Some people are saying that the special deal that Clinton had with the DNC was only for the general election, and there is a CYA disclaimer about that at the bottom of the document. But the document also says:

1. With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.

2. With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.

3. Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates - which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.

September 11, 2015 was well before the primary started (the Iowa caucus was on February 1st, 2016). And i don't know what good being alerted about primary candidates would do during the general election. There's also just the obvious fact that once Clinton was bankrolling the DNC, clearly they would have understood that they were working for her.

Notably, it's just (i say with loving affection) internet nerds trying to claim that the agreement was only for the general. Clinton's COO can be seen here trying to downplay their degree of control, not claiming that they didn't have any:

Charlie Baker, the chief operating officer of the Clinton campaign, said that in 2015 the campaign agreed to raise money for the parts of the DNC that were going to be most crucial to the general election, including data, research, communications and the like. The agreement also gave the Clinton campaign some say over personnel. If there was a vacancy for a position in one of these departments, the DNC had to consult the campaign on the three finalists but could make the final decision itself.

"We never tried to be presumptuous," Baker said. "We were literally trying to make sure the DNC had the resources it needed, whoever was the nominee."

And here's Clinton's press secretary Brian Fallon trying to say that Bernie could have had the same deal (if he had been aware of it to ask for it, and if he could have gotten rich megadonors to funnel money to them). Again, he's not trying to claim that they didn't have this deal during the general, just that Bernie could have had it too.

These guys may eventually get the talking point memo that the agreement was only for the general, but at the moment that's not the spin they're going with. The NBC article that Fallon is reacting to shows how the CYA language was being used in practice:

But Clinton's campaign also negotiated a side deal, first reported by NBC News on Friday night, that gave it influence over staffing and other decisions at the DNC during the primary, but with the stipulation that it only affect preparations for the general election and that other candidates could strike a similar deal.

...

And an email obtained by NBC News, first published by the Washington Post, shows the DNC's lawyers told the Sanders campaign they could have some influence over how money would be spent to prepare for the general election if they raised enough cash for the party.

You can begin "preparing" for the general at any time. Even before the primary starts, as we see was the case. And if preparing for the general also means ensuring that you make it to the general, so be it.

For what it's worth, the NBC article also pre-emptively addressed Fallon's claims:

However, Sanders' joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, signed in November, 2015, which was also obtained by NBC News, does not appear to include a supplemental deal.

And two of the Sanders campaign's former top officials say they were never specifically offered one like Clinton's and had no knowledge of their rival campaign's arrangement.

"We had no addendum like this, no memorandum, no agreement like this," said Mark Longabaugh, who was the campaign's chief liaison to the DNC. "They basically came to us and said, here's the agreement, take it or leave it."

"I had no idea there was side memorandum with the Clinton campaign," he added.

Meanwhile, Jeff Weaver, the campaign's former campaign manager, dismissed the clause in Clinton's agreement limiting engagement exclusively to general election activity as a fig leaf.

"Throwing this catchall at the end saying that this document doesn't say what it says is a little disingenuous," he said. "Anybody who suggests we were being treated the same way is playing semantic games."

Before the Clinton campaign and the DNC struck their deal in August of 2015, the DNC was struggling financially and in need of a rescue. The Clinton campaign stepped in to help, but wanted control over their how money would be spent, harboring doubts about the leadership of then-Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Longabaugh acknowledged that the Sanders campaigns -- which in the summer of 2015, had not yet become an online fundraising juggernaut -- had little to offer the cash-strapped DNC and had to scrounge to pay the $250,000 bill for the party's voter file.

The campaign later began raising enough money to be in a position to contribute to the party, but its relationship with the DNC had deteriorated precipitously. [hint: because they were owned by Clinton at that point]