home

Donna Brazile's DisUnity Schtick

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I just ran across this story about how Donna Brazile continues her seeming drive to beat Speaker Pelosi for the "most divisive Dem" prize:

Brazile responded to one angry e-mail:

Do you know how many undeclared supers are now just turned off by people like you? Do you understand you’re hurting her and not promoting Hillary? Perhaps that explains why a candidate like Obama has raised $40 million in one month. You don’t have to e-mail me again.

And also:

I just sent Hillary a private e-mail telling her that supporters like you are destroying her candidacy.

This is a Party Elder? Why does Brazile speak for the Democratic Party? She has been terrible for the Democratic Party. She is unfit for the position she now holds.

< The Truth On Free Trade | Oct 2007: Clinton Camp On MI >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My personal favorite (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    is this one, posted at No Quarter, Donna's response to an e-mail complaining about the disenfranchisement of FL and MI:

     

    Thanks for the joyful email. Like most of the other pro Clinton emails, I have now put them in a special folder called `tales from the gutter.

        Stay positive and remember if she wins, you will need Obama supporters and donors. So please stop throwing stones. Give her the support now and stop sending frivolous emails..

    It confirms what I've long suspected, that the hateful attitude of many Obama supporters comes from the top.

    "frivolous emails" ? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    Since when is it "frivolous" to want the votes of the 4th and 5th most populous states to count in choosing our nominee?

    Count Every Vote = "tales from the gutter"?  

    I don't think I can adequately respond without getting banned!

    Parent

    Which Country Is This? (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Athena on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    Clinton: The United States of America (50)

    Obama: The Invited States of America (48)

    Parent

    chuckle (none / 0) (#47)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    this made me laugh, thanks!

    Parent
    Amateurs! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    I couldn't believe it (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lepidus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    When I saw that story on Politico I was amazed that someone in a position of such importance within the Democratic party didn't know that the first rule of abusive emails to public figures is not to respond to it.

    It's hard to imagine someone in politics, of all places, being so foolish. And it looks like it isn't an isolated incident.

    Perhaps the strain of pretending that she hasn't made up her mind in this contest is getting to her, she's certainly fooling no one outside of the media.

    I guess democracy (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:46:57 AM EST
    is un-Democratic.

    Don't step in the "Unity"

    This (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    "And also:

    I just sent Hillary a private e-mail telling her that supporters like you are destroying her candidacy."

    is really weird.  I completely agree that Ms. Brazile shouldn't be writing these emails, period.  She seems to have no problem in flaunting her presence in the smoke-filled room.  And all of these responses, considering the rabidity of certain portions of the OFB, just show her to be in the tank for Obama.

    First of all, why is she answering e-mails (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    She for sure is not one of my favorite Democrats in the world, but why would anyone take the time to answer them. If she is getting as many as she says, who has time for those MSNBC appearances. I am particularly troubled that one of the big wigs at the DNC, which represents all Democratic candidates supposedly, is in collusion with Kerry and Ted. Yes, that is how I see it. She should have stayed neutral but has chosen to be brazen about her choice and has managed to screw up Florida big time. If everyone keeps e-mailing her, we might get a book out of her answers.

    She's on CNN, not MSNBC (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    And can somebody please tell me where this idea that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are running the show came from?  I see this all the time in comments on this blog and it totally baffles me.

    Serious question, not snark here.


    Parent

    Serious answer (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:55:46 PM EST
    If you have been involved in Democratic politics for very long, know the players, know their histories, have followed Obama's candidacy from day one (or before) you would not be in the least puzzled.

    In fact, you would know that Obama had no plans to run yet...publicly denied it when asked...but was talked into it (drafted/convinced/backed) by the anti-Clinton/anti-Hillary faction in the Dem power establishment:  Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle (and his DC lobbyist wife) and Dick Durbin/the Daley machine.

    Why did they choose Obama?  Because the only way to beat a Clinton was to deny them the AA vote...and the only way to do that was with a black candidate and accuse the Clinton campaign of racism.

    In a novel or a movie, you wouldn't believe it...but as the saying goes, 'truth is stranger than fiction.'

    Clearer now?

    Parent

    Obama First Discussed a Run for Prez (none / 0) (#70)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    On October 23, 2006.  Which suggests he was considering it prior to that date.   I've seen no evidence that he was talked into running by any faction in the Dem power establishment.  But if sourced and proven, yes, it would be an interesting story.

    At the moment, it seems like a rumor based on invidious assumption.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:16:10 PM EST
    That's what I think, but the Kerry-Kennedy thing is getting repeated a lot here and I'd like to know whether there's even a tiny shred of evidence to back that up.  Frankly, it sounds to me like somebody's fantasy since it makes no logical sense. (And neither Kennedy nor Kerry are more than peripheral players the DP establishment in any case.)

    Parent
    Obama Daschle connection (none / 0) (#77)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    noted in the Washington Post in December 2006.

    Daschle's chief of staff of 20 years and his communications director were already filling these positions with the Obama campaign in late 2006. Daschle officially endorsed when Obama official announced. I beleive that Daschle is on record on one of the talkshows as having encouraged Obama to run this year.

    Parent

    You'd have to be pretty naive to think (none / 0) (#84)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    Obama wasn't backed by some of the party elders.
    How did he get hooked up with the big money donors so quickly?

    Parent
    First of all, don't patronize me (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    I've been following politics intently for 50 years, and if things had gone differently, would have been in a position to call a president of the united states by his first name.  I know Massachusetts politics and its players very well indeed.

    Secondly, I assume you don't know the answer to my question or you would have answered it, so I'll ask it again.

    How did this idea get started that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy -- in particular -- were responsible for getting Obama to run.  Daschle me no Daschles.

    Parent

    There was an article (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    in either Harper's or the Atlantic Monthly on how Obama was encouraged to run by some big names in the Dem Party.  

    Ah, here it is!  

    Ambinder

    The conventional explanation is that Democrats implored him to. "It was the closest thing to a draft that I've seen in my years of participating in politics," Axelrod told me.

    The article basically describes the process by which Obama jumped into the Presidential race and I believe it is one of the major sources for what you are hearing.


    Parent

    First of all, I had no way of knowing (none / 0) (#81)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    that you are an oldtimer...same vintage as I, actually...and no way of knowing that you are a Massachusetts political activist.

    Still...most people following this race intently have googled the candidates and those associated with them, followed the major articles (The Atlantic, TIME, National Review has a cover story now on Michelle...etc.) Googling Obama/Kerry/Kennedy/Daschle as I do/did, will lead you to most of the resources in print.

    REmember, Kerry chose newly minted Senator Obama to make the primetime address at HIS nominating convention, showcasing him for future stardom.  But Kerry didn't expect to lose and thought (as did Obama) that his future national race would be years away.

    We all saw the Kennedy connection staged on national television...the 'passing the torch' show...a major production of the Broadway/Camelot variety...no usual 'endorsement' I'm sure you'd agree.  I watched it all in amazement (including the two times Barack and Caroline thought it was over and stood up applauding, only to be sent back to their seats by the 'star of the show,' Senator Teddy, who couldn't quite get off the stage).  Made me sad for him.

    There's more, of course, but enough for now.  Sorry if you felt patronized.  Don't get mad...get even!

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:35:50 PM EST
    But since you never know what the background is of people posting on the Internet, best not talk down to them.

    I happily give you Daschle.  Out of power and understandably resentful, he would have every reason to.  I'd happily give you lots of people.  Clearly, Obama was urged into this.  My suspicion, though, is the impetus had far, far more to do with Axelrod than it did with established national party people.  I think they were roped in after the decision had pretty well been made that he had a good shot at it.  That's just my guess from the reporting I read.  I claim no inside knowledge whatsoever.

    However, Kerry giving Obama the keynote at the convention, although it certainly raised his profile, has no particular bearing one way or another.  Obama was an obvious choice, given his instant celebrity as a soon-to-be newly minted African-American senator known for his ability to give a great speech, and given the complete charade of the GOP convention's showcasing of black performers.

    I'm sure once Kerry heard he was considering the option, he encouraged him to run and has supported him ever since.  Not the same thing as suggesting Kerry was behind his candidacy.  Sure, the party gave Obama a high profile at the convention and afterwards.  Why wouldn't they?  Not the same as engineering things for him to run as a wildly unprepared and unready candidate for president in 2008.

    As for Teddy, he didn't even endorse Obama until fairly late in the game, and the fact that it came as a total shock to everybody in politics and the media speaks rather plainly against the idea that he was involved in engineering an Obama run for president.

    IOW, point nowhere near proved.

    I'll say again that neither Kennedy or Kerry is or ever has been a power in the DP establishment.  Kerry would certainly like to be, but he hasn't got even the minimal skills.  He's a loner, does not play well with others, rarely is able to build alliances with anyone, other than McCain on the basis of their shared Vietnam veteran status.

    Kennedy probably has the skills, but he's chosen to use them in different ways, to get stuff actually passed in the Senate.  He's not a particularly subtle man, and his principles are way too firmly, even stubbornly held to enable him to bend and sway and sell out and stiff-arm for institutional power.  What power he has is almost entirely issue-based, plus his voter support and electoral organization in Massachusetts.

    So somebody trying to tell me Kennedy and Kerry engineered Obama's run as part of the party power establishment in order to keep Clinton out of the White House so they can increase their power in the party or the Senate just makes me laugh out loud unless there's some pretty specific and unimpeachable insider reporting to back it up.

    Parent

    Nothing like a good laugh... (none / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    especially these dark days for so many folks and for the country.

    You demand proof...I can't prove Kennedy and Kerry were in on the Daschle/Durbin draft.  I don't offer proof...just my opinion, arrived at through what I read/hear and what I observe and the thought process I apply to both.

    We agree...clearly, Obama was urged into this...no doubt by many besides Daschle/Axelrod/Durbin.  Those three are obvious, no?  But was that enough to convince Michelle?  By all accounts, no.  She demanded what you deman- proof!  Well, not proof, exactly, but evidence!!  So what would have convinced her that a rookie senator, and a black one at that, could beat the field with a Clinton in it to become the Democratic Party's nominee for POTUS?  What would it take, if it were me (I asked myself).

    The answer is major clout, major money, major connections and major Democratic names who would at strategic times go public and become surrogates for the campaign. No rookie goes out and raises $200M+...it took a coalition with connections all over the country...Kerry and Kennedy have them...some recent, some longterm.  They surfaced - not just as endorsers - and in a big way...along with Daschle.

    No...I can't prove it.  The books are yet to be written on this campaign (who is Woodward talking to?!? Gawd, I wish Teddy White were still alive).  But think about it...if this were a movie plot, you'd find it entertaining but not believable.  Another case of truth being stranger than fiction...on the surface, anyway.  But ask yourself...how did this happen...and why?  Why Obama and why now?

    It's not about Democratic Party power...it's about presidential power and the losers who, unlike Bill Clinton, couldn't get it for themselves (Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle) who have a lot to gain if they can elect a rookie who owes them everything...a rookie who knows no one with whom to staff a government.  They know everyone...they will decide who and what and how.  The Rove/Cheney/Bush model will work for Democrats as well...it's only a scenario, after all!  Like Bush, Obama will have to trust the word and recommendations of a lot of people.  So far, so good.  For him.

    Thanks for the dialogue.  The sun is out on the bay this morning...guess I'll cheer up for one more day!

    Parent

    The mere fact that she obviously feels (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by athyrio on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    secure enough in her job to send out these emails tells you volumns about Dean and her power within the DNC.....

    People like Brazile are not (none / 0) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    placed at the DNC by people like Dean.  They are normally get these positions through a political process - it is a "Committee" afterall.  I am not sure that Dean has any hiring or firing power at all where it comes to people like Brazile.  I'm not even sure that she holds a paid position.

    Parent
    I've never emailed her (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST
    But if I did, I would remind her of that as chair of the DNC Voting Rights Institute she once put forth this statement:

    "The American people deserve leaders who respect the right of every eligible voter to cast his or her vote and to have that vote counted. The Bush Administration has systematically worked to undermine that right by politicizing essential federal voter protections, downplaying voter suppression tactics, and promoting discriminatory voter ID laws that disenfranchise American voters. The assault on voting rights is easily the most disturbing and inexcusable example of the Bush Administration's unbridled willingness to use the American government for the benefit of narrow partisan interests. The same voters targeted by these Republican efforts, whether Hispanic, African American, AAPI, or Native American, are all among those serving with honor in Iraq and Afghanistan. They shouldn't have to fight for their right to vote when they come home.

    "The list of tools that Republicans have used to enhance their electoral prospects at the expense of our right to vote reads like a shameful litany from past eras: restricting access to voter registration, improper attempts to purge voter lists, the use of voting machines that leave no verifiable audit trails, criminal phone jamming schemes, discriminatory voter ID laws, inconsistently administered elections, and now we find out, politicizing the Department of Justice. These Republican schemes are not just undemocratic, they're un-American. The time has come for Republicans to stop playing politics with our fundamental right to vote, and for President Bush, Mitch McConnell, and the Republican Party to apologize to the American people."

    She probably wouldn't see the hypocrisy though.

    Go for it! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    I think you SHOULD email her that! Maybe we all should!

    It's stuff like this that confirms my decision that I will never vote for Obama.

    Parent

    x (none / 0) (#85)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:18:06 PM EST
    I just sent her such an email, Step Beyond. Anyone who wants to join me, her email is:
    donna@brazileassociates.com


    Parent
    Y'all have convinced me (none / 0) (#87)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    I think I will send her an email. I'll try working on it this evening - I want to use that new Florida voter verification law that is being challenged in the courts as an example for her. To show how those who disenfranchise always use laws/rules and standing up against anarchy as justification for disenfranchising voters.

    The Repubs say that its the law and they need to verify voter id to stop voter fraud. And the DNC says it the rules and they need to stop states from ruining the schedule. Both disenfranchise voters. Neither is acceptable.

    Parent

    I stay away from the computer for a week and look (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Angel on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:56:05 AM EST
    what happens!  Donna Brazile must really be worried if she's responding to these emails, and responding in this way.  Hmmm...

    Absolutely appalling and unprofessional (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    and I say that as someone often involved in such organizations, where the job of staff is to build membership -- not belittle it.  I never have seen, in many years with non-profits, such behavior from staff, especially then countenanced and even encouraged by increasingly high-profile positions and as a spokesperson.

    Reading about these exchanges (at blogs noted and elsehwhere of late), it is clear that Brazile has not just lost any semblance of neutrality.  She has lost it, period.  So I am even happier now that I determined some months ago to stop donating at all to the DNC or to my state party, as states pay a proportion to national organizations for such budget items as staff salaries, too.  

    To every call and letter (and they have been about weekly lately) from both the national and state parties, I keep reiterating that I will give directly to candidates of my choice -- and to other organizations that are worthy of my hard-earned money.  And for many reasons noted here before, but one of my measures is their professionalism toward the public and on the media.  Brazile fails miserably at both.

    Confirms my theory (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by workingclass artist on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    that alot of these people still haven't gotten over whatever demons they have from high school. She's almost an anti-feminist in how she reacts. Both her and Dean know their days are numbered especially if HRC gets the nod Bad managers of the party. Maybe that little not from donors to pelosi shook her up, maybe she got one too. She is so biased and phony.

    Have a laugh (none / 0) (#44)
    by nellre on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:52:28 PM EST
    At No Quarter Brazile Unity piece (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    There are several responses from Brazile to emails, especially to a woman who served in the military for years. It is worth a look to see how she is responding to Clinton supporters.  It is disturbing given her position.

    Anyone (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:01:54 PM EST
    Who has ever had to deal with the public knows how vile people can be. But when you represent a company or organization you have to bite your tongue. I would be more understanding if she had been talking with people and lost her temper in the heat of the moment. But with email you don't have to respond and certainly don't have to respond while you are upset.

    If she feels she must respond, she should have a standard, pre-written (in a moment of calmness) response to send to people.

    This Should Have Been... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    Above where someone asks for specifics - sorry.

    Excellent post, Cream City - I agree, as someone who has also worked at a number of non-profits, too.  Brazile's comments are WAY out of bounds, and I cannot believe she has not been relieved of duty for the very reasons you specify - membership, and donations from same, are critical to any organization.  When members are being disenfranchised by those at the upper echelons, it is a diminishment of the entire organization.  And like you, I am given directly to Hillary (and others) - not a dime more to the DNC unless it undergoes some SERIOUS housecleaning.

    The people who received these replies (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    from Brazille should forward them to Dean and request Brazille be removed from her DNC position.

    Parent
    Incompetence from Dean on down (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    This primary season has given us a rare view of the DNC in action.  Brazile's behavior, the mishandling of the FL and MI situation, and lord knows how much else we have not seen yet do not inspire confidence. One of the key themes of this election has to be the Democrats are more competent at managing the government than Republicans.  I don't think the DNC is helping.

    DNC really is making the whole party (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    look incompetent.  If we can't handle a primary, how can we run the government has to be an RNC theme for November.

    Parent
    could we get lucky enough that Brazille (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    would actually quit the party if Hillary wins the nomination?  that would be extra icing on the cake.


    Having seen many of the original e-mails (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    to which she was responding, I can assure you that they are, for the most part, polite but firm.

    Some have been less than happy but that is our right as democrats, to question our party leaders.

    Donna does not seem to like being called out on her obvious support of Obama.

    The one I found most disturbing was the one where she said she didn't care about the votes, only the rules. And yes, she said those words.

    Many of us (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    are not party of the leadership f the DNC. Donna is supposed to represent all democrats, not just the ones she agrees with and support Obama.

    She should be careful when hitting reply because once it is out there it cannot be brought back.

    Has she been in puiblic since this story started breaking?

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    I usually do stop and think before I post, here or anywhere.  I've discarded or edited many, many posts, political and otherwise, before hitting the "submit" button.  To me, that's the beauty of the Internet: you can think before shooting off a reply.  I'm much more tactful online than I am IRL.

    And I'm not a politician!  Donna is a political operative and should be held to a higher standard than us "civilians".  "Just words" can come back to bite you in the a**.

    Experience (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:36:07 PM EST
    All she needs is a boiler plate response.

     

    Thank you for your input.  We are all considering all the positions and we assure you that we are working for what is best for the Democratic party.  Our party is honored to have concerned voters like you.  We will all work to take back the White House.  Please keep your commitment.  Yours in collaboration and enthusiasm. Donna Brazille.  

    Cripes I was out of College and worked for a big City Mayor and we managed to respond to each nasty letter in a positive way.   Or as we used to say in public hearings:  "Comment noted".  

    To add to your research: (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    OH MY GOSH... (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    Whast hit me RIGHT off the bat abt this article was his work on VOTERS' RIGHTS!!!!  Are you freakin' KIDDING me?!?!  And tell me that ad mentioned in this article abt his fight for Voter's Rights won't write itself for the RNC, should he become the nominee: "Senator Obama claimed that his work as a civil rights attorney on voters' rights was some of his most important work.  Funny - Michiganders and Floridians don't seem to agree!"

    Parent
    Thank you oh wonderful one (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    I need a favor, I am looking for a link for something you quoted many a time about Obama's African grandmother writing to his mother about the baby.   Where did you find it?  

    Parent
    Not me. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    It's here (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    Chicago Tribune. But this is off topic so put any thoughts or replies in an open thread.

    Parent
    Peter Principle in action: Donna Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    She is worthless a commentator, strategist, campaign official and party leader. Why is she still around?

    Yes, I wonder too. After Gore (none / 0) (#54)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    lost in 2000, she was roundly criticized for running a terrible campaign and I thought the word was out that she was not very competent.  Now she is in charge at DNC?  No wonder the Dems have problems.

    Parent
    Here's another DB response (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    I believe everyone is working hard - starting with officials in Florida who made the bold and stupid move to disenfranchise their own citizens. They knew the rules and the consequences. This is not about Obama and Clinton. So do not stoke flames. They both signed pledges and I will not bend for one and not the other.
    LINK

    This kind of comment should not be made by a DNC official under any circumstances.

    Also, anyone looking for the email that sparked the reply that BTD posted can find it here with the first DB response here and the second email here,which elicited the DB quote at the top of this thread.

    She has written a campaign ad for (none / 0) (#65)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    McCain.

    Parent
    Has CNN seen these emails? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Terry M on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    Maybe now that there is some confirmation of what many of us have been  perceiving for some time - that Donna Brazile is doing everything she can to tilt the primary campaign season in Obama's favor -she will not be allowed to comment as a supposedly neutral Democrat on news/commentary shows.  I am especially galled when she appears on an election night with the suggestion that she is just a Democratic strategist with no dog in the hunt.  Hopefully CNN is getting a whiff of these emails and her other comments and will remove her the way Carville & Begala were removed for being too one-sided.

    Not sure you do get it, Harley. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    Anti-democratic?

    You are not at City Hall testifying to the Mayor/Council.  That is where democracy and freedom of speech issues reign...or not.

    Here, on a private website, you are a visitor...a guest (as I am and as are we all).  You/we are, in effect, in Jeralyn's living room where the front door is always open to the passing public...welcome to engage in the ongoing conversation at her salon.

    Welcome, yes...but with 'house rules.'  The hostess always makes the rules...that is a given no matter where you go, and she can have us thrown out at will...fairly, unfairly, for any reason that crosses her mind at a given moment.  Any host or hostess, any time, anywhere...it's the same...and it's basic to civilization from the castle where the queen reigns to my house where I send you home if you act up/out.

    Simple.  Clear?

    If not...ask your mom.  She'll straighten you out in a hurry.

    Harley has been suspended (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    for chattering and trying to hijack and dominate the disccusion. 65 comments in 1 1/2 days. If he returns, he's limited to 10 comments in 24 hours. i'll decide tomorrow after I wade through them all.

    Parent
    I'd be curious (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    To see the emails that she is responding to. Maybe you're cool with posting half of a story. I'm not impressed until I see both halves.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    I am not cool with false charges against me. I do not have the e-mails she is responding to and Politico did not publish them.

    Maybe you are fine with falsely smearing me, I am not fine with it. Do it again and you will be suspended.

    BTW, someone in Brazile's position should not be writing such e-mails NO MATTER WHAT was sent to her.

    But the most important thing for you to know is do NOT insult me like that AGAIN if you want to comment further here.

    Parent

    I Hesitate To Comment (none / 0) (#43)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST
    But it wouldn't hurt to take all of this less personally, and with a good deal less heat.  The comment might have been worded differently, but the point is  perfectly fair. Without knowing the emails she was responding to, it's impossible to completely understand her own.

     False charges and false smears and warnings etched in CAPS?  It seems a bit overdone, and moderately inaccurate.

    Parent

    Do not hesitate at all (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM EST
    to provide substantive comments. DO HESITATE to comment on me, J or this site.

    The rule, for those who have not paid attention remains - since I do not get to respond in kind - you do not get to attack and insult us. Period.

    I do not take anything I read here in the way of insults seriously. I delete such comments. And the commenter will be suspended.

    If you can not abide by those rules, then do not comment here. Pretty simple. In addition, advice comments are off topic in this thread. Thus Harley, your comment, as per site policy, will be deleted.

    Parent

    No matter what the original e-mails said (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    those responses are highly unprofessional.  One would hope that as a DNC leader, she would be interested in unifying the party rather than trading insults with Hillary supporters.

    Parent
    If she is professional (which seems not to (none / 0) (#49)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    be the case) she should have a standard form letter sent to each e-mail saying something like "Thank you for your comments regarding the nomination process.  We are all anxious to have this resolved as fairly and quickly as possible. The Democratic Party needs spirited debate and passionate supporters. Please continue to support your candidate fairly as we will all need to come together in November to win the presidency.

    Parent
    What it said doesn't really matter. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    Politicians get mail from everyone, even nut-jobs.  The higher up or more visible the politician is, the more nuts they will attract.

    Nut-picking some fringe lunatic mail and offering it as evidence of "typical" mail from one candidate's supporters is dishonest.

    I seriously doubt that Donna B. personally reviews her own public email.  No one at her level has the time to read the huge volume of mail they would be receiving.

    She would have staff members review it, and all but a very few would receive an auto-reply.  So that means she told her staff to pick out some mail to "respond" to.

    Parent

    yo (none / 0) (#53)
    by cbear on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Myiqey,
    This is a sad state of affairs bro. The once mighty are fallen low.
    Phone home....cdog717 at hot

    Parent
    So what? So she doesn't reply this way (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    to all email?  We have seen, here and on other blogs, many emails from her like this.  So it is more than one . . . but please do tell why you think even one such email to a Dem from a DNC official is justified.  Or just how many emails handled so unprofessionally, and to Dems, you think is fine.

    Fascinating.  You've not had experience in the membership-building business, I presume -- nor sales, nor teaching, nor . . . well, other than hermits, I can't think of who else need not care at all about what their publics/constituents/clients/customers think.

    Parent

    I deleted a series of off topic comments (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    This is NOT about TL.

    Donna Brazille's . . . (none / 0) (#46)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    . . . certainly no Barbara Jordan!

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    she should try not to be so defensive.  One of the things I respect about Clinton is that I have rarely seen her get as angry in public as most people would given what gets thrown at her.  There was the one "shame on you Obama" moment, but otherwise she is extremely gracious.  Brazile might want to try that or as some have suggested why bother to answer the email at all.

    Parent
    Go to Kos if you don't like it here (none / 0) (#60)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    The posts here have a 200 comment max. That means off-topic comments, rants, advice, insults, faint praise or anything else that the Talkleft site operators want, can and should be deleted at their pleasure.

    But I'm sure they appreciate your "concern" for how they are viewed..... pheh.

    Brazile showed her colors long ago (none / 0) (#61)
    by nellre on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    Perhaps it's time to tap into the "Obama" factor
    From 2004

    The religion thing is a turn off to me. Faith based voting is so middle east.


    i don't follow the GOP apparatus closely, but ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    I know that it's been widely reported that several people in their national party don't/didn't like McCain, several "were afraid" of a Huckabee candidacy, and so forth. But I don't remember ever seeing similar antics from GOP national committee equivalents to Brazile, either on the tv or in the online media, publicly or privately expressing clear preferences for one candidate over the other while claiming to be neutral . Have I missed them, or is this a uniquely Dem problem?

    (Sorry if my earlier comment was inappropriate).

    Personally I'm glad to be deleted.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    ...I was doing a google search last week and came up with one of my own comments on TalkLeft. After that, I was glad that BTD and Jeralyn deleted some of my comments which in retrospect I am not proud of. I should have had the personal restraint to not have posted them in the first place.

    Why does Howard Dean put up with It? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sunshine on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    Howard Dean is in charge of the DNC and Donna Brazille works for him, so why is he putting up with this, he's bound to know of her bias, I have known since the remarks she made at the time of the Nevada and S/Carolina primarys and have continued since... If this is the standard and is tolerated by the DNC, then the whole org. is bias..  

    Perspective (none / 0) (#73)
    by chrisvee on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    Can these responses be for real?  They don't seem a proportional response to the content of the e-mails cited.  Is Donna Brazile so upset about hate mail that she's receiving that she's going off on anything that's critical even if it's on the merits and not a personal attack?  I guess it's native to be shocked by this but I had thought a party elder would be a little more circumspect about how she responds to voters.

    She might want to take a little of her own advice.   The party may actually need the Clinton supporters that some now seem determined to malign.  If Senator Obama is the nominee, I wonder if the actuality of Senator Clinton having to intercede with her supporters on his behalf is one that may actually induce more anger if things don't start cooling down soon.  I wonder if the reverse might be true as well.

    Ms. Brazile might also want to consider that people are justifiably upset about MI/FL and not just motivated by the interests of their preferred candidate.

    Reading these e-mails just makes me admire Senator Clinton all the more. She's had much worse than this thrown at her and still manages to keep going.

    Use some critical thinking (none / 0) (#78)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    The Ben Smith piece quotes the Clinton propaganda site Hillaryis44. Despite the fact that Smith claims the emails in question are from "supporters" both supposed Brazile emails quoted emanate from the same source, someone going by the username DJIA. For all we know, DJIA could be Carville, Penn, or Murdoch (DJIA does stand for Dow Jones Industrial Average, after all).

    Notably, Smith does not check with Brazile to see if she confirms that she sent the offending emails, although he cleverly gets her to say that she has responded to some hostile emails without identifying what her response was or to what emails she was responding. He does not publish the content of the emails to which Brazile is supposedly responding, and neither does DJIA at Hillaryis44. He does not seek to identify the true identity of the person who posted this item on Hillaryis44. All in all, pretty shoddy journalism.

    Of course, if indeed Brazile was responding in person to ordinary voters, there is a postive tale to be told here. Brazile is not so full of herself that she doesn't respond to ordinary voters and tell them what she thinks. Now, that's transparency.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    You can believe what you like about whether these emails are for real. But having received a similar email from Donna in response to a very polite email expressing why I think it is imperative that FL and MI be seated, I have no doubts. My very polite email, which contained no finger-pointing or mention of a candidate, was answered with a diatribe accusing me of being vicious and threatening. I was left scratching my head wondering if she had mistaken my email with someone else's. But since my original email was at the bottom, this seemed unlikely. Donna Brazile seems to have adopted a bunker mentality and all incoming is now perceived as a threat. Unbelievable!


    Parent
    Using my critical thinking, thank you (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    I posted up above at comment #62, the full exchange between djia and DB as related by djia on the website. It includes both the emails sent to DB and her response. Perhaps you didn't peruse the site sufficiently before concluding that djia did not "publish" the emails sent to DB. The poster in fact did so, well before receiving a response from DB.

    As for Ben Smith, it seems obvious that he contacted Brazile about the emails before publishing this story. Brazile is simply engaging in a non-confirming confirmation.

    I spoke to Brazile just now, who confirmed that she's been shocked by the volume of "toxic" e-mails and responded to some of them.

    BTW, the emails sent, as described by djia, were not "toxic" by any stretch of the imagination.

    It appears to me,from the content of the emails, that Brazile is indeed way too full of herself.

    Parent

    transparency? indeed of one thin skinned (none / 0) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    unprofessional hack.  not so positive though.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#86)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    Quite frankly, I'm glad that BTD and Jeralyn have rules about commenting that get enforced. If they didn't, this site would just be another sewer like most of the other A List blogs, where people can attack each other, use despicable gutter language to attack candidates they don't like, threaten people they don't agree with, troll rate them, and on and on. Talk Left is one of the few sane blogs left that offers well-source, well-thought-out, high-level political discussions rather than vitriolic hate talk that is dangerous to our party and its aspirations. I applaud BTD and Jeralyn for insisting that the discussion is reasoned and polite. And if I'm ever an offender in that regard and get deleted, I will feel that I deserved it. On other sites, you get deleted if you don't support their candidate, no matter how polite you are. There is a huge difference.

    This can't posibly be true (none / 0) (#89)
    by kayla on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    She has seen some combative emails, but these seem a little overboard.  

    If she really has sent these emails, then I don't think it's going to get much traction beyond a few blogs...