Carolyn Fields is a lifelong learner, musician, author, world traveler, truth enthusiast, and all-around bon vivant.
Donna Brazile has a new book out, aptly titled Hacks. If her name doesn’t ring any bells, let me take this opportunity to remind you. Back in the ancient history of the 2016 Presidential Election, her name came to light as the person who “leaked” debate questions to Hillary Clinton. We only know this because of hacked emails published during the campaign. That’s the first time I recall hearing her name.
Donna is also the woman who took over the DNC from Debbie Wasserman Schultz after her resignation. That resignation was triggered by yet another hack, this time of internal party emails that disclosed the extent of Debbie’s favoritism towards Hillary. That sounds pretty messy, but I haven’t even gotten started. Turns out that once Donna got down to business as DNC Chair, she discovered that the DNC was riddled with mismanagement, infighting, backbiting, and illicit manipulation.
It also turns out the DNC signed an agreement with the Clinton campaign, to allow them control over staffing, strategy, and most significantly, finances. The supposedly “neutral” DNC was under to explicit control of the Clinton camp. And it’s in writing. Not only that, the agreement dates back to August of 2015, which was long before the debates or the primaries. Yes, Bernie, you were right all along. It was rigged.
Back to Donna
What I love most about Donna’s book, and her revelations, is the fact that she is an African-American woman. Additionally, she is an Adjunct Professor of Women and Gender Studies at Georgetown University, an LGBT activist who served on the board of the Millennium March on Washington, and is "openly ambiguous" about her sexual orientation. Take a moment and let that sink in.
Now, do you recall the top three responses that Democrats use when challenged on virtually any issue? I’ll spell them out for you. The person making adverse comments MUST be a deplorable person, and one or more of the following:
- Misogynistic (or sexist if you can’t spell that word)
As a woman of color, who is also an LGBT activist, what card do they have left to play? How are they going to discredit her? I’m sure they will find a way, but this is going to get interesting.
One of the first reviews I read was put out by The Atlantic. They say that Donna seems “confused.” They claim this because she called the primaries “rigged” on one occasion, and then said that the contest was fair on another. I’m no expert, but if I make a statement, then later find additional information and change my mind, I would not use the word “confused.” I would say that I had been improperly or incompletely informed, and that new information had come to light. Really, people? Is that all you’ve got?
They also claim that Donna had “unrealistic expectations” about how independent the DNC could or should be. They claim that Clinton was already the de facto nominee, and that “it’s customary” for such a person to “control the party apparatus.” The problem with this line of reasoning is that the control dates back to August of 2015. They try to claim it was after the nomination was secure, but documents don’t lie.
Here is one more example of just how obscure you must become to discredit Donna’s book. In an article at the Daily Beast, titled “there’s a Serious Hole in Donna Brazile’s New Book,” Sam Stein points to the fact that Debbie (Wasserman Schultz) selected Luis Miranda as DNC communications director. And since he wasn’t the “first choice” of the Clinton team, and they didn’t use their “right of refusal” to give the position to someone else, that they must not have been in charge.
Come on. Debbie hired Luis and convinced the Clintons that it was a good move. It doesn’t show her “autonomy” so much as her ability to sell her choice. I’m sorry, but to quote a phrase, I see “smoke, but no fire” in this staffing decision. It does nothing to convince me that the Clintons were not very much in control of the DNC.
Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
In her book, Donna emphasizes that the hacks were illegal. She also points out that there were Russians behind the hacking. While this may be true (I have no reason to believe that it is not), it does not negate the content of the emails that were hacked. In the most simple terms, if I break into your house and find child pornography (or something else very bad), I will be charged with the crime of breaking and entering. But you should also be charged with a crime. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's my opinion anyway.
What Else Do You Have?
Stripped of the familiar strains of racism, et al, the Democrats are in full panic mode. Donna has side-stepped their primary line of defense. It is the Maginot Line all over again. If you have temporarily forgotten your WWII history, the French built a line of fortifications to deter the German invasion which they called the Maginot Line. It backfired when the Germans bypassed the line entirely. So, if Donna isn’t racist, sexist, or homophobic, then maybe, just maybe, she might be telling the truth. The word “unassailable” comes to mind. There’s a thought. I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments below.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
© 2017 Carolyn Fields
Carolyn Fields (author) from South Dakota, USA on November 13, 2017:
Breakfastpop - I agree with you, and yet I have read several book reviews that "hint" she may be confused, or making things up. It is amazing to see the lengths that some people will go to discredit Donna. Is it possible that they just can't admit that they backed the wrong candidate?
breakfastpop on November 13, 2017:
The Dems are in the midst of a party breakdown. It is impossible not to believe her accusations. The Clintons have never played fair with anyone in their miserable collective lives. To this day I can't understand how anyone could have supported Hillary. I can understand not being a Trump enthusiast, but Hillary is truly deplorable.
Carolyn Fields (author) from South Dakota, USA on November 11, 2017:
To "ahorseback" - that supports my point: she can't be discredited along the "usual" lines. We will all need to take a deep breath, and evaluate her content based on merit, rather than slogan.
ahorseback on November 11, 2017:
Donna can say what she want's now , But she willingly played the Hilary game along with the rest , BUT also played the "republicans are all racist " game too . I can't feel too bad for her in The Hilary- Shultz - Brazzile tag team debacle .