The former interim DNC chair would really like for pandora jewelry sale to come help put all this stuff back in the box.
Last week, the former interim head of the DNC, Donna Brazile, did the thing that the Democratic Party needed more than absolutely anything in the world. She decided that it was time for us all to take a break from our current "Kumbaya" happiness and finally take a good, hard look at that 2016 Hillary-Bernie race. I mean—and this is crazy—it turns out that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had a very bitter primary battle, and I cannot believe we haven't been talking about it! Oh, wait, what's that? No, I haven't been reading the news, why? What's Twitter? Oh, and what are people saying on it? Really?
So people have been fighting about the 2016 primary non-stop for over a year? Oh, boy, then Donna Brazile's decision to release an excerpt of her book that claims she found proof that the Clinton campaign rigged the primary for Hillary before it was over sure seems like a bad idea. But that's what Donna Brazile's book claims. In an excerpt that ran on Politico, Brazile wrote:
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National
Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of
whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a
cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had
suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door
of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who
knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid
proof, and so did Bernie.
Later in the excerpt she wrote:
By pandora jewelry sale in september 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it
broke my heart.
And later, in describing her call to Bernie, she wrote:
I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him.
Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that
I valued as a woman and as a public servant.
“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find
the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”
I point out all these sections to highlight the fact that there's no way to read this excerpt other than as Brazile saying the primary process was literally rigged. She even uses the word "rigged." Since then, it's been revealed that the fundraising deal at the center of Brazile's claims had specific clauses stating that it only applied to the general election, and that the agreement should not influence the party's neutrality in the primary process. Put it another way? Brazile's claims that the primary was rigged in Clinton's favor sure seem to be exaggerated.
So what does Brazile do now? Does she admit her mistake? Does she admit that she was playing into a contentious division within the party in order to sell more books? Of course not. Nope, instead, the woman who was once tasked with the job of helping her party beat Donald Trump resorted to Trumpian tactics on a cable-news show and claimed that she never found proof of "rigging," despite, you know, the excerpt of her book saying the exact opposite thing.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you agree with Elizabeth Warren that the primaries
BRAZILE: I don't think she meant the word rigged, because what I said,
George, as you well know, after I left this show back on July 24th, I
said I would get to the bottom of everything. And that's what I did.
And I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure
there was no rigging of the process. I'm on the rule and bylaws
committee. I found no evidence, none whatsoever.
The thing — the only thing I found, which I said, I found the cancer,
but I'm not killing the patient, was this memorandum that prevented
the DNC from running its own operation.
Remember, she wrote that she somberly called Bernie Sanders to break the news to him that she had found the proof that she was looking for. Earlier in the same excerpt, she says she was looking for proof that the system was rigged. We already have enough people in power lying to us like we're dumb. The last thing we need is yet another one.