Charlie Pierce asks right question: Why did DNC leak the story?

[kpete]

. . . if I wanted to distract from the fact that Sanders on Thursday was endorsed by the Communication Workers of America, and by Democracy For America, this also would be exactly the kind of story I would want out there. . . .

There was some serious dumbassery involved on the part of the Sanders campaign, and the person most responsible has been sacked, so the story's over, right? The DNC could allow the Sanders campaign access to the data again. But what admittedly sends my thoughts up a grassy knoll is how this relatively minor blip made it to The Washington Post in the first place. After all, the bungling was with the vendor, and with the DNC for hiring the vendor, so wouldn't the smart play have been to keep this whole thing in-house? Also, if this story survives through the Saturday night debate, let alone becomes an issue therein, and if the Sanders campaign is shut out from the national party data for longer than this weekend, I'm going to be very, very suspicious. Devious and clumsy are, after all, the hallmarks of the DWS era.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/18/1461498/-Charlie-Pierce-asks-right-question-Why-did-DNC-leak-the-story

with update:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40610/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data/

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. +1000 nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Charlie Pierce never fails to crack me the hell up.

[ViseGrip]

3. the corporate plan is to run this story in a false way, to the caucuses and primary.

To make people sick of Bernie. This time, I think the people got it. I have seen these tactics over and over.

Our candidate for Senate was also breached! The window was open for all....if they KNEW to look.

Again, I smell a rat.

[peacebird]

4. The DNC leaked it to distract from Bernies great CWA & DFA endorsements & 2mill donations!

Can't let him have a good news day after all, distracts from the coronation.

[pnwmom]

5. Simple. Because Weaver was already threatening to file a lawsuit if the DNC

didn't cave to his demands to give back access to the database.

So the DNC decided to release their side of the story, knowing the lawsuit would be coming.

How do I know? Because that very specific legal document was already written and ready to file. Lawyers often show their hand by letting the other side know what will be filed against them if they don't comply -- this wouldn't be unusual.

At the very least, they verbally told Wasserman what would be in store for the DNC if they didn't comply with their demands. Wasserman refused to knuckle under, and they immediately filed suit.

I'm sure they started preparing the document as soon as the realized there was going to be a fight. And Wasserman knew about it, and so she decided to get out in front.

[Snarkoleptic]

6. When such stunts are revealed as such, the results are not in favor

of those who appear to instigate.

[Fumesucker]

7. A Cunning Plan

She has one.

[Scuba]

8. "Serious dumbassery" is a perfect moniker for Loserman-Schults.

[marmar]

9. Bingo.

[alarimer]

10. The DNC is in the bag for Clinton

They have never intended for there to be a competitive race.

This is no way to run a democracy.