Donna Brazile Throws Obama Under The Bus

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Help me, Lord, I can't stop laughing.

So here we have the hypocrite who gave Hillaryous the questions in the debate while she was working for Fake News trash Obama as an egomaniac who was worried about his image while she helped rig the election for Hillaryous.

This is so fucking hillaryous we should make Hillaryous, Obama, Whereshermuzzle, Bernie, and Brazile all testify on the same panel in front of a Congressional Panel live on CNN.

"Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote."

Donna Brazile criticizes Barack Obama's 'titanic ego' in her new book

 

[WEATHER53]

Man this is something to see unfold

 

[TomParks]

"Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt.

Ha, typical black behavior......he emptied the coffers

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Man this is something to see unfold

Democrats are so fucking stupid I think Maxine Waters is in charge of the entire party.

Now they have an angry Black woman who was duped by fake news in to giving Hillaryous the questions to a debate all pissed off at the clowns who dragged her in to making an ass of herself.

Oh, fuck, the ghetto will be on fire.

Bernie will claim it was all just in fun.

Obama will claim it's his reparations.

Hillaryous will claim she still is Queen.

Whereshermuzzle will claim everyone is anti-semite.

Poetic justice.

 

[Gracie]

Donna is making more of an ass of herself the more she "spills". She should have thought about all this crap when she herself was doing it WITH them.

 

[Snouter]

Donna Brazile like just about every other democrat is a pathological liar. But for some reason she felt the Crooked Hillary establishment did not pay enough for her lying on Crooked Hillary's behalf so she flipped like an underworld mobster looking for a break. She did not answer any question Tucker asked her, and Tucker was laughing at her the entire time, and let her hawk her book. Donna Brazile was like in boxing promoter Don King mode, deranged, crazy, and looking for revenge money.

 

[Gracie]

No honor among thieves. Someone in the DNC pissed her off, and now they are "gonna pay" in some form or another by golly. What an idiot she is for not realizing most see her as such.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

From the rubric article:

Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote.

In part, I certainly don't blame Obama for bidding that the DNC to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel" because as POTUS he certainly couldn't do those things on the government's or his own dime, yet they are things that at times need to be done, even though they shouldn't need to be done in any circumstance. Ideally, leaders, in this case a POTUS, would seek political and governance partners and abettors who don't demand more appreciation than is found in a "thank you" and perhaps a public certificate/citation of some sort. Obviously, I cannot speak to why Obama didn't, or, for that matter, whether he didn't pursue such a tack.

On the other hand, I absolutely do blame Schultz for acceding to requests that she expend DNC resources to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel." Whereas it's conceivable that Obama was faced with having no choice but to partner with scoundrels who demanded such things in return for their cooperation or public approbation, as DNC chairperson, she didn't at all have to do so. Moreover, as DNC chair, if nothing else, it was part of her job to facilitate Obama's objectives by finding to assist Obama capable people who didn't demand such favors.

Why? Because when one is a leadership role that is yet subordinate to that of another, part of one's duty is to find "better" solutions. It's called teamwork. I mean, really. No leader, no matter how capable they be, is able to generate every sage, every effective, every efficacious idea and approach that comes about. That is why leaders have advisors rather than factotums. Of course, an advisor who acts like factotum really isn't much of an advisor, and they're hardly a partner, now are they?

“I knew that these three did not do this with malice. I knew if you woke any of them up in the middle of the night to ask them how they felt about the Democratic Party they would answer with sincerity that they loved this party and all it had done for the country and for them. Yet they had leeched it of its vitality and were continuing to do so,” Brazile wrote.

I suspect that one queries anyone who's held high public office, one'll find about the same is so of them. Mind, I say that as an observation, not exculpation, derived from my own experiences as a senior corporate leader and from my conversations with others who are/were. Loud and incessant is the cacophony that aims to outshout the choir of one's "better angels." It takes a lot of things to silence the din. Among the most important of those things is having the right people by one's side and working to help engender some measure of increased quiescence.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

 

[JoeMoma]

Never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

From the rubric article:

Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote.

In part, I certainly don't blame Obama for bidding that the DNC to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel" because as POTUS he certainly couldn't do those things on the government's or his own dime, yet they are things that at times need to be done, even though they shouldn't need to be done in any circumstance. Ideally, leaders, in this case a POTUS, would seek political and governance partners and abettors who don't demand more appreciation than is found in a "thank you" and perhaps a public certificate/citation of some sort. Obviously, I cannot speak to why Obama didn't, or, for that matter, whether he didn't pursue such a tack.

On the other hand, I absolutely do blame Schultz for acceding to requests that she expend DNC resources to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel." Whereas it's conceivable that Obama was faced with having no choice but to partner with scoundrels who demanded such things in return for their cooperation or public approbation, as DNC chairperson, she didn't at all have to do so. Moreover, as DNC chair, if nothing else, it was part of her job to facilitate Obama's objectives by finding to assist Obama capable people who didn't demand such favors.

Why? Because when one is a leadership role that is yet subordinate to that of another, part of one's duty is to find "better" solutions. It's called teamwork. I mean, really. No leader, no matter how capable they be, is able to generate every sage, every effective, every efficacious idea and approach that comes about. That is why leaders have advisors rather than factotums. Of course, an advisor who acts like factotum really isn't much of an advisor, and they're hardly a partner, now are they?

“I knew that these three did not do this with malice. I knew if you woke any of them up in the middle of the night to ask them how they felt about the Democratic Party they would answer with sincerity that they loved this party and all it had done for the country and for them. Yet they had leeched it of its vitality and were continuing to do so,” Brazile wrote.

I suspect that one queries anyone who's held high public office, one'll find about the same is so of them. Mind, I say that as an observation, not exculpation, derived from my own experiences as a senior corporate leader and from my conversations with others who are/were. Loud and incessant is the cacophony that aims to outshout the choir of one's "better angels." It takes a lot of things to silence the din. Among the most important of those things is having the right people by one's side and working to help engender some measure of increased quiescence.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

Birds of a feather.........
Obama partnered with scoundrels.....

Yep, republicans do it too. Damn politicians can't be trusted.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Donna is making more of an ass of herself the more she "spills". She should have thought about all this crap when she herself was doing it WITH them.

Donna Brazile like just about every other democrat is a pathological liar. But for some reason she felt the Crooked Hillary establishment did not pay enough for her lying on Crooked Hillary's behalf so she flipped like an underworld mobster looking for a break. She did not answer any question Tucker asked her, and Tucker was laughing at her the entire time, and let her hawk her book. Donna Brazile was like in boxing promoter Don King mode, deranged, crazy, and looking for revenge money.

No honor among thieves. Someone in the DNC pissed her off, and now they are "gonna pay" in some form or another by golly. What an idiot she is for not realizing most see her as such.

Seriously? Both of you truly would rather focus your remarks on Ms. Brazile and not on what she has to say? "Shooting the messenger" is just as invalid a thing to do when the messenger chides one's own "darling" as when the messenger chides one's opponents. Using that ad hominem attack is all the more absurd when it's clear the messenger is and was well positioned to know exactly what they're talking about and one has presented nary a shred to show that is not the case, which is what one must do for the exception to the fallaciousness of the "shoot the messenger' attack to be valid.

Countless Democrats have of Ms. Brazile's comments essentially said "yes, that happened, and we've got to fix it and do better," yet here you are attacking her. Why are those highly placed Democrats saying that? Because they at least have the integrity to "own their sh*t" even though doing so is painful. That's not to say they exhibit the expected degrees of integrity overall, but the bit they've shown in that regard is more than we typically see.

And let's be honest...If one is going to undergo a cathartic airing of one's "dirty linen," the time to do it is while one does not hold the reigns of power because upon gaining power, the scrutiny to which all one does becomes subject is immense. Better, if I may mix metaphors, to have already done and folded the wash and mourned and buried the skeletons, for to do otherwise is to become immobilized by the real and imagined scandals pertaining to them. One (a party) can regain power having those things in one's past, but only if one can, upon retaking it, also say to inquires about such things, "Asked and answered; read the papers. Next topic," and have that be a legit response because there literally nothing else to say, because it's all long since been laid bare.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

From the rubric article:

Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote.

In part, I certainly don't blame Obama for bidding that the DNC to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel" because as POTUS he certainly couldn't do those things on the government's or his own dime, yet they are things that at times need to be done, even though they shouldn't need to be done in any circumstance. Ideally, leaders, in this case a POTUS, would seek political and governance partners and abettors who don't demand more appreciation than is found in a "thank you" and perhaps a public certificate/citation of some sort. Obviously, I cannot speak to why Obama didn't, or, for that matter, whether he didn't pursue such a tack.

On the other hand, I absolutely do blame Schultz for acceding to requests that she expend DNC resources to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel." Whereas it's conceivable that Obama was faced with having no choice but to partner with scoundrels who demanded such things in return for their cooperation or public approbation, as DNC chairperson, she didn't at all have to do so. Moreover, as DNC chair, if nothing else, it was part of her job to facilitate Obama's objectives by finding to assist Obama capable people who didn't demand such favors.

Why? Because when one is a leadership role that is yet subordinate to that of another, part of one's duty is to find "better" solutions. It's called teamwork. I mean, really. No leader, no matter how capable they be, is able to generate every sage, every effective, every efficacious idea and approach that comes about. That is why leaders have advisors rather than factotums. Of course, an advisor who acts like factotum really isn't much of an advisor, and they're hardly a partner, now are they?

“I knew that these three did not do this with malice. I knew if you woke any of them up in the middle of the night to ask them how they felt about the Democratic Party they would answer with sincerity that they loved this party and all it had done for the country and for them. Yet they had leeched it of its vitality and were continuing to do so,” Brazile wrote.

I suspect that one queries anyone who's held high public office, one'll find about the same is so of them. Mind, I say that as an observation, not exculpation, derived from my own experiences as a senior corporate leader and from my conversations with others who are/were. Loud and incessant is the cacophony that aims to outshout the choir of one's "better angels." It takes a lot of things to silence the din. Among the most important of those things is having the right people by one's side and working to help engender some measure of increased quiescence.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

Birds of a feather.........
Obama partnered with scoundrels.....

Yep, republicans do it too. Damn politicians can't be trusted.

politicians can't be trusted.

Finding the few who can is most certainly a challenge.

On the other hand, the nature of modern politics is such that folks who can be trusted haven't the will to develop all one must to become an effective policy maker only, upon becoming elected/appointed, to suffer the insipidity, dullards and, frankly, BS that accompanies holding elected or high appointed office, particularly when one can put in about the same effort to become a successful business principal and earn $700K/year or, more often, more and endure less trial and less tribulation and still manage to be on the "winning" side of public policy.

Quite a few folks I know have considered the calculus of a foray into politics and arrived at that conclusion. I performed it too and arrived at it, so I understand why lots of "good people" don't go into politics. That said, some good people do...And God bless them...

 

[Gracie]

Donna is making more of an ass of herself the more she "spills". She should have thought about all this crap when she herself was doing it WITH them.

Donna Brazile like just about every other democrat is a pathological liar. But for some reason she felt the Crooked Hillary establishment did not pay enough for her lying on Crooked Hillary's behalf so she flipped like an underworld mobster looking for a break. She did not answer any question Tucker asked her, and Tucker was laughing at her the entire time, and let her hawk her book. Donna Brazile was like in boxing promoter Don King mode, deranged, crazy, and looking for revenge money.

No honor among thieves. Someone in the DNC pissed her off, and now they are "gonna pay" in some form or another by golly. What an idiot she is for not realizing most see her as such.

Seriously? Both of you truly would rather focus your remarks on Ms. Brazile and not on what she has to say? "Shooting the messenger" is just as invalid a thing to do when the messenger chides one's own "darling" as when the messenger chides one's opponents. Using that ad hominem attack is all the more absurd when it's clear the messenger is and was well positioned to know exactly what they're talking about and one has presented nary a shred to show that is not the case, which is what one must do for the exception to the fallaciousness of the "shoot the messenger' attack to be valid.

Countless Democrats have of Ms. Brazile's comments essentially said "yes, that happened, and we've got to fix it and do better," yet here you are attacking her. Why are those highly placed Democrats saying that? Because they at least have the integrity to "own their sh*t" even though doing so is painful. That's not to say they exhibit the expected degrees of integrity overall, but the bit they've shown in that regard is more than we typically see.

And let's be honest...If one is going to undergo a cathartic airing of one's "dirty linen," the time to do it is while one does not hold the reigns of power because upon gaining power, the scrutiny to which all one does becomes subject is immense. Better, if I may mix metaphors, to have already done and folded the wash and mourned and buried the skeletons, for to do otherwise is to become immobilized by the real and imagined scandals pertaining to them. One (a party) can regain power having those things in one's past, but only if one can, upon retaking it, also say to inquires about such things, "Asked and answered; read the papers. Next topic," and have that be a legit response because there literally nothing else to say, because it's all long since been laid bare.

I appreciate what she says. Hell, I used to like her. Alot. But that was when I leaned democrat.
Point is...she cannot be trusted with what she is saying even if its true because she was INVOLVED in it all along. Until now. How can you embrace anything she says knowing she was thick into it herself until someone in the DNC pissed her off and she thought throwing them under the bus wouldn't include her sorry ass herself?

 

[Penelope]

Help me, Lord, I can't stop laughing.

So here we have the hypocrite who gave Hillaryous the questions in the debate while she was working for Fake News trash Obama as an egomaniac who was worried about his image while she helped rig the election for Hillaryous.

This is so fucking hillaryous we should make Hillaryous, Obama, Whereshermuzzle, Bernie, and Brazile all testify on the same panel in front of a Congressional Panel live on CNN.

"Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote."

Donna Brazile criticizes Barack Obama's 'titanic ego' in her new book

And Brazile loves the attention. Lets see the agreement she found? Is it in her book? I have not seen it, have you??

 

[Esmeralda]

Help me, Lord, I can't stop laughing.

So here we have the hypocrite who gave Hillaryous the questions in the debate while she was working for Fake News trash Obama as an egomaniac who was worried about his image while she helped rig the election for Hillaryous.

This is so fucking hillaryous we should make Hillaryous, Obama, Whereshermuzzle, Bernie, and Brazile all testify on the same panel in front of a Congressional Panel live on CNN.

"Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote."

Donna Brazile criticizes Barack Obama's 'titanic ego' in her new book

She sounds like a nutcase.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
Donna Brazile confirmed or exposed, what many of us already knew or suspected of the democrats....a total Clintonian takeover. The read damage was done while Hillary substituted the democratic party's more ideological side with warmongering and a sellout to corporate values.
`

 

[Penelope]

So now we have the Pubs in charge who got rid of Dodd Frank, and Pubs who want to rip the Iran deal up, and a Potus who want to take out NK. Take a look who is in the DT Admin now, Wall Street.

Did Bernie want her money, no he wanted his 27 buck donations.

 

[Snouter]

Windpardox is making sense at this juncture and then this mental case Penelope shows up for the buzzkill.

 

[gipper]

Never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

From the rubric article:

Obama "used the party to provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel," Brazile wrote, adding that the politician also used DNC funds for "his pollster and focus groups" later into his second term although he couldn't run for president again.

"This was not working to strengthen the party. He left it in debt. Hillary bailed it out so that she could control it, and Debbie went along with all of this because she liked the power and perks of being a chair but not the responsibilities," Brazile wrote.

In part, I certainly don't blame Obama for bidding that the DNC to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel" because as POTUS he certainly couldn't do those things on the government's or his own dime, yet they are things that at times need to be done, even though they shouldn't need to be done in any circumstance. Ideally, leaders, in this case a POTUS, would seek political and governance partners and abettors who don't demand more appreciation than is found in a "thank you" and perhaps a public certificate/citation of some sort. Obviously, I cannot speak to why Obama didn't, or, for that matter, whether he didn't pursue such a tack.

On the other hand, I absolutely do blame Schultz for acceding to requests that she expend DNC resources to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel." Whereas it's conceivable that Obama was faced with having no choice but to partner with scoundrels who demanded such things in return for their cooperation or public approbation, as DNC chairperson, she didn't at all have to do so. Moreover, as DNC chair, if nothing else, it was part of her job to facilitate Obama's objectives by finding to assist Obama capable people who didn't demand such favors.

Why? Because when one is a leadership role that is yet subordinate to that of another, part of one's duty is to find "better" solutions. It's called teamwork. I mean, really. No leader, no matter how capable they be, is able to generate every sage, every effective, every efficacious idea and approach that comes about. That is why leaders have advisors rather than factotums. Of course, an advisor who acts like factotum really isn't much of an advisor, and they're hardly a partner, now are they?

“I knew that these three did not do this with malice. I knew if you woke any of them up in the middle of the night to ask them how they felt about the Democratic Party they would answer with sincerity that they loved this party and all it had done for the country and for them. Yet they had leeched it of its vitality and were continuing to do so,” Brazile wrote.

I suspect that one queries anyone who's held high public office, one'll find about the same is so of them. Mind, I say that as an observation, not exculpation, derived from my own experiences as a senior corporate leader and from my conversations with others who are/were. Loud and incessant is the cacophony that aims to outshout the choir of one's "better angels." It takes a lot of things to silence the din. Among the most important of those things is having the right people by one's side and working to help engender some measure of increased quiescence.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were.
-- John Donne, No man is an island – A selection from the prose​

Birds of a feather.........
Obama partnered with scoundrels.....

Yep, republicans do it too. Damn politicians can't be trusted.

We can only hope this kills the D Party and takes the R party down too.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Donna is making more of an ass of herself the more she "spills". She should have thought about all this crap when she herself was doing it WITH them.

Donna Brazile like just about every other democrat is a pathological liar. But for some reason she felt the Crooked Hillary establishment did not pay enough for her lying on Crooked Hillary's behalf so she flipped like an underworld mobster looking for a break. She did not answer any question Tucker asked her, and Tucker was laughing at her the entire time, and let her hawk her book. Donna Brazile was like in boxing promoter Don King mode, deranged, crazy, and looking for revenge money.

No honor among thieves. Someone in the DNC pissed her off, and now they are "gonna pay" in some form or another by golly. What an idiot she is for not realizing most see her as such.

Seriously? Both of you truly would rather focus your remarks on Ms. Brazile and not on what she has to say? "Shooting the messenger" is just as invalid a thing to do when the messenger chides one's own "darling" as when the messenger chides one's opponents. Using that ad hominem attack is all the more absurd when it's clear the messenger is and was well positioned to know exactly what they're talking about and one has presented nary a shred to show that is not the case, which is what one must do for the exception to the fallaciousness of the "shoot the messenger' attack to be valid.

Countless Democrats have of Ms. Brazile's comments essentially said "yes, that happened, and we've got to fix it and do better," yet here you are attacking her. Why are those highly placed Democrats saying that? Because they at least have the integrity to "own their sh*t" even though doing so is painful. That's not to say they exhibit the expected degrees of integrity overall, but the bit they've shown in that regard is more than we typically see.

And let's be honest...If one is going to undergo a cathartic airing of one's "dirty linen," the time to do it is while one does not hold the reigns of power because upon gaining power, the scrutiny to which all one does becomes subject is immense. Better, if I may mix metaphors, to have already done and folded the wash and mourned and buried the skeletons, for to do otherwise is to become immobilized by the real and imagined scandals pertaining to them. One (a party) can regain power having those things in one's past, but only if one can, upon retaking it, also say to inquires about such things, "Asked and answered; read the papers. Next topic," and have that be a legit response because there literally nothing else to say, because it's all long since been laid bare.

I appreciate what she says. Hell, I used to like her. Alot. But that was when I leaned democrat.
Point is...she cannot be trusted with what she is saying even if its true because she was INVOLVED in it all along. Until now. How can you embrace anything she says knowing she was thick into it herself until someone in the DNC pissed her off and she thought throwing them under the bus wouldn't include her sorry ass herself?

she cannot be trusted with what she is saying even if its true because she was INVOLVED in it all along. Until now. How can you embrace anything she says knowing she was thick into it herself until someone in the DNC pissed her off and she thought throwing them under the bus wouldn't include her sorry ass herself?

What? She stepped in to replace Schultz. How does that make Brazile involved in it? Have you some evidence that Ms. Brazile continued to "provide for political expenses like gifts to donors, and political travel?" Have you read her book and come by passages that give credence to your claim about Ms. Brazile? If so, do share. If not, however, you've yet to present a sound basis for your assertions about her calumny and complicity. Rather, the only thing you can credibly assert is that she inherited the helm of an organization that was doing such things, not that she perpetuated the doing of them.

Would you cotton to folks ascribing to you dissemblance or disingenuousness on account of your being in the "wrong place" at or around the "wrong time," and their being able to so impugn you only because you shared the story of the mess you found upon there arriving? I don't think you would. So why, on the mere basis of that would you ascribe such to her no more basis than exactly that?

What's clear to me is that among the tacit claims (maybe explicit -- I've not yet read her book) Brazile makes is that given the tripartite fracture among the power players in the Democratic party in 2016, it's no wonder the Dems lost the presidency. A skunk stinks, and whereas the stench fends off most creatures, a great horned owl is unperturbed by it, and attacks, moreover, from a vantage which a skunk can't well parry. In this case, I think Ms. Brazile is very much the "owl" telling the story of the skunks, weasels and other malodorous varmints.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No honor among thieves. Someone in the DNC pissed her off, and now they are "gonna pay" in some form or another by golly. What an idiot she is for not realizing most see her as such.

Need anyone specifically have irked her for her to have observed something foul afoot and tell of it? Is not the mere notice of such things sufficient motive for her to say "this and that happened; it's wrong that they did for they should not have; we need to take steps to make sure it doesn't again happen and to show that we are better than that, or at least some of us are?"

You seem to think that Ms. Brazile has all but fabricated the things of which she's written. Well, I don't see anyone bringing a libel suit against her, nor do I see other people who were in positions to know the same things she does denying the veracity of what she's asserted.

I see you saying "she this" and "she that," but insofar as I don't know you and you've provided nary a credible detail that gives credence to your claims about her, nor do I see you showing that the attestations she made are untrue; thus I put no faith in the legitimacy of your charges.