Bernie was the stalking horse. He was underfunded. And he was supposed to whip up support, hold rallies everywhere and attack Trump as much as Hillary. But he did too good of a job. And he took out Hillary because he was for the middle class and Hillary was clearly the money candidate.
Bernie would have gotten out of the race much earlier accept for three things. He started winning. His money did not dry up. At times he was out grossing Hillary. And many in the government were very worried that Hillary would be indicted. Clearly there was enough evidence there.
This too would have been ok if supporters of Bernie had just voted for Hillary in the general. However what seems to be the point of Donna’s book was known by Bernie supports 18 months ago. Hillary was stealing the nomination. And that enraged Bernie supporters who simply were not going to vote for her. And some of them even voted for Trump.
and he was to left of her which the DemocRAT base wanted to be.
For 2016, the Clintons were taking no chances. The picked an old guy who was a bit wacky, and not even a Democrat to be her stalking horse. Lo and behold, he started beating her, too! That's when they pulled the rug our from under him by undermining him in the debates, and starving his campaign of DNC support.
What surprises me is that the arrangement that Brazile describes is not illegal. What's the point of having limits on campaign contributions if a candidate controls other contributions not intended for them? That strikes me as a pretty blatant violation of the intent of the law.