Sanders calls on DNC chair to step down

[Wraith]

Bernie Sanders Sunday called on Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign following email leaks from within the party that showed officials tried to undermine his presidential campaign.
She "should not be chair of the DNC, and I think these emails reiterate that reason why she should not be chair," the Vermont senator said on ABC's "This Week."

"I think she should resign, period, and I think we need a new chair that's going to lead us in a new direction."

Emails leaked by WikiLeaks Friday showed DNC officials privately planned how to undermine Sanders's presidential campaign.

In one May 21 email, DNC press secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote to communications director Luis Miranda about planting a narrative to the media that Sanders's "campaign was a mess."

Sanders said Sunday the emails prove what he's been saying all along: The party favored presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from the start.

"Well, I think I told you a long time ago that the DNC was not running a fair operation - that they were supporting Secretary Clinton. So what I suggested to be true six months ago turns out, in fact, to be true," Sanders said.

"I'm not shocked by it, but I'm disappointed."

Source

If only the Republican equivalent were as successful!

[Flixy]

Sanders said Sunday the emails prove what he's been saying all along: The party favored presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from the start.

That's neither a secret nor bad per se, is it? I mean, the RNC was also pretty clear about not wanting Trump I think.

[Ominous Gamer]

Sources are saying Debbie Wasserman has already been booted from the convention.

I brought up the underhanded way the Bernie camp was getting short changed several times in one the previous political threads, so the proof isn't surprising anyone. The issue is that the DNC has it written into the chair responsibilities that they are to remain neutral, and that obviously didn't happen. People are also upset with how close the DNC and certain media outlets truely are. Something a person like Lewk is going to beat like a dead horse.

[Ominous Gamer]

Also gotta give props to Mr. Assange, he sure knows how to throw a wrench into things. Even with facebook and twitter actively censoring the email leaks I'm still hearing more about how childish the DNC is than I am about Hillary's VP decision.

[Flixy]

The issue is that the DNC has it written into the chair responsibilities that they are to remain neutral, and that obviously didn't happen.

Ah, did not know that, if that's the case then yes he should go.

[Loki]

Yay for using info obtained by Russian intelligence to smear your political opponent.

[ImAnOgre]

Yay for using info obtained by Russian intelligence to smear your political opponent.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[Lewkowski]

Yay for using info obtained by Russian intelligence to smear your political opponent.

Once something is out, its out regardless of how it was obtained. Its political opportunism by Republicans but the lefty Democrats should be upset.

[Lewkowski]

Don't worry Loki I'm sure she'll land on her feet somewhere... Sure she disgraced her position, was openly partisan for one individual when she was supposed to be neutral but someone, somewhere will give her a job.

Oh wait she just joined the Clinton campaign. LOL smh... this country.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sources are saying Debbie Wasserman has already been booted from the convention.

I brought up the underhanded way the Bernie camp was getting short changed several times in one the previous political threads, so the proof isn't surprising anyone. The issue is that the DNC has it written into the chair responsibilities that they are to remain neutral,

And they never do. Dean wasn't neutral between Clinton and Obama back in 2008 (which in turn was partly due to the decided lack of neutrality from the then DLC-controlled national committee back in 2004 when Dean made his own run for the nomination)

[wiggin]

I think this is really a dog bites man story. So the Democratic party leadership had no interest in a Sanders campaign weakening the party, and they did everything in their power to prevent that from happening. While there may be some theoretical problems with Wasserman as her role as a neutral party, but we all know her job isn't to be neutral, but to make the Dems win elections. I don't even find the emails to be that damning - so in late May the DNC was working to deligitimize an already dead campaign? Whoop de doo, Sanders campaign had no chance by late May. As far as I can tell, this is a non-story.

[Lewkowski]

I think this is really a dog bites man story. So the Democratic party leadership had no interest in a Sanders campaign weakening the party, and they did everything in their power to prevent that from happening. While there may be some theoretical problems with Wasserman as her role as a neutral party, but we all know her job isn't to be neutral, but to make the Dems win elections. I don't even find the emails to be that damning - so in late May the DNC was working to deligitimize an already dead campaign? Whoop de doo, Sanders campaign had no chance by late May. As far as I can tell, this is a non-story.

If there was no chance why was it necessary for Wasserman to try to find ways to help Clinton. Either she's stupid for violating her neutrality when it wasn't necessary or she helped swing an election. I don't think Bernie had much of a chance so I'm leaning toward stupid. The fact that it was in Clinton's favor and so she resigned only to JOIN CLINTON'S campaign should tell you everything you need to know about Clinton.

[Loki]

Not everyone expects to be hacked by Russian intelligence.

[Ominous Gamer]

transparency goes a long way towards professionalism. If anyone here put "eat my butt" in an email we would be in the middle of our own little shitstorm.

but holy shit, hillary picking her up immediately like that? and publicly? holy shit

[Loki]

Probably the price of getting an instant resignation.

[wiggin]

If there was no chance why was it necessary for Wasserman to try to find ways to help Clinton. Either she's stupid for violating her neutrality when it wasn't necessary or she helped swing an election. I don't think Bernie had much of a chance so I'm leaning toward stupid. The fact that it was in Clinton's favor and so she resigned only to JOIN CLINTON'S campaign should tell you everything you need to know about Clinton.

Except that there's a very good reason to sabotage the Sanders campaign even when the outcome is foreordained - stopping his campaign from distracting Clinton from the general, stopping wasting precious campaign resources (and splitting donors), stopping trying to pull Clinton to the left, etc. Essentially, party unity. Which is the DNC's job.

Do I think it was a wise political move to hire Wasserman on the HRC campaign? Probably not. But does it make a certain sense? Maybe - she is a well-connected and canny political operator who was essentially doing her job. There may have been a quid pro quo as Loki suggests, but it's also possible that a simple cost-benefit analysis suggested to Clinton that she was worth taking on.

[GGT]

This is the kind of crap that makes people hate political parties and their machinery.

Maybe they should just stop trying to give the appearance of neutrality or fairness, since people end up mistrusting them after their back-room deals are found out, and hiding the truth is usually worse anyway? And since the power of super-delegates is being challenged in the (D) party, and bound delegates and nominating rules were questioned in the (R) party....why bother with primaries at all?

[Loki]

Except that there's a very good reason to sabotage the Sanders campaign even when the outcome is foreordained - stopping his campaign from distracting Clinton from the general, stopping wasting precious campaign resources (and splitting donors), stopping trying to pull Clinton to the left, etc. Essentially, party unity. Which is the DNC's job.

Do I think it was a wise political move to hire Wasserman on the HRC campaign? Probably not. But does it make a certain sense? Maybe - she is a well-connected and canny political operator who was essentially doing her job. There may have been a quid pro quo as Loki suggests, but it's also possible that a simple cost-benefit analysis suggested to Clinton that she was worth taking on.

I doubt it. She's been criticized for being an ineffectual DNC chairman, including by Clinton's people, long before this primary contest. Seems odd to call her ineffectual and then instantly hire her.

[Lewkowski]

Except that there's a very good reason to sabotage the Sanders campaign even when the outcome is foreordained - stopping his campaign from distracting Clinton from the general, stopping wasting precious campaign resources (and splitting donors), stopping trying to pull Clinton to the left, etc. Essentially, party unity. Which is the DNC's job.

Do I think it was a wise political move to hire Wasserman on the HRC campaign? Probably not. But does it make a certain sense? Maybe - she is a well-connected and canny political operator who was essentially doing her job. There may have been a quid pro quo as Loki suggests, but it's also possible that a simple cost-benefit analysis suggested to Clinton that she was worth taking on.

It just feeds into the notion that the fix was in. If it wasn't quid pro quo then it was pretty dumb. I actually think Loki's theory is right in this case.

[Ominous Gamer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ce20505133c10/

But the Florida congresswoman did not go quietly or without a fight. It took pressure from the White House – including a phone call with President Obama – to get her to finally see the writing on the wall. Two reliable sources say Wasserman Schultz was trying to make top aides take the fall, rather than take personal responsibility. Until the end, she struggled to understand what a lightning rod she’s become.

Really starting to look like that position on Clinton's team is hush money. If Trump pulls off an upset here a lot of people are going to blame this train wreck of a woman.

[Loki]

If Trump wins, the buck starts and ends with the American voter.

[RandBlade]

If Trump wins, the buck ends with the American voter but there will be plenty of buck to go around. The DNC will owe their share.

[Hazir]

If Trump wins, the buck starts and ends with the American voter.

True, but it is a bit odd to see this Bernie or Bust crowd.