#DNCLeaks: Is it Shocking if Party Preferred Clinton?

[DonViejo]

Nicholas Loffredo
Posted with permission from Newsweek

The release of leaked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails that appear to show DNC officials discussing how to work against Bernie Sanders has inflamed the progressive icon's followers, prompting cries of corruption and institutional unfairness. But is it really shocking if the DNC preferred Hillary Clinton as the party's candidate?

-snip-

A May 5, 2016, email from CFO Brad Marshall to Miranda and others, with the subject line "no shit," reads: "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist." While Sanders isn't explicitly named in the message, it's clear they're referring to the New York City native who did speak of his Jewish heritage during the primary season, despite Marshall's denial to The Intercept. It's unclear whether officials ever got "someone" to pose the question to Sanders.

Other emails reveal annoyance with the Sanders team and sensitivity toward the frequent charge that the DNC was biased toward Clinton, who introduced Virginia Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate Saturday. One email received by Miranda pitches the narrative that "Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess. Specifically, DWS (DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they'd either ignored or forgotten to (do) something critical...It's not a DNC conspiracy, it's because they never had their act together."

Questioning a candidate's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in a craven attempt to pander to faith-based voters should be out of bounds, even in the bizarre political season we find ourselves in. It's gutter politics that deserves all of the condemnation it's receiving, and DNC officials must answer for it. But how does the apparent effort prove that the primary selection process was "rigged" against Sanders, as many are claiming? How does one logically proceed from offensive emails to systemic corruption that handed a candidate a win? Reading Twitter, one would think ballots were tampered with or votes thrown out, with no less than Donald Trump opining that the leak shows the system is "rigged."

DNC officials' personal feelings toward Sanders, or even attempts to influence coverage of his candidacy doesn't change the reality that Clinton won more states, votes and delegates than the insurgent Sanders. It didn't alter anyone's ability to vote for the candidate of their choice or influence the tabulation of state-by-state primary votes. It doesn't change the reality that a Northeastern self-described Democratic Socialist with a far-left platform was always going to be a tough sell to the electorate at large, even in this outsider campaign season. It shouldn't be shocking if top DNC officials thought a highly experienced former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady would be a better bet in November over a candidate who would have been caricatured by Republicans as a tax-loving liberal who wants to give everyone freebies.

-snip-

http://www.nationalmemo.com/dncleaks-is-it-shocking-if-party-preferred-clinton/?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sd&utm_medium=email

[tonyt53]

1. Shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. Democrats prefer Democrats.

[B Calm]

4. That was the problem, there were more than one democrat in the race.

[tonyt53]

7. Just one other, O'Malley.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. True. But O'Malley had bowed out early. eom

[Omaha Steve]

19. Did I just get kicked out of the D party with millions of others that preferred somebody else?

[randome]

2. The GOP hates Trump, too, another outsider who trashes the party.

As you say, no surprise.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[JaneyVee]

3. I think people are reading into the religious thing a bit much...

It seems they hope he goes with Jewish instead of atheist (because atheist polls very low), especially in a religious state like KY.

[Scuba]

5. Nope.

[NurseJackie]

6. Democrats prefer Democrats ... and I'm glad for it, too!

[TheBlackAdder]

13. If Sanders wasn't viewed as a Democrat by all, then DWS failed the DNC by allowing him to run.

[NurseJackie]

14. Or, if you look at it another way, maybe she succeeded.

[TheBlackAdder]

15. Well, it looks like "Mission Accomplished." Let's hope it isn't premature like GWB's claim.

[NurseJackie]

16. Oh, I know. It's very concerning, isn't it?

[TheBlackAdder]

18. It should be, but I'll probably be mocked or dismissed with another emoticon as std treatment.

[flor-de-jasmim]

9. Democratic IDEALS or CLUB? That's part of the question.

The other part: they should LET THE PROCESS play out. That is what democracy is supposed to be, and that is why DWS got booed today.

Any other argument is just an attempt to muddy the waters.

[uhnope]

10. it should be

People are not shocked because they are so used to the basics of electoral democracy in the US being screwed up that this seems minor.

It's not minor, it's a major symptom of a system that does things like disenfranchise the vote of anyone convicted of a crime (and then creates an arrest factory for POC and the poor), that has enforced two-party control, that refuses to install run-off elections or even expand the voting times to include weekends, that allows money to control elections.

People have gotten used to all the above (and more) and they are even fine with it their blinders are huge and firmly in place. And people like that work in the party organization and so of course they ignore the impartiality rule in favor of the machine's favorite.

[AgadorSparticus]

11. Nope. It is mind boggling to me to think that there is so much outrage over this.

[Orsino]

12. Not shocking at all.

But this mess does hignlight the Big Lie of an impartial DNC.

Yeah, the Establishment got on board early, and the superdelegates were a lot of little thumbs on the scale. I don't know how to fix this, however. Under current finance and other laws, only big-ass parties can field presidents. Sanders was a very late arrival, and the machine didn't know what to do with him or for him. We've just learned that they weren't inclined to do either.

But it's not a crisis. Fact is, there was room for an out-of-nowhere progressive not only to join, but to make an impact. That's reason to hope.

[DemonGoddess]

17. It's actually not

given that HRC has been a Democrat all her adult life, while Bernie Sanders has been an Independent.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Of course not...