THE DNC AUTOPSY: DID DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO KNOW? Do you know who Paul Rivera is? Don’t feel bad if you don’t; he’s not a household name, even among political junkies. A little-known former Clinton White House aide and senior adviser to the losing 2004 John Kerry presidential campaign, Rivera became famous this week as the author of the Democratic National Committee’s disastrous analysis — the “autopsy” — of the party’s even more disastrous 2024 Kamala Harris campaign.Widespread, instant criticism of the autopsy has focused on three areas: what is in it, what is not in it, and how it was prepared. Other than that, as they say — no problem.Start with how it was prepared. Perhaps the most telling excerpt from the autopsy is the note printed in red that appears at the top of the first and every one of the report’s 192 pages: “Disclaimer: This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC. The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”
And that’s not all. Other parts of the autopsy contain other disclaimers. Under the heading “CONCLUSION” is the note, “This section was not provided by the author.” Under the headline “NOTES FOR THE READER” is the note, “This section was not completed.” And under the heading “SOURCES” is the note, “Sources, interview materials, and other evidence not provided.” At several points in the text where there are charts involving spending and other numerical data is the note, “Sourcing not provided, assume to be Federal Election Commission data.” In another part, there is the note, “No evidence provided for many claims in this section.” And in yet another, there was the note, “Several factual errors found within analysis.”
