I’ll confess to having missed most of the Sunday morning shows yesterday, what with New Years activities and fighting a rather nasty chest cold, but the media beast never truly sleeps. One interview on ABC News, however, featured something which seems to be a recurring theme in political news coverage this winter. Jonathan Karl sat down for an interview with Newt Gingrich and DNC interim chair Donna Brazile, where they discussed how Donald Trump won the election. Brazile raised a few eyebrows when she gave a nod to reality and said that Trump’s consistent message and steady presence in battleground states (and beyond the “blue wall”) wound up carrying the day. (Washington Examiner)
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile acknowledged Sunday that President-elect Trump ran an effective, non-traditional campaign against Hillary Clinton, in large part because he had a consistent message.
“You have to give credit to the campaign that had a consistent message, 100 percent of the time, make America great,” she said on ABC News. “A slogan that became the message that became the song. And when you got a song, you got a melody.”
Brazile, who is serving as the temporary head of the Democratic National Committee, noted that changing 112,000 votes in three states would have changed the outcome of the election. But she also said she could tell that Trump had the potential to disrupt the election early on, based on the support he was getting early in the race from a wide range of people.
The comments from Brazile start at around the 45 second mark in this video.
I suppose we could give Donna Brazile credit for recognizing what went so wrong for Hillary Clinton and so right for Donald Trump. Of course, there was no sign of that during the campaign, when she consistently sang Clinton’s praises and was absolutely positive she would win. Then again, that’s what you’d expect a high ranking member of the party to say. But that’s really not what makes this interview so remarkable.
Why is Jonathan Karl interviewing Brazile in the first place? And if he’s going to do that, how does one sit there and politely rehash the last election with her without poking the obvious elephant in the room? It has been 62 days since CNN severed their ties with Donna Brazile over the fact (no longer an “allegation”) that she cheated during one of the Democratic presidential primary debates and attempted to cheat during a second one in Flint, Michigan. And yet ABC News is inviting her to sit down for a casual New Years Day chat like any other political analyst.
There is not one reputable media outlet in the country who is even attempting to suggest that Brazile didn’t cheat or attempt to cheat on Hillary Clinton’s behalf during the primary. Even Brazile herself refuses to say that she’s innocent, instead preferring to insist that she will not be persecuted as if she were Jesus Christ or something.
I keep hearing media outlets complaining when any of their competitors provide coverage of Donald Trump in terms of his policy proposals, cabinet nominations and all the rest. The major charge they level is that these journalists are somehow “normalizing” Trump’s presidency. That’s a rather insulting phrase, since Trump actually won and must now be evaluated by the job he does. But isn’t it somehow worse to keep introducing Donna Brazile as the interim chair of the DNC and allow her to continue commenting on politics? Isn’t this an act of “normalizing” someone as the head of one of our two major parties while she’s known to have attempted to do more to directly tamper with an election than the Russians did? And where is the media outrage at the DNC for not removing this person who is known to be corrupt? All I’m hearing is crickets on that score.
We’re witnessing the “normalization” of a known cheat… a dishonest actor who was caught red handed attempting to corrupt a presidential election. This person has remained as the interim head of the Democratic Party for more than two months since being definitively exposed. And ABC News continues to propagate the fantasy that all is well and there’s nothing particularly notable about the situation.