Huh? DWS got forced out because she was a shit DNC chairman who couldn't keep her foot out of her mouth and then started chewing.
And, personally, I don't give a damn if the DNC was hostile to an avowed independent. Bernie was a carpetbagger. I like Bernie, but the Democrats treated him far better than I expected.
First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't.
Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to.
Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.
By "DWS scandal" do you mean the Debbie Wasserman Schultz issues[1]? I've read about that reasonable extensively, and they don't seem a huge deal to me at all. I mean it's good she resigned, but to me it looks more like a "perception of bias is as bad as bias itself" thing.
She probably did some things that benefited Clinton in the primary, but these don't seem that big a deal in the scheme of things.
The Wikipedia link I posted seems a reasonable summary. Which of them exactly is this big threat to democracy? For example, I thought the "removal of Sanders access to database" was a big deal until it became apparent that Sanders staffers had accessed private Clinton campaign information and it was restored in less than 24 hours[2].
As usual, context is critical. By the end of the primary, DWS was a lightning rod of controversy. Hillary recognized DWS was an obstacle to the Bernie wing rallying behind her and so she made a deal with DWS to get her to step down without a fight. She wasn't "forced" out due to wrongdoing, it was purely a political move to put the primary fights to rest and look towards defeating Trump. Had DWS stayed and defended herself, that would have severely weakened party unity. In such cases, truth takes a back seat to reconciliation.
Brazile's case is trickier. Taking everything she says at face value (which is a mistake), the main thing she demonstrated was that Hillary's campaign saved the DNC from bankruptcy before the primary by assuming its debt. Hillary (reasonably) put some controls on the DNC's finances in response to the mismanagement. Brazile had no evidence, nor did she claim that Hillary or anyone directed the DNC to act against Bernie. Besides, with the unfiltered look into the DNCs emails and Hillary's campaign's emails, you would expect to see mountains of evidence of Hillary manipulating the DNC against Bernie. But there was no such evidence whatsoever.
The other issue is the fundraising agreement that combined DNC-raised money with Hillary campaign money. But the fundraising agreement was standard and Bernie's campaign had the opportunity to sign the same fundraising agreement but declined.
Not sure why this is downvoted. The DNC chair had to resign after her conspiracy to rig the election was leaked by Seth Rich.
CNN still up to the same tricks too. How did you like "Mr. Sanders, why did you say a woman can't be elected president?" "I never said that." "Senator Warren, how did you feel when Mr. Sanders told you a woman couldn't be president?". What the hell was that?
The DNC did suppress Sanders and showed massive bias towards Clinton, the email leaks showed it. Clinton's campaign got debate questions early. They got preferential treatment in the media. Then when Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair at the time, was kicked out because the collusion became public knowledge, the Clinton campaign _immediately_ hired her. If there wasn't massive collusion, then there was at very least an image problem, which Clinton did nothing to help by hiring the very person forced to resign.
Also, the message sent by the two were not identical at all. Sure, if you tallied them all up and compared them by existence they would be very similar, but the difference was in the focus. Sanders' campaign focused on socioeconomic inequality which would have resonated more in rural America, while Clinton's campaign focused more on social issues, which matters more in the urban centers where the economy is less of an issue.
Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.
> By biasing its internal electoral market the DNC selected the less competitive candidate defeating the purpose of running a primary.
Hillary, the DNC, and all their cronies deserved this. I would've voted for any Democrat who won the primary fair and square, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for someone who stole an election (and from one of the most well-liked candidates of all time, no less). Many of my friends felt the same way -- they either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or voted without selecting a presidential candidate.
The fact that they tried to bully/guilt everyone into voting for her didn't help much either.
If Republicans chose the worst person in 50 years of American politics to represent them, you've really got to wonder how the Democrats still managed to pick someone who would lose to him.
The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO.
Hillary rigged the DNC and tried to force herself on the American people, essentially leaving them with very little choice. I blame her for Trump more than anyone else.
There was a lawsuit against the DNC for their actions, unfortunately they were able to get the lawsuit dismissed by successfully arguing that they were within their rights to internally choose their own candidate regardless of their own election systems.
I keep seeing this claims about DNC / Hillary and Bernie, but its always seeped in so much anger, I've been avoiding the posts. Is there any chance you could link me somewhere where I could read up on it impartially?
You missed the part where Donna Brazile gave Presidential Debate questions to Hillary Clinton? Or the collusion between the DNC and NYT/WaPo to kneecap Sanders' campaign? The DNC strategy to promote Trump over the other GOP candidates?
Edit: Downvote if you must, but the question was what was newsworthy about the DNC Wikileaks release. Is it incorrect or that you don't like it?
Very true. Allow me to add the fact that it has been shown (via wikileaks) that Hillary and the DNC conspired in the primaries process, specially against Bernie Sanders, invalidating her even more in the final voting.
> .. did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC
Sadly, it resulted in only a shuffle of players around the board. Wasserman-Schultz has plenty of congressional committee and leadership appointments. Donna Brazile was rewarded with Wasserman-Schultz's old gig at the helm of the DNC for leaking debate questions to Clinton
The illegal coordination between the Hillary campaign and the DNC was kind of a big deal, and did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC. I voted for Hillary in 2016, she was by far the better candidate, but I also seeded the fuck out of those Podesta emails because DNC corruption is absolutely inexcusable.
The idea that WL is responsible for Clinton's loss - rather than her being a terrible candidate - is laughable. To credit Assange with Trump's election is a complete joke - not least because the same people attacking him for releasing Clinton / Podesta / DNC emails have spent the past several years utterly failing to take stock of the reasons they lost.
I say all this as a non-US observer. The US' media and political figures are completely unfit for purpose.
Collusion with the media and a debate moderator should chill anyone. Add to that the fact that the DNC basically anointed her by not giving Sanders a fair shake... democrats were told who to vote for using the media to give them the illusion of free choice.
Put another way, the emails revealed that it's very possibly that Trump will be President because Clinton had corrupted the DNC.
And, personally, I don't give a damn if the DNC was hostile to an avowed independent. Bernie was a carpetbagger. I like Bernie, but the Democrats treated him far better than I expected.
Assange wasn't relevant.
reply