Did you read it? What it lays out is that Obama left the DNC deeply in debt, partly as a result of Obama consultants being financed by the DNC even after the 2012 campaign. The Obama campaign was paying off that debt they'd run up so slowly that the party would still be in debt as late as 2016, which would cripple the party's operations needed to prepare for the next election. So, the Clinton campaign stepped up and paid down that debt for them.
What Brazile is upset about is that after the Clinton people had cleaned up Obama's mess, and saved the DNC's ass, they only gave the party apparatus enough money to cover basic expenses after that. As the "Hillary Victory Fund" did its fund-raising, it only provided a fairly small amount for Brazile to control independnetly, and relatively little for down-ballot races, insisting that most of the money they'd raised be reserved for the fight to beat Trump.
There is, of course, a very different way to frame this: mismanagement of the DNC before Clinton came along had left the organization in dire financial straits, and Clinton's fund-raising fixed that. Yet, the new DNC chair was pissed off that Clinton didn't just trust the DNC to spend the money she was raising wisely, after that.
Instead she kept the organization on a strict allowance, giving Brazile less autonomy than she was expecting when she took the job.
Wouldn't you have done something similar, in Clinton's shoes? Would you blindly trust an organization that had just proven it couldn't be trusted with money, and that you'd had to bail out? Would you just hand over the Hillary Victory Fund money you were raising and hope for the best? Or would you put them on an allowance, to try to make sure plenty of that money was still around when needed to beat Trump?
You were trolling. You know that. If that's what you enjoy, fine. But understand that it'll come across as comically incongruous when you oscillate between such divisiveness and calling for unity. I'm a registered independent. I always have been. I voted for Sanders, a non-Democrat, in 2016. I'm not a party loyalist. I'm just someone who wants to be honest about what happened.Almost all the Trumpers claim to be Independents.
Yes, I read it.
Obviously you and I have different definitions on what constitutes trolling. Here is the definition I use: https://theconversation.com/new-rese...mselves-145931
In scientific literature, internet trolling is defined as a malicious online behaviour, characterised by aggressive and deliberate provocation of others. “Trolls” seek to provoke, upset and harm others via inflammatory messages and posts.
What definition do you use?
"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
Hermes Thoth (05-17-2022)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...emails-sanders
Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats
This article is more than 5 years old
Bernie Sanders made renewed call for resignation after email leak
Clinton campaign blamed WikiLeaks release on Russian hackers
Democratic convention: fight for America’s soul moves to Philadelphia
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation on Sunday. Photograph: Scott Audette/Reuters
Dan Roberts in Philadelphia, Ben Jacobs in Washington and Alan Yuhas in New York
Mon 25 Jul 2016 02.10 EDT
3,480
The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has announced her resignation on the eve of the party’s convention, dealing a blow to hopes of demonstrating unity in the face of the threat from Donald Trump.
A painting of Donald Trump
Democratic national convention: fight for America's soul moves on to Philadelphia
Read more
Schultz said she would step down after the convention. She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic party,” Sanders said in a statement, adding that the party leadership must “always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race”.
Advertisement
The Sanders campaign has long claimed that the party establishment had its “finger on the scales” during the bitter and surprisingly long primary, but the embarrassing new revelations proved to be the final straw for a figure who had been a lightning rod for tension within the party.
The DNC chair, whose named is emblazoned at the top of thousands of convention credentials, was originally expected to play a central role in the four-day meeting of delegates and party leaders. But as the convention prepared to get under way in Philadelphia on Sunday, there were already reports that Schultz had lost a prestigious speaking slot and would only “gavel-in” proceedings.
Internally, the resignation may reduce tensions, removing from the stage a figure who was almost certain to have been greeted with boos by sections of the large pro-Sanders delegation. Nevertheless, the turmoil risks undermining public attempts to show that Democrats have come together as a party and draw a contrast with chaotic scenes at on the floor at the Republican convention in Cleveland last week.
It will also raise new questions about the source of the leaked emails, which emerged on Friday and are the latest in a batch of documents believed to have been hacked from DNC computers earlier this year.
Pro-Sanders protesters march before Democratic national convention Guardian
Advertisement
Wikileaks published the latest batch, but on Sunday, Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said “experts” believed the Russian government may have played a role, even claiming their motive was to help elect Donald Trump.
“What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually of helping Donald Trump,” Mook told CNN.
In June, Wasserman Schultz called the breach a “serious incident” and said Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm brought in by the DNC, had “moved as quickly as possible to kick out the intruders and secure our network”.
The Trump campaign has angrily denied the suggestion that it is being promoted by the Russians, though it has taken a noticeably softer line toward Vladimir Putin than most other western parties and politicians. Crowdstrike experts who examined the first release of hacked emails several weeks ago suggested they bore the hallmarks of a government-sponsored hacking attempt.
More immediately, the Schultz resignation may inflame anger among Sanders supporters, many of whom had resisted the idea that the only way to stop Trump is by supporting Clinton.
The most explosive new revelation from the WikiLeaks release was an official’s suggestion that Sanders’ religious faith, or lack thereof, could be flagged as a way to dissuade voters from backing him in Bible belt states.
“I think I read he is an atheist,” the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, wrote in one email. “This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
Sanders, who is Jewish, spoke little of religion during the primary, but the sight of a supposedly neutral body apparently seeking to weaken one of its own party candidates caused particular anger among progressives.
How Bernie Sanders changed America Guardian
Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida who is herself Jewish, is not thought to have been directly involved in this email exchange, but she was seen in other messages writing dismissively of the Sanders campaign.
On Sunday, she said she had discussed her decision with Barack Obama, who appointed her in 2011, and with Clinton, in the interests of helping the party secure the election in November.
Advertisement
“Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as party chair at the end of this convention,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.
“As party chair, this week I will open and close the convention and I will address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats, but for all Americans,” she said.
“We have planned a great and unified convention this week and I hope and expect that the DNC team that has worked so hard to get us to this point will have the strong support of all Democrats in making sure this is the best convention we have ever had.”
Earlier, Sanders told ABC: “I think she should resign, period.”
“I don’t think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC,” he added to CNN. “Not just because of these emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people. And I don’t think her leadership style does that.”
Bernie Sanders<br>Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, left, shakes hands with supporters following a rally in Albuquerque, N.M., on Friday, May 20, 2016. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)
Bernie Sanders: I will not support Democratic party chair in her primary
Read more
The senator’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said the emails proved his suspicion that the party establishment was biased against Sanders.
This spring, Sanders and Wasserman Schultz had clashed over alleged improper access to a DNC voter database, the scheduling of TV debates during the primary campaign and the angry reaction of Sanders supporters to a Nevada nominating convention.
In May, the feud reached such an acrimonious level that the senator promised to support her opponent in the Democratic primary race this fall.
But Democratic leaders praised and thanked Wasserman Schultz in emphatic statements. “For the last eight years she has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful,” Obama said in a statement.
Wasserman Schultz, the president said, “brought Democrats together not just for my re-election campaign, but for accomplishing the shared goals we have had for our country”. Obama also saluted her role in “supporting our economic recovery, our fights for social and civil justice and providing health care for all Americans”.
Clinton paid extensive tribute to a “longtime friend”, adding: “there’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie.”
“I look forward to campaigning with Debbie in Florida and helping her in her re-election bid,” the presumptive Democratic nominee added. “Because as president, I will need fighters like Debbie in Congress who are ready on day one to get to work for the American people.”
Advertisement
Staffers also had praise for the representative, despite the controversy around her. “Regardless of the circumstances, you got to feel for someone who has logged the hours DWS has over the last five years,” a former DNC official told the Guardian. “Leaving under these circumstances is a shame.”
However, the same official pointed out that “no one is elected DNC chair for life. She overstayed her welcome and this result was a matter of time”.
The deliberate provocation is key to my definition, and what earned you the label.
You called me a staunch Democrat. I explained that I was, in fact, a registered independent and always had been. You could have responded to that by suggesting I might not be as independent as I thought, or in some other way forthrightly responded to my claim. Instead, you "conceded" that I was a fervent supporter of the Democratic Party. Framing it as a "concession" made it sound like something I had claimed and that you were admitting to, after having at first denied it. You know, though, that it was no concession, but rather simply a reiteration of what you'd already claimed, without so much as the courtesy of acknowledging the contrary assertion on my part. That was deliberate provocation. You were seeking to provoke an emotional outburst by way of that disingenuous rhetoric. That's trolling.
I don't mind, honestly. Troll away. I'm just saying that it comes across as a weird non-sequitur to go from that kind of calculated divisiveness to calling for unity. If you want to know why unity is hard to come by, these days, take a look at your own bad-faith approach to political discussion.
Indeed. Generally speaking, cognitive skills peak pretty early. Various aspects of fluid intelligence peak between about age 20 and age 40. Later in life, the ability to think well gets rarer. There's a reason, for example, world chess champions are never in their 60s and seldom in their 50s, whereas players sometimes take the world title in their early 20's.
So, while it's one thing to forgive folly in someone whose mind has been clouded by decades of decay, it would be another to forgive someone who should be operating near peak capacity.
That said, what a person claims is either right or wrong, and that should really be the focus. A correct statement is no less correct if it comes from the mouth of some tottering old man who has been dulled by advancing years, nor is a wrong statement any better merely because the speaker is young enough to still be sharp.
I'd imagine she was sick of the criticism. She'd already been the longest-serving head of that organization since the mid-1970's, and it's a position that comes in for a lot of bashing from every direction even in the best of times, so it's not surprising she'd be ready to move on. Especially in the face of security failures (hackers, probably with Russian help, breaking into their servers), she was facing a lot of anger.
PostmodernProphet (05-19-2022)
but your still a complete liar about the clintons and globalism.
that has nothing to do with intelligence, but morality, which I believe does change with age.
Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
Looked at clouds that way
But now they only block the sun
They rain and they snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way
I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all
Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels
The dizzy dancing way that you feel
As every fairy tale comes real
I've looked at love that way
But now it's just another show
And you leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know
Don't give yourself away
I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take and still somehow
It's love's illusions that I recall
I really don't know love
Really don't know love at all
Tears and fears and feeling proud
To say, "I love you" right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds
I've looked at life that way
Oh, but now old friends they're acting strange
And they shake their heads and they tell me that I've changed
Well something's lost, but something's gained
In living every day
I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
It's life's illusions that I recall
I really don't know life
I really don't know life at all
Bookmarks