Even if Clinton was more qualified than Biden (which is arguable to say the least) she was not more "electable" and isn't that what the ball-game is all about?

It was the dysfunctional and utterly incompetent Hillary campaign that got us Trump.

Brazile has done a real service to surface how we ended up with Trump as president. Yes, she may be in it to sell books as well but what she says in the linked articles has the ring of truth.

We need a complete housecleaning if we are to recover from the fiasco of 2016. Time for a new generation of leaders and time for the old guard to get out of the way.

Hillary Clinton and her incompetent campaign is tantamount to political malpractice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong to question motives? This seems so far out of left field for her to attack the Clintons. Is there truth to what she says? Probably some. But what does this accomplish, really? Other than making her money

she's saying no one listened to her!. Stan Greenberg's piece the other day made many of the same criticisms of Clinton's staff -- the data driven analytics strategy that was so wrong. Maybe stylistic and generational differences at work there.

+1

Why are these simple points, the concerns about what the Clinton campaign was really like, so hard for people to grasp? And if all are so worked up about Trump, doesn't it make sense to having an airing of views on how we got here?

Exactly.

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.

Bringing up sexism here, when there are clearly other concerns, sounds more and more like Kevin Spacey coming out as homosexual to deflect from charges of sexual assault.

Bingo.

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.

Bringing up sexism here, when there are clearly other concerns, sounds more and more like Kevin Spacey coming out as homosexual to deflect from charges of sexual assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong to question motives? This seems so far out of left field for her to attack the Clintons. Is there truth to what she says? Probably some. But what does this accomplish, really? Other than making her money

she's saying no one listened to her!. Stan Greenberg's piece the other day made many of the same criticisms of Clinton's staff -- the data driven analytics strategy that was so wrong. Maybe stylistic and generational differences at work there.

+1

Why are these simple points, the concerns about what the Clinton campaign was really like, so hard for people to grasp? And if all are so worked up about Trump, doesn't it make sense to having an airing of views on how we got here?

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong to question motives? This seems so far out of left field for her to attack the Clintons. Is there truth to what she says? Probably some. But what does this accomplish, really? Other than making her money

Because what's she alleging and has put into print dwarfs any concern about her motives. Given all the shrill noise about Trump, you'd think that some one finally breathing some semblance of sense into the discussion about 2016 would get some traction. But the motives crowd, who were largely absent when the questions were swirling about Hillary, have turned into a chorus. It all looks like a guild protecting its own.

This explains Brazile's concerns: it is a devastating indictment of Hillary and her campaign. I always suspected it was a dysfunctional campaign and this piece bears it out and also explains her authority to initiate a replacement for the Clinton/Kaine ticket.

I wish she had done it and we had alternative candidates because Hillary was an unmitigated disaster in just about every way.

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.

Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.”

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.”

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=.8093d26dd7ec

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong to question motives? This seems so far out of left field for her to attack the Clintons. Is there truth to what she says? Probably some. But what does this accomplish, really? Other than making her money

she's saying no one listened to her!. Stan Greenberg's piece the other day made many of the same criticisms of Clinton's staff -- the data driven analytics strategy that was so wrong. Maybe stylistic and generational differences at work there.

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong to question motives? This seems so far out of left field for her to attack the Clintons. Is there truth to what she says? Probably some. But what does this accomplish, really? Other than making her money

Why is Donna's honesty so disturbing to you and others here?

Why is it wrong to question motives? This seems so far out of left field for her to attack the Clintons. Is there truth to what she says? Probably some. But what does this accomplish, really? Other than making her money

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attacks against an African American woman by liberals is pathetic.

All she did was to surface the nefariousness of Hillary and DWS and for this she is be castigated with comments about her physique and the size of her posterior - quite apart from questioning her motives.

Calling someone a liar and opportunist is not racist. Try again.

Not explicitly, but I am impressed that some many folks are questioning her motives. That, I'm afraid, seems to be telling of something rotten in Denmark.

Questioning motives is also not racist. HTH.

Ha! That's not what DCUM posters said if someone questioned President Obama's actions and/or motives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attacks against an African American woman by liberals is pathetic.

All she did was to surface the nefariousness of Hillary and DWS and for this she is be castigated with comments about her physique and the size of her posterior - quite apart from questioning her motives.

Calling someone a liar and opportunist is not racist. Try again.

What did she lie about? She told the truth about the role of the DNC in supporting Hillary though they were supposed to be neutral. She said that DWS was a stooge of Hillary.

And you are ignoring the comments about her physique. Such hypocrisy!

Agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attacks against an African American woman by liberals is pathetic.

All she did was to surface the nefariousness of Hillary and DWS and for this she is be castigated with comments about her physique and the size of her posterior - quite apart from questioning her motives.

Calling someone a liar and opportunist is not racist. Try again.

Not explicitly, but I am impressed that some many folks are questioning her motives. That, I'm afraid, seems to be telling of something rotten in Denmark.

Questioning motives is also not racist. HTH.

I never said it was. But the fact that many parties first inclination to do it is surprisingly telling about them. And there are many things besides racism that could be distasteful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, the DNC chair does not have such powers.

Thanks. Does anyone? Would it rely on the candidate's cooperation?

Yes, the first step is for the candidate to agree

Rereading the piece, it's a little vague on whether or not she thought she could usurp HRC or not. But after the 9/11 collapse, having a backup plan seems wise, especially if Democrats believe even half the stuff they say about Trump.