Thankfully it was denied.
Okay, so. Your identified sufficiently bad action here is... someone outside the DNC asking for dirt on sanders, and being denied. I mean, you said other stuff (which ah, as near as I can tell is somewhat inaccurate. Courtesy wasn't mentioned, it wasn't the DNC fellow turning around and looking for dirt or whatev', at least in that particular email). But that's what happened.
The second was indeed due to an op-ed story covering the DNC favoritism of Clinton, specifically concerning her " victory fund", which was alledged to come from misappropriation of funds for other democrats running, such as for the house and senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Victory_Fund
This was an action taken by the DNC on behalf of Clinton that they got called on. They then further did damage control to discredit the malfeasance, and make Clinton look good.
And here, yes, the problem you're pointing to is the DNC drafting a piece refuting claims made against it, on behalf of the DNC. And you're pointing to this as substantial evidence the DNC violated an ethos of impartiality against the sanders campaign, apparently not even because of the small possibility of collusion. Your point is that writing up a defense piece, that also makes clinton look better (because, y'know, the oppo piece linked the two and there ain't no just making things look better for one in that situation), for the organization points to a sustained and substantial campaign to sabotage bernie's primary run. If stuff like this was what killed it it was already deader than a doornail (but it wasn't, and, as near as I'm able to tell, still, it didn't), y'know?
I get what you're trying to say, wierd, what you're presenting as evidence and whatnot. I just don't get how your getting your conclusions from it, or ascribing the degree of severity you seem to be. I said actions matter, yeah. Then I mentioned sabotage. The stuff above? That ain't sabotage. It might be equivalent to a cruel remark or a bit of disruption, but that in particular ain't sign of much else. If there was some kind of huge and insistently repeating pattern of stuff like that then yeh might have had something, but all those email leaks seemed to manage was a small handful of slightly (and often dubiously) inappropriate communications. Oddly enough, it might not have taken malfeasance for bernie to lose the primary. Sanders wasn't actually appealing to all the primary voters.
Still, look. You were asking how the media was to be blamed for some of the campaign troubles, I do believe. Discussion was going on about that, anyway, totes possible I'm misattributing that specifically to you and apologies if so, but that was the context of the original bit. You see this stuff you've presented as smoking guns? These are barely worth noticing and at worst asking someone to step down for. They are non-evidence of anything actually
meaningful happening. This is how the media is to blame for some (quite a lot, really) of the campaign troubles. Particularly for clinton, the theme for this last year in the media was taking small things, plastering them across everything, and steadily repeating they were big things until people actually believed it or at least heard it enough to be doubtful. Usually then making spurious connections to all sorts of other crap where connections didn't exist and getting people to do the same thing with
that, too. FTFE.
This argument of who to blame is completely and utterly missing the goddamn point of this whole fucking thing that I wonder if there's even going to be a Democratic party left by 2020.
Eh, trying to figure out what went off course is a pretty necessary for getting back on it, yeah? Way back now but eh.
Or they could just be impartial, you know? Seems like an easy solution - don't mess with the democratic process. Done.
And done? For all there wasn't a neutral opinion inside the DNC (and it would have been really difficult
for there to be, considering their previous history with bernie, to say nothing of what came after), by all appearances I've actually been able to see they
didn't actually mess with the process. Any bylaw violations that have been noticed are minor, and so far as I'm aware anything
major just didn't happen. If the primaries were stolen from sanders, I'm apparently incapable of seeing and remembering the evidence for it, because everything I've actually seen, read, and so on, just... doesn't point to that. Lots of people trying to say it does and throwing scrap at the statement to try to get it to be substantial, but nothing really there. At most it pointed to some folks inside the DNC not quite liking sanders, and some of them doing stuff that wasn't 100% appropriate but was also very, very normal for the kinds of workplaces and whatnot these things are. But he got his fair shake, and didn't win because the primary voters just didn't want him to be the candidate. DNC was fair, near as I can tell. Its staffers weren't soulless automatons, but impartial seems to be what they managed.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1390287 times)