I can't wrap my head around this contract.
Why when it says that HFA's various authorities kick in only for the general, do those authorities include approval of emails concerning other primary candidates? As well as approval over communication directors? As well as, if I understand it correctly, financial terms which began well before the general?
Why if these prerogatives only vest for the general, did the term of the agreement expire in Sept., 2016, at the very early stages of the general election? Does that even make sense?
What if any effect would the agreement's provisions for the general have in case Clinton did not get the nomination? Why is the agreement silent about that? If another candidate won, would Clinton still have contractual authorities to wield over the DNC during the general? Wouldn't that conflict with the standard transtiion of party oversight to the nominee's team?
The more I think about all of this, the more confusing it becomes. And the less convincing are both Brazile's description of the controversy AND that of Brazile's detractors.
With so little truth coming from anywhere, the only choice seems to be to give up trying to make head or tail of it.
Then there is the issue, as Margot Kidder - yes, that Margot Kidder! - explained last year, that 33 states reached separate agreements with HFA concerning incoming donations to the states to be shared with the Clinton team, which may well have been perfectly legal, but certainly raises questions with respect to the rather Byzantine financial structure of the DNC agreement, and whether or not it had any tainting impact on super delegate choices, or any other compromising impact on the money during the primary process - or if it in fact was the kind of politics as usual thing that happens in joint agreements during either primary or general elections.
In short, following the money becomes highly confusing.
What I can't agree with, however, South Florida, is that no matter what the understanding was it would have been proper and ethical because HIllary IS the party and Bernie was an outsider.
Either the Democrats allows someone to run on their ticket per their own rules or they do not. But when they do, that person should be given as fair shake as any other candidate. Even Hillary Rosen, a close and very loyal Clinton ally, said on CNN the other night that Sanders's shifting party affiliation should have nothing to do with these questions.
And she's right. Sanders is hardly the first American politician to switch the party he's either affiliated with or runs for office with. Bloomberg, Lindsay, Lieberman, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.
Also, candidates often run for office as the candidates put forward by more than one party (example; those running as both Democrats and Working Families candidate in NY - and, everybody in NY, please remember to vote tomorrow!).
Beyond which, Hillary Clinton was not the only Democrat running for president last primary season. Martin O'Malley was as well. And so were two others for a time.
Updated On: 11/6/17 at 08:17 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
