Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

['3y Kingdom]

Seems like a hyberbolic piece, Brazille even confirms she found no actual rigging of the primary.



Edit: Oh she's selling a book. Yeah that puts things in perspective now.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, this is the full quote:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

 

[Xenomnix]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

 

[manchego obfuscator]

That's not the DNC's job, and why as a party would you encourage a messier primary just for the sake of it? If people want to hop in, then fine, yeah give them the resources. But to try and purposefully go out and push other candidates to run when they don't want to... that's actually rigging things against Hillary and against the democratic party as a whole. That is sticking your thumb on the scale.

Click to shrink...

The email scandal broke in March 2015, and her approval ratings tanked shortly thereafter. Encouraging more people to enter the primary wouldn't have been "just for the sake of it"; it's what the party should have done rather than stick their heads in the sand and assume those things wouldn't matter.

 

[TemplaerDude]

If we can for a moment remove Hillary and Bernie's names from the equation, I find it legitimately scary for the state of american political institutions that people here and everywhere else find no cause for alarm in the fact one candidate's side was granted control of a party's operations so that the party would have enough money to function WHILE said party was tasked with running a fair and democratic primary contest.

That one candidate, no matter who they are, can exert that level of influence over the body organizing the contest before a single vote has been cast is extremely dangerous for the legitimacy of that party and for democracy in general.

Again, independent from everything else, that's the fucked up part in the story Brazile is telling.

To bring it back to the current discussion, it's a problem that the party favoured Clinton because it goes against the principles, if not the rules, that the DNC have set for themselves in opening up their primary to independent candidates.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I gotta back this statement up. Separate from the candidates this is a completely messed up thing.

The back and forth about who would have what at this point is just pointless.

 

[Mezentine]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

Click to shrink...

I'm out!

 

[jack_package_200]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

Click to shrink...

Today I learned minority and lbgt support = corrupt ties.

Dude c'mon.

 

[cartographer]

If we can for a moment remove Hillary and Bernie's names from the equation, I find it legitimately scary for the state of american political institutions that people here and everywhere else find no cause for alarm in the fact one candidate's side was granted control of a party's operations so that the party would have enough money to function WHILE said party was tasked with running a fair and democratic primary contest.

That one candidate, no matter who they are, can exert that level of influence over the body organizing the contest before a single vote has been cast is extremely dangerous for the legitimacy of that party and for democracy in general.

Again, independent from everything else, that's the fucked up part in the story Brazile is telling.

To bring it back to the current discussion, it's a problem that the party favoured Clinton because it goes against the principles, if not the rules, that the DNC have set for themselves in opening up their primary to independent candidates.

Click to shrink...

I don't think that's any more concerning than the entire process of electing our head of state. I understand being concerned with the legitimacy of our democracy, but those concerns should go much deeper than whatever Brazile brings up in an attempt to repair her reputation.If you view that as a breach of democracy, then I really hope you view the rest of it as a breach, too.

 

[Tfritz]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

Click to shrink...

Hillary Clinton really had corrupt ties with sixty million Americans...

 

[badcrumble]

What's most interesting about this, boring relitigation of the primary aside, is that Donna Brazile sees this as an advantageous move for her to make. She didn't get along with Camp Clinton at all during the 2008 primary, but I suspect this is less about old grudges and more about knowing which way the wind is blowing.

If a moderately cynical political operator with pretty reasonably well-tuned senses sees it as a good career move to take a dump on the loyalty-first Clinton wing of the party, well, that tells you which direction things are moving in.

 

[ElNarez]

I don't think that's any more concerning than the entire process of electing our head of state. I understand being concerned with the legitimacy of our democracy, but those concerns should go much deeper than whatever Brazile brings up in an attempt to repair her reputation.If you view that as a breach of democracy, then I really hope you view the rest of it as a breach, too.

Click to shrink...

In truth I'm concerned with the whole thing because the American electoral system is an unhealthy and unsustainable clusterfuck of corruption, but I am especially concerned with what's being said about the DNC because they're the only viable vehicle at the moment that can carry the kind of ideas that will do the most good for the most people, and as such I have to hold it to higher standards.

Also yeah, Brazile is trying to save her skin and sell a book, but, that doesn't make the process she describes any more ethical.

 

[Deleted member 4090]

What's most interesting about this, boring relitigation of the primary aside, is that Donna Brazile sees this as an advantageous move for her to make. She didn't get along with Camp Clinton at all during the 2008 primary, but I suspect this is less about old grudges and more about knowing which way the wind is blowing.

If a moderately cynical political operator with pretty reasonably well-tuned senses sees it as a good career move to take a dump on the loyalty-first Clinton wing of the party, well, that tells you which direction things are moving in.

Click to shrink...

The only way for her to have a career in politics is to get canonized by Sanders supporters, kind of like Tulsi Gabbard. Nobody else will have her, but sage premonitions about the DNC being corrupt is the way their hearts.

 

[TerminusFox]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

Click to shrink...

If anyone needs further proof why most Democrats won't ever take the "progressive" wing of the party seriously, this post is a quintessential example.

 

[shamanick]

The only way for her to have a career in politics is to get canonized by Sanders supporters, kind of like Tulsi Gabbard. Nobody else will have her, but sage premonitions about the DNC being corrupt is the way their hearts.

Click to shrink...

This simply isn't true about Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[Deleted member 19003]

Here's the full quote:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Click to shrink...

It was the same agreement offered to Sanders though. It's not like it was a secret agreement just for Clinton. And again, Brazille said there was nothing else suggesting any sort of sabotage or rigging. She's just trying to sell books by up playing some sort of hidden wrongdoings in the primaries, when in reality the DNC is just a horribly inept organization that was full of debts and has way less influence and control over the primary than people think. It does need reform, badly, but the DNC being a mess isn't the reason why Bernie lost by almost 4 million votes.

 

[badcrumble]

The only way for her to have a career in politics is to get canonized by Sanders supporters, kind of like Tulsi Gabbard. Nobody else will have her, but sage premonitions about the DNC being corrupt is the way their hearts.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, but I think it's better to go in here with the attitude that most of what she writes here is unremarkable but true (outside of the way she tries to portray herself specifically), not that she's some sort of lying disloyal harridan.

The main interesting thing about the CONTENT of this piece, really, is the rather clever victory fund/loan payback setup. Fully helps to explain why the DNC has no money even though the DNCC and DSCC are doing just fine in that regard.

 

[Kirblar]

This simply isn't true about Tulsi Gabbard.

Click to shrink...

Yup. She's far, far more conservative than she "should" be given her district's makeup.

 

[Soul Skater]

But what does the DNC do to encourage candidates to run?

Please, show me some of examples of the DNC -- The Democratic National Committee -- doing things to encourage specific candidates to run or not run.

That isn't how primaries work.

Click to shrink...

Ok yes, the DCCC, and other Democratic Party institutions are the ones that specifically do that (not that they don't communicate but whatever )

But primary's also aren't supposed to work where a candidate regardless of how much of a favorite they are is able to hand pick a debate schedule they believe is advantageous to them, or have access to funds that are supposed to be set aside for the parties nominee over a year before they actually are.

Like in a different universe where after 2016 Bernie had installed his clown car of buddies at high levels in the DNC; like Nina Turner or whoever, and Bernie used similar methods to the detriment of someone like Harris or Gillibrand in 2020 people favored Hillary last time (even like myself) would not take issue with that. There'd obviously justified anger over favoritism amongst people who are in positions that aren't supposed to

 

[Quality Garbage]

I wish he would change his party affiliation to D if he wants so much power in the party.

Click to shrink...

Hmm... i dont think the correct path forward is party over country.

 

[Soul Skater]

Did people seriously not know who Bernie Sanders was prior to last year's elections? I'm pretty confident that more people knew of Bernie over say O'Malley.

Click to shrink...

His name recongnition before running was in the single digits iirc

 

[Teh_Lurv]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

Click to shrink...

I admit it, Hillary Clinton traded her 30+ years of professional political experience, agreeable policy proposals, and competency for the position in exchange for my vote. I only hope I can secure immunity from prosecution for my testimony.

 

[manchego obfuscator]

If anyone needs further proof why most Democrats won't ever take the "progressive" wing of the party seriously, this post is a quintessential example.

Click to shrink...

"Most Democrats," you say?

https://mic.com/articles/185505/pol...ove-left-and-oppose-its-leadership#.FeLJ2b60s

 

[Deleted member 8561]

Ok, so I read this all.

Clinton funded the DNC after it was horribly mismanaged and Donna Brazile uncovered the agreement, but no actual instances of the DNC being "RIGGED" against any of her opponents.?

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

Click to shrink...

Why is it so fucking hard to find tactile evidence if she literally controlled the entire system? Wouldn't the fingerprints of Bernie being shafted be literally everywhere, and not just with hacked emails about people being mad about Bernie?

 

[ElNarez]

It was the same agreement offered to Sanders though. It's not like it was a secret agreement just for Clinton. And again, Brazille said there was nothing else suggesting any sort of sabotage or rigging. She's just trying to sell books by up playing some sort of hidden wrongdoings in the primaries, when in reality the DNC is just a horribly inept organization that was full of debts and has way less influence and control over the primary than people think. It does need reform, badly, but the DNC being a mess isn't the reason why Bernie lost by almost 4 million votes.

Click to shrink...

It's the same, except for the parts where it isn't. The whole point of the piece is that the Clinton campaign demanded, and obtained, control over most of the DNC's decisions, up to and including spending, hiring and appointments. The DNC had to ask the Clinton campaign for approval before things were finalized, and you could justify this, except it all happened months before Clinton got the nomination.

 

[138]

Your problem is thinking "leaders of the Democratic Party" chose the candidate instead of the millions of people who favored Clinton.

It is impossible to bridge this divide as long as people are making this argument.

Click to shrink...

I understand what you're saying, Jack. But at the same time, I can't believe that the DNC allowed -- for lack of a better term -- HRC to continue to run as a candidate, especially when it became clear that the Benghazi and email non-issues were not going away, and especially when she was under investigation by the FBI. What party in their right mind think that's a good idea? Trump didn't just pick "Crooked Hillary" out of thin air, it was sitting right there, ripe for the taking.

Don't you think that behind the scenes, some of the party elders should have said, "Look. There's a lot of conspiracy floating around you as a candidate and it is a major distraction. Step aside and let us encourage Biden or whoever in the mix." Who didn't understand that the optics of having a candidate/nominee under investigation are terrible?

 

[Deleted member 4090]

I understand what you're saying, Jack. But at the same time, I can't believe that the DNC allowed -- for lack of a better term -- HRC to continue to run as a candidate, especially when it became clear that the Benghazi and email non-issues were not going away, and especially when she was under investigation by the FBI. What party in their right mind think that's a good idea? Trump didn't just pick "Crooked Hillary" out of thin air, it was sitting right there, ripe for the taking.

Don't you think that behind the scenes, some of the party elders should have said, "Look. There's a lot of conspiracy floating around you as a candidate and it is a major distraction. Step aside and let us encourage Biden or whoever in the mix." Who didn't understand that the optics of having a candidate/nominee under investigation are terrible?

Click to shrink...

Again, what could the DNC do to actually prevent Hillary from running? What authority or power does the DNC have to make people step aside? When has that happened, historically?

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not sure what's so nefarious about Hillary Clinton wanting a say in how the DNC used the money she gave it.

 

[138]

Again, what could the DNC do to actually prevent Hillary from running? What authority or power does the DNC have to make people step aside? When has that happened, historically?

Click to shrink...

Don't get me wrong, they have absolutely no power to do that. I'm talking a quiet sit-down laying out the facts, warts and all, and hoping the person in question will see reason and step aside.

 

[Deleted member 4090]

Don't get me wrong, they have absolutely no power to do that. I'm talking a quiet sit-down laying out the facts, warts and all.

Click to shrink...

The facts were that they were both scandals that basically had a 0% chance of leading to charges, and only stuck around because Republicans used it as the focal point for their attacks, and because the head of the FBI broke with decades of protocol and standards to editorialize in public.

If high-ranking democrats thought the scandals would tank Hillary, they would have either run or encouraged others to run. They didn't.

 

[dynamitejim]

I understand what you're saying, Jack. But at the same time, I can't believe that the DNC allowed -- for lack of a better term -- HRC to continue to run as a candidate, especially when it became clear that the Benghazi and email non-issues were not going away, and especially when she was under investigation by the FBI. What party in their right mind think that's a good idea? Trump didn't just pick "Crooked Hillary" out of thin air, it was sitting right there, ripe for the taking.

Don't you think that behind the scenes, some of the party elders should have said, "Look. There's a lot of conspiracy floating around you as a candidate and it is a major distraction. Step aside and let us encourage Biden or whoever in the mix." Who didn't understand that the optics of having a candidate/nominee under investigation are terrible?

Click to shrink...

The GOP invents conspiracies whenever the need arises. Why normalize it by kowtowing to them? You don't think Bernie has anything they could have used on him? And they invent stuff whole cloth, like Birtherism and Pizzagate.

 

[Quality Garbage]

Bernie supporters fail to realize bernie lost every state in the south

Click to shrink...

Hillary supporters also fail to realize that she lost every state in the south also. Propping up states she won in the primary yet got clobbered by Trump does nothing but attempt to deligitimize Sanders campaign. Sanders was a relatively unknown national candidate when he announced yet he still garnered 46% to 47% of the primary vote, which begs the question, what would have been the real outcome under a non partisan primary?

He beat clinton in the key battleground states that she lost to Trump. Many of those were historically democrat voting states. Using states the Democrats had no chance at winning in the general election as evidence for her viability as a candidate will likely lead to the same result under the next similar charismatically deaf candidate the DNC chooses to sell their influence to. Knowing the DNC can be bought now is the most troubling aspect of this whole reveal.

At this point the DNC has little to no credibility when it comes to promoting candidates. If it takes a new party to create a new orginization to promote candidates then so be it. This approach seems to have worked for ResetEra. Perhaps splitting the party in two and leaving the cancer within the party to its dying institutions is the only long term solution. Im suprised its taken this long after all the open racists left the party after 1964 and the DLC/Third Way takeover following Reagen.

 

[massoluk]

I'm not sure what's so nefarious about Hillary Clinton wanting a say in how the DNC used the money she gave it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah... At most I'm seeing it party was utterly incompetent that she left running of the party to the second most influential member that wasn't wearing President hat to run the party. And even the author didn't find evidence of rigging, so uh what? On top of that she wasn't the one telling Bernie to stop campaigning in the "Deep South"

 

[Jazar]

This entire thread right here (read it all):

 

[BarryAllen]

This entire thread right here (read it all):
M

Click to shrink...

3 million preferred hillary over bernie yet bernie people are like #rigged

 

[138]

The facts were that they were both scandals that basically had a 0% chance of leading to charges, and only stuck around because Republicans used it as the focal point for their attacks, and because the head of the FBI broke with decades of protocol and standards to editorialize in public.

If high-ranking democrats thought the scandals would tank Hillary, they would have either run or encouraged others to run. They didn't.

Click to shrink...

Well, the easy way to prevent the head of the FBI from breaking decades of protocol and standards to editorialize in public is to not have a candidate or Presidential nominee under FBI investigation.

 

[Deleted member 4090]

He beat clinton in the key battleground states that she lost to Trump. Many of those were historically democrat voting states. Using states the Democrats had no chance at winning in the general election as evidence for her viability as a candidate will likely lead to the same result under the next similar charismatically deaf candidate the DNC chooses to sell their influence to. Knowing the DNC can be bought now is the most troubling aspect of this whole reveal.

Click to shrink...

That's a retcon. Hillary generally did better in the Rust Belt, and in Battleground states. The notable exceptions were a slight win in Wisconsin, and a razor-edged win in Michigan, and a caucus win in Colorado. He lost Ohio, PA, VA, Florida, North Carolina. Generally, Hillary did better in larger battleground states, by larger margins, which led to here substantial delegate advantage coming from battleground states.

 

[Royalan]

I'm not sure what's so nefarious about Hillary Clinton wanting a say in how the DNC used the money she gave it.

Click to shrink...

Basically.

This article is a snapshot of the problem that has dogged Hillary Clinton pretty much her entire political career. Well, we didn't really find any dirt and she's not really guilty of anything...but doesn't all of this complicated political mumbo-jumbo just look suspicious?

 

[shamanick]

This entire thread right here (read it all):

Click to shrink...

RL on point as usual

 

[massoluk]

Hillary supporters also fail to realize that she lost every state in the south also. Propping up states she won in the primary yet got clobbered by Trump does nothing but attempt to deligitimize Sanders campaign. Sanders was a relatively unknown national candidate when he announced yet he still garnered 46% to 47% of the primary vote, which begs the question, what would have been the real outcome under a non partisan primary?

Click to shrink...

What does this mean? I thought we're talking about how primary was rigged, why are we jumping to General Election? Are you saying Bernie won the South? Because he definitely lose it when he bailed out.

 

[Deleted member 19003]

Well, the easy way to prevent the head of the FBI from breaking decades of protocol and standards to editorialize in public is to not have a candidate or Presidential nominee under FBI investigation.

Click to shrink...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie...bi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/

FBI investigations are the GOPs new go to for smearing candidates. Even Bernie isn't free of it.

 

[SFLUFAN]

The Atlantic isn't exactly impressed, but does echo something already mentioned in this thread:

The fact that an operator like Brazile is willing to burn bridges with the Clintons, though, is important. Although one might have assumed Hillary Clinton's time as a Democratic mover and shaker was passed, her frequent appearances to promote her book suggest she remains interested in staying in the arena, and earlier this week Jeet Heer argued that she should be the Democrat's standard-bearer against Trump. (Never mind that we've seen how that turned out once before.) But Brazile's bound toward the Bernie bandwagon is another indication of how Sanders is, at least for the moment, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

 

[MasterChumly]

Ok, so I read this all.

Clinton funded the DNC after it was horribly mismanaged and Donna Brazile uncovered the agreement, but no actual instances of the DNC being "RIGGED" against any of her opponents.?



Why is it so fucking hard to find tactile evidence if she literally controlled the entire system? Wouldn't the fingerprints of Bernie being shafted be literally everywhere, and not just with hacked emails about people being mad about Bernie?

Click to shrink...

Seriously.... this is going to be the same as the uranium deal for the next four years.

 

[Pet]

Basically.

This article is a snapshot of the problem that has dogged Hillary Clinton pretty much her entire political career. Well, we didn't really find any dirt and she's not really guilty of anything...but doesn't all of this complicated political mumbo-jumbo just look suspicious?

Click to shrink...

Yeah......

The world revolves around money. That's just a fact of life. Trying to make it not-so is useless and even silly. The fact is, if you have money then you get a say because you're paying for it.

We vote for representatives who are paid to represent us. We give them money and they listen to us (n theory). They're paid to represent our interests.

Also, how in the world are people on the left STILL giving HRC shit about Republican talking points? She is an extremely talented, cunning, effective leader with years and years of high profile exposure. That she came out of it with mostly issues fabricated by the GOP is incredible. Sanders might have looked better in comparison but only because he wasn't actually doing as much as she was on a political level. Sure, he was a senator, but TBH no one cares about most senators and he wasn't exactly leading anything noteworthy.

TBH I am a LITTLE tired of hearing about this because no one, not HRC, not Sanders, not Biden, should have lost to Trump in only the fact that Trump is so disgusting, vile, and incompetent that the American people should have realized anyone would have been better.

 

[Royalan]

It's hilarious to me how people are scrambling to find a de facto leader of the Democrats. There really isn't one.

The leader right now is whoever's the loudest.

 

[Deleted member 8561]

Also would love to know how all this rigging was kept secret till now, considering that THE ENTIRE DNC EMAIL SERVER WAS COMPROMISED AND RELEASED OVER A YEAR AGO

 

[ZeoVGM]

We have learned nothing.

Click to shrink...

Explain what you mean, rather than snark.

 

[ryseing]

I'm so glad all this stuff against her is coming out now. Say what you will about Trump, but he earned his support. Hill relied on her corrupt ties and anti-Trump sentiment to win and failed.

Click to shrink...

Political operator with a book to sell puts an excerpt in Politico.

C'mon man.

 

[JABEE]

Bernie would have had to win in spite of Clinton nurturing financial dependency with the DNC. Brazille said she only noticed this when it was too late to bring it up without torpedoing the election chances of the party.

This coupled with the use of down ticket funds shows this past primary was an example of corruption in every way. Clinton's campaign may not have rigged the elections that we know of, but they did about the next best ethically murky, but not illegal thing.

Clinton operates on and a little over the line. If the agreements Brazille references are real, there are no excuses for Clinton's actions and the power grab it represented.

 

[JABEE]

1) No shit. The debate schedule was evident of this. It was super bad and the Hillary campaign should be ashamed.

2) The DNC didn't stop Bernie from conceeding the South and its delegates and relying on RIGGED instead of focusing on its own issues is part of the reason Bernie could lose the nomination in 2020.

3) Donna Brazile is a hack and trying to turn herself into the hero of this story is hilarious.

Click to shrink...

I feel like this is true, but it doesn't take away from how flawed the system was. And it shows a Clinton campaign that was predatory and completely at odds with their campaign finance reform platform.

We all want fair and honest elections or as fair and honest as they can be. The way this whole thing went down is a good reason many people are disenfranchised by the political system with the party apparatus acting as un-elected power brokers.

Even if Clinton is completely clean and did so for the sake of pushing righteous causes, this is an opening that appears to have been exploited and could be exploited by others in the future.

Not winning in the face of horrible, systematic, unethical, unfair party practices is a stain on the DNC and Clinton even if Sanders wouldn't have won.

 

[manchego obfuscator]

In at least tangentially related news...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/02/dnc-fires-its-top-fundraiser-244468

 

[Royalan]

I feel like this is true, but it doesn't take away from how flawed the system was. And it shows a Clinton campaign that was predatory and completely at odds with their campaign finance reform platform.

We all want fair and honest elections or as fair and honest as they can be. The way this whole thing went down is a good reason many people are disenfranchised by the political system with the party apparatus acting as un-elected power brokers.

Even if Clinton is completely clean and did so for the sake of pushing righteous causes, this is an opening that appears to have been exploited and could be exploited by others in the future.

Not winning in the face of horrible, systematic, unethical, unfair party practices is a stain on the DNC and Clinton even if Sanders wouldn't have won.

Click to shrink...

I dispute this framing, only because...well, the DNC was broke. Is broke. That's not a minor detail.

So this all depends on how you want to view Hillary Clinton. She's either the corrupt hypocrite using money to take control of the defenseless DNC; or, the Democratic nominee inheriting a cash starved infrastructure that nobody was doing much to support. And well, the cash had to come from somewhere.