Glad that Donna Brazile is out....

[leftwinger]

Stupid?

No.

CNN got caught and they need Brazile to be their scapegoat!

I am not excusing Brazile but I am not foolish to buy the story CNN is selling either...

I think that Brazile has been gone from CNN's payroll as of last July after DWS' demise.

I heard she already got a new job at Lane Bryant

 

[Synthaholic]

Can you imagine the shit storm that would ensue if Fox News had leaked questions to a Republican candidate?

When the corrupt MSM and Dems do exactly that...twice...all we hear is "Well, the questions should have been obvious anyway"

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat, though I think the more accurate description is Statist. Same thing really.

It's funny that you don't consider FoxNews part of the MSM.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bernie definitely got the shaft from the DNC and has a gripe.

Nothing the DNC did had a major impact on Sanders. He lost most of the primary states and did much better in caucus states. That says a lot.

 

[Synthaholic]

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

Martin is a columnist and a commentator on TV ONE. Which I've never even heard of.

What's your point again?

 

[Scorpion]

Per CNN and the New York Times:

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.​

It's strange that the CNN spokeswoman made both those statements. One or the other statement having been issued...okay...but both? Excuse me?

• How the hell can Mrs. Brazile have obtained the question if the second statement is true?
• Just how uncomfortable can CNN's management be if the second statement is not true for they'd have somehow had to have allowed her to obtain the question?

Another bothersome thing is that CNN, like other cable news networks, perhaps ABC, CBS, and NBC too (I don't watch them), CNN pays "plugged-in" individuals to appear as editorialists in discussions about news events, or more accurately, the most salaciously sensational snippets of news stories. Those editorial discussions seem to comprise more of the programs' content than does actual reporting of news, that is, the "who, what, when, where, how and factual background/contextual information" pertaining to events, and that preponderance of commentary over objective and unselective presentation of events makes most cable news useful only as background noise worth having on only because they report information somewhat rapidly when new snippets come available. All the same, paying insiders to sit as commentators seems tantamount to the National Enquirer paying "whomever" for a so-called news (gossip) story, and, frankly, much of the commentary strikes as little but gossip. (To CNN's credit, the news they do actually report does strike me as being accurately reported, and that's doubly so for the printed web-news version of CNN. I don't have a problem with CNN in that regard.)

Moreover, that cable news organizations do spend so much of their on-air time with commentators yammering on and on is a big reason for why I make a point of watching PBS Newshour everyday; they routinely spend 5-15 minutes fully covering a story, but they cover fewer stories per episode and there's not much editorial content in the show. I don't really care what anyone thinks about the news until I have collected a pretty full set of facts about the events themselves and formed an opinion of my own. At that point, it's mildly entertaining to watch the pundits to see whether any of them concur with me, but even so, I don't care what they think or whose position they represent.


Getting back to the matter of Mrs. Brazile, she too, per the New York Times, made some question-raising remarks:

• From time to time I get the questions in advance.
  
• CNN “never, never” shared advance questions with her ahead of debates or town hall-style events.

Her two remarks above, combined with those of the CNN spokeswoman leaves unanswered this question: Who the hell gave her the question?

• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from the town hall audience member who submitted it? If that's so, there'd have been no way for her or the audience member to know whether the question would be asked.
• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from someone at CNN? That seems the only "normal" way for her to know the question would likely be asked during the town hall debate.
• Does the DNC have their own hackers? Or maybe a 3rd party hacker gave her the question? Both those possibilities are pretty unapt, but it's not impossible.

Obviously, I don't know the answer any more than does anyone other than Mrs. Brazile and her source.


To close, I want to point out an issue I have with so many speakers on matters political, and that is that they all are "loosey goosey" with their claims and presentation of information. With regard to Mrs. Brazile's sharing a debate question with others, Donald Trump said, "Speaking of draining the swamp, Donna Brazile did it again,” WikiLeaks today, she gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton." Now here's the thing: she didn't give the question to Hillary Clinton. She gave it to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, both of whom work on the Clinton campaign. IIRC, at the time Trump learned of Mrs. Brazile's having shared debate info, the info she'd shared consisted of one question, not more than one.

Is it plausible that either of those individuals shared the info with Mrs. Clinton? Of course it is; it's even probable. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is one I made above: people playing the game at this level need to be factually accurate and precise if they expect to be believed. It's not as though Trump could not have said, "...She gave a debate question to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager."? That would have been no less damning/damaging for Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, Mrs. Brazile, and Mr. Podesta, and it'd have been 100% true, and Lord knows Trump could stand to boost his quantity of truthful statements.

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

I think he's on "Laugh-in"

Sadly, I'm old enough to GET the reference. (Sniff)

 

[Scorpion]

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

Martin is a columnist and a commentator on TV ONE. Which I've never even heard of.

What's your point again?

Well, excuse me.
Thought he worked for CNN.

 

[320 Years of History]

Per CNN and the New York Times:

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.​

It's strange that the CNN spokeswoman made both those statements. One or the other statement having been issued...okay...but both? Excuse me?

• How the hell can Mrs. Brazile have obtained the question if the second statement is true?
• Just how uncomfortable can CNN's management be if the second statement is not true for they'd have somehow had to have allowed her to obtain the question?

Another bothersome thing is that CNN, like other cable news networks, perhaps ABC, CBS, and NBC too (I don't watch them), CNN pays "plugged-in" individuals to appear as editorialists in discussions about news events, or more accurately, the most salaciously sensational snippets of news stories. Those editorial discussions seem to comprise more of the programs' content than does actual reporting of news, that is, the "who, what, when, where, how and factual background/contextual information" pertaining to events, and that preponderance of commentary over objective and unselective presentation of events makes most cable news useful only as background noise worth having on only because they report information somewhat rapidly when new snippets come available. All the same, paying insiders to sit as commentators seems tantamount to the National Enquirer paying "whomever" for a so-called news (gossip) story, and, frankly, much of the commentary strikes as little but gossip. (To CNN's credit, the news they do actually report does strike me as being accurately reported, and that's doubly so for the printed web-news version of CNN. I don't have a problem with CNN in that regard.)

Moreover, that cable news organizations do spend so much of their on-air time with commentators yammering on and on is a big reason for why I make a point of watching PBS Newshour everyday; they routinely spend 5-15 minutes fully covering a story, but they cover fewer stories per episode and there's not much editorial content in the show. I don't really care what anyone thinks about the news until I have collected a pretty full set of facts about the events themselves and formed an opinion of my own. At that point, it's mildly entertaining to watch the pundits to see whether any of them concur with me, but even so, I don't care what they think or whose position they represent.


Getting back to the matter of Mrs. Brazile, she too, per the New York Times, made some question-raising remarks:

• From time to time I get the questions in advance.
  
• CNN “never, never” shared advance questions with her ahead of debates or town hall-style events.

Her two remarks above, combined with those of the CNN spokeswoman leaves unanswered this question: Who the hell gave her the question?

• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from the town hall audience member who submitted it? If that's so, there'd have been no way for her or the audience member to know whether the question would be asked.
• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from someone at CNN? That seems the only "normal" way for her to know the question would likely be asked during the town hall debate.
• Does the DNC have their own hackers? Or maybe a 3rd party hacker gave her the question? Both those possibilities are pretty unapt, but it's not impossible.

Obviously, I don't know the answer any more than does anyone other than Mrs. Brazile and her source.


To close, I want to point out an issue I have with so many speakers on matters political, and that is that they all are "loosey goosey" with their claims and presentation of information. With regard to Mrs. Brazile's sharing a debate question with others, Donald Trump said, "Speaking of draining the swamp, Donna Brazile did it again,” WikiLeaks today, she gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton." Now here's the thing: she didn't give the question to Hillary Clinton. She gave it to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, both of whom work on the Clinton campaign. IIRC, at the time Trump learned of Mrs. Brazile's having shared debate info, the info she'd shared consisted of one question, not more than one.

Is it plausible that either of those individuals shared the info with Mrs. Clinton? Of course it is; it's even probable. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is one I made above: people playing the game at this level need to be factually accurate and precise if they expect to be believed. It's not as though Trump could not have said, "...She gave a debate question to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager."? That would have been no less damning/damaging for Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, Mrs. Brazile, and Mr. Podesta, and it'd have been 100% true, and Lord knows Trump could stand to boost his quantity of truthful statements.

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

Red:
I'm sorry...what of him? I don't see the relationship between him and Mrs. Brazile. Mr. Martin has his own show.

Blue:
So what? That was within their realm of things to do as his employer at the time. Also, Billy Bush's departure from NBC was not willful; he was fired/let go. Mrs. Brazile's departure from CNN was willful; she resigned. I don't see what one has to do with the other. I wouldn't even if they both resigned or both were fired. They are different individuals who worked for different organizations.

 

[320 Years of History]

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

Martin is a columnist and a commentator on TV ONE. Which I've never even heard of.

What's your point again?

Well, excuse me.
Thought he worked for CNN.

Roland Martin was with CNN as a contributor from 2007-2013. CNN took exception with some sports-related tweets Mr. Martin made. (Roland Martin Out At CNN | Huffington Post)

 

[Scorpion]

Per CNN and the New York Times:

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.​

It's strange that the CNN spokeswoman made both those statements. One or the other statement having been issued...okay...but both? Excuse me?

• How the hell can Mrs. Brazile have obtained the question if the second statement is true?
• Just how uncomfortable can CNN's management be if the second statement is not true for they'd have somehow had to have allowed her to obtain the question?

Another bothersome thing is that CNN, like other cable news networks, perhaps ABC, CBS, and NBC too (I don't watch them), CNN pays "plugged-in" individuals to appear as editorialists in discussions about news events, or more accurately, the most salaciously sensational snippets of news stories. Those editorial discussions seem to comprise more of the programs' content than does actual reporting of news, that is, the "who, what, when, where, how and factual background/contextual information" pertaining to events, and that preponderance of commentary over objective and unselective presentation of events makes most cable news useful only as background noise worth having on only because they report information somewhat rapidly when new snippets come available. All the same, paying insiders to sit as commentators seems tantamount to the National Enquirer paying "whomever" for a so-called news (gossip) story, and, frankly, much of the commentary strikes as little but gossip. (To CNN's credit, the news they do actually report does strike me as being accurately reported, and that's doubly so for the printed web-news version of CNN. I don't have a problem with CNN in that regard.)

Moreover, that cable news organizations do spend so much of their on-air time with commentators yammering on and on is a big reason for why I make a point of watching PBS Newshour everyday; they routinely spend 5-15 minutes fully covering a story, but they cover fewer stories per episode and there's not much editorial content in the show. I don't really care what anyone thinks about the news until I have collected a pretty full set of facts about the events themselves and formed an opinion of my own. At that point, it's mildly entertaining to watch the pundits to see whether any of them concur with me, but even so, I don't care what they think or whose position they represent.


Getting back to the matter of Mrs. Brazile, she too, per the New York Times, made some question-raising remarks:

• From time to time I get the questions in advance.
  
• CNN “never, never” shared advance questions with her ahead of debates or town hall-style events.

Her two remarks above, combined with those of the CNN spokeswoman leaves unanswered this question: Who the hell gave her the question?

• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from the town hall audience member who submitted it? If that's so, there'd have been no way for her or the audience member to know whether the question would be asked.
• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from someone at CNN? That seems the only "normal" way for her to know the question would likely be asked during the town hall debate.
• Does the DNC have their own hackers? Or maybe a 3rd party hacker gave her the question? Both those possibilities are pretty unapt, but it's not impossible.

Obviously, I don't know the answer any more than does anyone other than Mrs. Brazile and her source.


To close, I want to point out an issue I have with so many speakers on matters political, and that is that they all are "loosey goosey" with their claims and presentation of information. With regard to Mrs. Brazile's sharing a debate question with others, Donald Trump said, "Speaking of draining the swamp, Donna Brazile did it again,” WikiLeaks today, she gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton." Now here's the thing: she didn't give the question to Hillary Clinton. She gave it to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, both of whom work on the Clinton campaign. IIRC, at the time Trump learned of Mrs. Brazile's having shared debate info, the info she'd shared consisted of one question, not more than one.

Is it plausible that either of those individuals shared the info with Mrs. Clinton? Of course it is; it's even probable. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is one I made above: people playing the game at this level need to be factually accurate and precise if they expect to be believed. It's not as though Trump could not have said, "...She gave a debate question to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager."? That would have been no less damning/damaging for Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, Mrs. Brazile, and Mr. Podesta, and it'd have been 100% true, and Lord knows Trump could stand to boost his quantity of truthful statements.

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

Red:
I'm sorry...what of him? I don't see the relationship between him and Mrs. Brazile. Mr. Martin has his own show.

Blue:
So what? That was within their realm of things to do as his employer at the time. Also, Billy Bush's departure from NBC was not willful; he was fired/let go. Mrs. Brazile's departure from CNN was willful; she resigned. I don't see what one has to do with the other. I wouldn't even if they both resigned or both were fired. They are different individuals who worked for different organizations.

I thought he was the conduit for the questions.
Sheesh.
I don't keep track of all the TV PERSONALITIES.

There's a blurred line between reporters and political shills.

 

[LaDexter]

If Roland Martin does not work for CNN, then he likely wasn't the original source of the questions given to Hillary.'


Someone else at CNN did.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sadly, Donna's a local girl.

 

[Slade3200]

Bernie definitely got the shaft from the DNC and has a gripe.

Nothing the DNC did had a major impact on Sanders. He lost most of the primary states and did much better in caucus states. That says a lot.

Whether it made a significant impact or not, it wasn't a fair and honest system. Both party's have plenty of issues. I'd vote to get rid of all of them

 

[320 Years of History]

Per CNN and the New York Times:

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.​

It's strange that the CNN spokeswoman made both those statements. One or the other statement having been issued...okay...but both? Excuse me?

• How the hell can Mrs. Brazile have obtained the question if the second statement is true?
• Just how uncomfortable can CNN's management be if the second statement is not true for they'd have somehow had to have allowed her to obtain the question?

Another bothersome thing is that CNN, like other cable news networks, perhaps ABC, CBS, and NBC too (I don't watch them), CNN pays "plugged-in" individuals to appear as editorialists in discussions about news events, or more accurately, the most salaciously sensational snippets of news stories. Those editorial discussions seem to comprise more of the programs' content than does actual reporting of news, that is, the "who, what, when, where, how and factual background/contextual information" pertaining to events, and that preponderance of commentary over objective and unselective presentation of events makes most cable news useful only as background noise worth having on only because they report information somewhat rapidly when new snippets come available. All the same, paying insiders to sit as commentators seems tantamount to the National Enquirer paying "whomever" for a so-called news (gossip) story, and, frankly, much of the commentary strikes as little but gossip. (To CNN's credit, the news they do actually report does strike me as being accurately reported, and that's doubly so for the printed web-news version of CNN. I don't have a problem with CNN in that regard.)

Moreover, that cable news organizations do spend so much of their on-air time with commentators yammering on and on is a big reason for why I make a point of watching PBS Newshour everyday; they routinely spend 5-15 minutes fully covering a story, but they cover fewer stories per episode and there's not much editorial content in the show. I don't really care what anyone thinks about the news until I have collected a pretty full set of facts about the events themselves and formed an opinion of my own. At that point, it's mildly entertaining to watch the pundits to see whether any of them concur with me, but even so, I don't care what they think or whose position they represent.


Getting back to the matter of Mrs. Brazile, she too, per the New York Times, made some question-raising remarks:

• From time to time I get the questions in advance.
  
• CNN “never, never” shared advance questions with her ahead of debates or town hall-style events.

Her two remarks above, combined with those of the CNN spokeswoman leaves unanswered this question: Who the hell gave her the question?

• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from the town hall audience member who submitted it? If that's so, there'd have been no way for her or the audience member to know whether the question would be asked.
• Did Mrs. Brazile get it from someone at CNN? That seems the only "normal" way for her to know the question would likely be asked during the town hall debate.
• Does the DNC have their own hackers? Or maybe a 3rd party hacker gave her the question? Both those possibilities are pretty unapt, but it's not impossible.

Obviously, I don't know the answer any more than does anyone other than Mrs. Brazile and her source.


To close, I want to point out an issue I have with so many speakers on matters political, and that is that they all are "loosey goosey" with their claims and presentation of information. With regard to Mrs. Brazile's sharing a debate question with others, Donald Trump said, "Speaking of draining the swamp, Donna Brazile did it again,” WikiLeaks today, she gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton." Now here's the thing: she didn't give the question to Hillary Clinton. She gave it to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, both of whom work on the Clinton campaign. IIRC, at the time Trump learned of Mrs. Brazile's having shared debate info, the info she'd shared consisted of one question, not more than one.

Is it plausible that either of those individuals shared the info with Mrs. Clinton? Of course it is; it's even probable. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is one I made above: people playing the game at this level need to be factually accurate and precise if they expect to be believed. It's not as though Trump could not have said, "...She gave a debate question to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager."? That would have been no less damning/damaging for Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, Mrs. Brazile, and Mr. Podesta, and it'd have been 100% true, and Lord knows Trump could stand to boost his quantity of truthful statements.

If Donna Braziles cord has been cut, what of this Roland Martin person?
Billy Bush got whacked by NBC for his 'participation' in an uncouth conversation .
Is Roland still around? Anyone??

Red:
I'm sorry...what of him? I don't see the relationship between him and Mrs. Brazile. Mr. Martin has his own show.

Blue:
So what? That was within their realm of things to do as his employer at the time. Also, Billy Bush's departure from NBC was not willful; he was fired/let go. Mrs. Brazile's departure from CNN was willful; she resigned. I don't see what one has to do with the other. I wouldn't even if they both resigned or both were fired. They are different individuals who worked for different organizations.

I thought he was the conduit for the questions.
Sheesh.
I don't keep track of all the TV PERSONALITIES.

There's a blurred line between reporters and political shills.

Purple:
Oh...Okay...the article referenced in the OP identifies that Mrs. Brazile provided a question to some Clinton campaign staffers. Who gave the question to Mrs. Brazile remains indeterminate.

Green:
I don't think it's all that blurred; indeed I'd say it's not at all blurred. The ones who offer opinions and interpretations of events and people are the "political shills," more politely and more generically called editorialists or commentators. The ones who stick to delivering the "who, what, when, where, how and relevant background information" are reporting information rather than analyzing it and drawing conclusions from it, that is editorializing about the news. "Journalist" is the catch-all term for individuals having either role.

 

[deltex1]

Never liked Brazile very much and probably a pretty dumb choice in having her as a Clinton spokesperson.

Nonetheless, Brazile telling Hillary Clinton that during the town hall in Flint, Michigan that someone was going to ask Clinton about the lead poisoning, should NOT be of any surprise to anyone that such a question would be asked...Why the hell would the town hall be in Flint otherwise BUT for the chance to address the issue of lead poisoning?

I'm sad...I really liked her pancakes.....yo

 

[eflatminor]

When the corrupt MSM and Dems do exactly that...twice...all we hear is "Well, the questions should have been obvious anyway"

If a question about lead poisoning in the water would have been a surprise to any candidate , then that candidate would be rightfully labeled an idiot.

Harp on criticizing Brazile all you want....but its a waste of time.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Rambunctious]

Banana republic...be proud liberals! you should all be happy at how your progressives have bastardized our nation and the so called media.

 

[Slade3200]

Banana republic...be proud liberals! you should all be happy at how your progressives have bastardized our nation and the so called media.

The problems in our nation are a direct result of the partisan polarization and utter lack of respect and class when dealing with ones opposition. It's not one party's fault, both are doing it. The contest of ideas and productive debate amoungst different ideologies to make law and address our countries issues is what make our country move forward. This is almost gone because of loud mouth finger pointers. Turn that finger around and pint at yourself, you are the problem.

 

[Rambunctious]

The problems in our nation are a direct result of the partisan polarization and utter lack of respect and class when dealing with ones opposition. It's not one party's fault, both are doing it. The contest of ideas and productive debate amoungst different ideologies to make law and address our countries issues is what make our country move forward. This is almost gone because of loud mouth finger pointers. Turn that finger around and pint at yourself, you are the problem.

Wrong...divisive community organizers are the problem. And out of touch crooked politicians are the problem. The fix is about to win in a landslide on November 8th.

 

[miketx]

 

[Slade3200]

The problems in our nation are a direct result of the partisan polarization and utter lack of respect and class when dealing with ones opposition. It's not one party's fault, both are doing it. The contest of ideas and productive debate amoungst different ideologies to make law and address our countries issues is what make our country move forward. This is almost gone because of loud mouth finger pointers. Turn that finger around and pint at yourself, you are the problem.

Wrong...divisive community organizers are the problem. And out of touch crooked politicians are the problem. The fix is about to win in a landslide on November 8th.

And who do you think elects these crooked politicians and supports these community organizers? Divisive partisan voters feed that culture, accept it, and in many cases they demand it. I agree with you that our leaders need to start setting a better example. But these leaders are elected by us, so we hold responsibility as well to demand better.