“The content of the hacked emails exposed an apparent lack of neutrality in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with party officials disparaging Sanders.”
But nothing actually done to impact the nomination.
And even if any improper actions had been taken and none have been shown to date, the choice facing the voters is still Hillary versus Trump. – you can’t spank her hands without empowering him. With consequences discussed here; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/31/from-humphrey-hatred-to-bernie-or-bust-the-high-price-of-the-politics-of-petulance.html
Not that we know of anyway, of course we can all agree that the debate schedule was a tad “odd” and suggesting that Bernie’s Jewishness be made an issue may seem a bit over the top to some, but as you say nothing quantifiable has been proven, so what the heck, shouldn’t we just leave all these people in place? Sure neutrality is laudable goal, but come on lets be adult, you can’t prove anything, people make mistakes and really who is truly ever neutral on any thing. As Hillary’s supporters said way back in 2008: PUMA “Party Unity My Ass!”
I was a Bernie voter, but the emails sure looked to me like the typical BS people of any organization fire back and forth but don’t really do anything about. If that’s the worst stuff there, the DNC is a pretty tight ship. I thought Bernie had two legit complaints WRT the DNC: 1) DWS locking him out of the database, and 2) the debate schedule-- and the DNC responded to both of these.
In short, it wasn’t elegant, but the system worked.
I’m not sure the resignation was required, but it shows that the DNC cares about the appearance of propriety, and is therefore probably a good move.
There was nothing there saying Bernie’s Jewishness be MADE an issue. The question was whether in certain areas could his Jewishness BE an issue. Those are two totally different things.
That’s ok she won’t fall far. She is a well connected Washington insider. She will have a cushy job by the end of the week.
No it wasn’t.
And it wasn’t even saying his Jewish heritage was bad politically. It was floating that idea he was an atheist would ding him in WV and KY. As unseemly as that it, it is reality. And I say that as an unapologetic atheist.
It isn’t just the contents of the emails that got her in trouble, it is the fact that the emails were hacked in the first place that has made her expendable. I know she wasn’t personally in charge of IT security, but she is the CEO. CEO’s are hired to be fired when their subordinates screw up. .
Actually, what the CFO suggested in his e-mail was that he thought Bernie might be an atheist, and he said for his “Southern Baptist peeps” being labeled an atheist would cost Bernie “a couple percentage points” compared to if those peeps perceived Bernie as (religiously, not just ethnically/culturally) Jewish.
In other words, a fair number of Evangelicals would prefer a Jewish candidate to an atheist one, which I’m sure is true. So it’s not exactly “making an issue of his Jewishness,” though it did involve parsing his Jewishness as part of an attempt to make an issue of his (alleged) atheism.
Anyway, it was an extraordinarily dumb and irresponsible idea for a slew of reasons that ought to be blindingly obvious, which is probably why no one ever followed through on the suggestion.
I do find it a little odd that the CEO is (reportedly) stepping down, but the CFO, who was the one who actually suggested the extraordinarily dumb and irresponsible idea, hasn’t resigned, at least not yet. Though maybe that will be part of the further staffing changes hinted at in the article.
What a lot of hooey all this email stuff is. Of course they preferred the candidate who gave a large portion of her contributions to their down ballot candidates. Of course they preferred the one who’d been a Democrat for decades, not minutes. And of course they preferred a candidate with an outstanding track record in Congress and who had proposals that were just inches away from BS’s. So what? That’s what parties do, don’t they?
As for the anger over too few debates: there were far too many in my book. Each time I saw BS I liked him less and less with his non-answers to direct questions (not unlike the GOP candidate, unfortunately), his refusal to offer specifics during the debates and reacting viscerally when Clinton mentioned something true about his votes on guns, immigration and border control.
I was aware of the atheist part, just did not want to bring it is when just the Jewish part was in the comment. The concern about both/either is valid, although it should not be. But when some Christians are claiming questioning whether other Christians get to call themselves that, the idea that someone who is Jewish or atheist can be a big deal.
And I agree. I expected the CFO to be long gone by now.
She locked him out of the database, for a short period, after his people dug into HRC’s data repeatedly when a breach opened. I’d lock him out to, as punishment.
The idea of the party treating both parties equally is good in theory. In reality, if you have met a candidate and have a favorable view of that person, you are more likely, even if unconsciously, to side with person. If you have not met a candidate and you already like the other, you are less likely to side with the guy you do not know. Now if they had met Hillary and disliked her, they would have been much more likely to lean toward Bernie. So, human nature, not evil intent.
and it would have been yugge
While I disagree with your characterization of what happened, shoe-other-foot I might see it the same way. But the bottom line was that locking Bernie out from the DB was a bad look for the DNC, and I thought letting him back in was the correct PR move.
Didn’t mean to re-litigate this, it is absolutely time to stop pointing fingers and get behind our nominee, who is totally worthy of all the support we can muster-- even if her opposition weren’t a tainted, racist canned ham.
So you disagree with the facts. Got it.
Exactly.
Oh, grow up.