$$

LOL, keep trying you Clinton shills.

The Clinton's and other ego-maniacs at the top of the Democratic Party shat the bed and are responsible for Trump, no question. She's probably uniquely positioned to break the omerta around the Clintons. If they scream "SEXISM! RACISM! BERNIE BRO! RUSSIA!" she simply tell them to "KISS MY BIG BLACK WOMAN'S ASS!" You do get that black women are massively the Democrats most loyal constituency? And maybe she thought she's been successful enough that she can be the one to take a risk on shaking things up and getting the Democrats to clean up their act. Elizabeth Warren is too painfully a Harvard Professor, having met all the royalist requirements, to stick her neck out and stat the discussion Clinton's awfulness. And it's pretty obvious from the piece that Brazile was routinely insulted by the insiders around upper echelons of the DNC: that makes her speaking out all the more likely.

And finally, she's clearly an intensely competitive woman: outselling that fraud Hillary's book would be such sweet revenge for all the disrespect.

I remember hearing Jeff Weaver saying in July-August 2016 that he thought Brazile actually was aware of the problems with the Democrats and interested in addressing them. I also now think prayers do some time get answered!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

$$$$$$$

LOL, keep trying you Clinton shills.

The Clinton's and other ego-maniacs at the top of the Democratic Party shat the bed and are responsible for Trump, no question. She's probably uniquely positioned to break the omerta around the Clintons. If they scream "SEXISM! RACISM! BERNIE BRO! RUSSIA!" she simply tell them to "KISS MY BIG BLACK WOMAN'S ASS!" You do get that black women are massively the Democrats most loyal constituency? And maybe she thought she's been successful enough that she can be the one to take a risk on shaking things up and getting the Democrats to clean up their act. Elizabeth Warren is too painfully a Harvard Professor, having met all the royalist requirements, to stick her neck out and stat the discussion Clinton's awfulness. And it's pretty obvious from the piece that Brazile was routinely insulted by the insiders around upper echelons of the DNC: that makes her speaking out all the more likely.

And finally, she's clearly an intensely competitive woman: outselling that fraud Hillary's book would be such sweet revenge for all the disrespect.

I remember hearing Jeff Weaver saying in July-August 2016 that he thought Brazile actually was aware of the problems with the Democrats and interested in addressing them. I also now think prayers do some time get answered!

Kiss my big black woman ass!

[Anonymous]

And finally, she's clearly an intensely competitive woman: outselling that fraud Hillary's book would be such sweet revenge for all the disrespect.

Could be. The Republicans will probably be willing to pay for her book along with Bernie's supporters. All who are disenchanted with Clinton will likely be willing to read her book.

I bet she does outsell Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And finally, she's clearly an intensely competitive woman: outselling that fraud Hillary's book would be such sweet revenge for all the disrespect.

Could be. The Republicans will probably be willing to pay for her book along with Bernie's supporters. All who are disenchanted with Clinton will likely be willing to read her book.

I bet she does outsell Clinton.

Before "What Happened", every single HRC book sold less than the one before it. No idea how "What Happened" compares.

[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.

Is this based upon an understanding of the party's rules and bylaws?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

What on Earth does that mean? And why on Earth would it matter? People did not trust Hillary, and Brazile revelations make it clear that they weren't imagining things. That lack of trustworthiness makes her a poor choice.

Don't be an idiot who thinks that Hillary is anything like the best woman that this country can find. The fix was in make her the nominee and presumed President for decades. It hit the public with the Linda Bloodworth-Thomason interview, but it had been in the works for longer.

[Anonymous]

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.

Get this through your bird brain: many Americans, including those on the left, view Hillary is corrupt. Cry about gender all day long; Hillary was profoundly flawed candidate gender aside.

[Anonymous]

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

Perhaps it is to sell her book ....... but maybe she also thinks that Hillary is setting the stage to run again and given her past history, she thinks that it would be suicidal for the Democratic party to nominate her and she'd like to do her part to ensure that it does not happen.

I don't doubt for a moment that Donna B cares a whole lot more about the Democratic party than Hillary does. For Hillary, the party is just a vehicle for higher office and she does not give a rat's ass for Democratic voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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


http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-ca...ned-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?

Don't quite get your point. Yes, she bailed them out--but they took control in Sept 2015. Remember, DWS (HRC's surrogate) had been running the DNC. Obama had broken the bank and the funds were depleted and in debt. Does that make it okay for Clinton to control the DNC?

Conveniently, you forget to address the first part that destroys your entire accusation.