"I have always had a great deal of respect for Donna Brazile. And I have tried to keep to a long time principle of not revising my view of a person simply because they do something I disagree with. I was stunned when I first read Brazile's piece in Politico. But now having read it over a few times, I have a hard time not concluding that she's done a serious disservice to the historical record and to all Democrats. Why this is the case, I truly don't know. And there may be more facts to emerge that I'm not yet aware of. But here's why I think this.

[...]

"[I]t's not clear to me that [Ms. Brazile's] description of the joint fundraising agreement [between the Clinton campaign and the DNC] is accurate. Even if it is, accurate, 'rigged' is a highly, highly loaded word. It slices into the heart of the divisions currently tearing at the Democratic party. But we watched the 2016 primaries unfold in real time. What did the DNC do to rig the primaries? We hear a lot about scheduling primary debates on Saturdays. But c'mon. If primary debate scheduling - which was eventually tossed aside in any case - was enough to defeat Sanders that's a pretty sad commentary. Clinton was the establishment candidate. It's no secret that Wasserman-Schultz favored Clinton over Sanders. The party's establishment and apparatus were more supportive of her. We know that. That's what it means to be the `establishment candidate.' But did she or the DNC do things that made it impossible for Sanders to win or even made it any harder for him to win? I see no evidence of that.

[...]

"The relevant point is that the Democratic party needs unity to combat the dangers and damage of Trumpism. False accusations are always bad but they are particularly bad when their immediate effects are so potentially damaging. That's the case here.

Why Brazile chose to take this course I really don't know. I think it is best seen as her read of where the party is going - in the direction of Sanders. I think she's right in the sense that the party is moving toward Sanders-like policies and in many respects Sanders-like politics. I have no problem with that. But not everyone supports or supported Sanders. The Democratic party has different wings, different factions. It's overriding interest is to find a mix of policies and politics that can bring those different groups together in a way that can win elections. There's zero advantage to re-litigating the toxic 2016 primaries. Poisoning the well by purporting to validate that Sanders was cheated does the exact opposite. It's toxic and much worse than toxic -- it's not at all clear it's even true. If Brazile wants to make these accusations she needs to provide the documents she's referring to and something concrete about actions the DNC took to rig the primaries against Sanders. The fact that Wasserman-Schultz was a bad chair, the fact that the DNC was poorly run, that not enough money went to state parties - all true. But none of that is what made Brazile's claims a bombshell. All of that was known. If she can't back these claims up she owes every Democrat a huge apology. And I have to say that applies to Elizabeth Warren too who jumped on the bandwagon."

(Emphasis is mine.)

But now, I'm just pissed.  

I mean, how craven does a person have to be that she's happy to stir the sh!t at a time when the party's focus and message needs to be unified, just to sell some books.  

It's about as selfish and vain a "look at meeeeeee!" moment as I've seen lately.

I'm glad to see people calling BS on her.  Glad this is falling as flat as her stale, old ideas.

Most of what she says is old news.  So, Obama set the DNC up for the near-bankruptcy that was to happen, DWS and her minions did nothing to put the organization on solid financial footing, Clinton steps in to essentially save it, and she's the bad guy?

There were a lot of things wrong with the 2016 election, there's a lot of blame that can be spread around, but Dems stay stuck in that quicksand at their own peril: it will not help elect any Democrats.

This so-called bombshell Brazile just lobbed is going to be a dud, because the power of Trump to stay in the spotlight to the exclusion of almost everything else is going to render her as irrelevant three days from now as she was yesterday.

Well, the only thing the DNC had actual control over was the debates.   Bernie had enough money, so Brazille's comments about money are really irrelevant.

In terms of the debates, the DNC did create a bad schedule, but the assumption that better timed and more debates would help Bernie is far from certain.  Hillary always did well in all of her debates throughout the years.

Moreover, Bernie was not deprived of publicity, he got plenty.

And, finally, the actual nomination process was, I would submit, actually tilted in favor of Bernie.  The caucuses favored him.  But caucuses are less democratic than primaries because fewer people participate.

Also:

NBC News published the full Clinton-DNC fundraising agreement memo, and it contains a paragraph that destroys the conspiracy theory that Clinton rigged the primary, "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary."

[...]

However, this fundraising agreement did not allow Hillary Clinton to take over the DNC during the Democratic primary. The context matters, and while the details of the agreement would have paved the way for Clinton take over the DNC if she would have won the election, which is what presidents do. The DNC may have been tilted toward Clinton, but the fundraising agreement was not the reason why.