Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:01 PM Dec 2015

WTF did Hillary Clinton have to gain from this?

She’s raised more money than Sanders, she’s leading in all of the polls, she has a good sized lead in the Iowa polls, she’s within the MOE in New Hampshire, she has a huge lead in South Carolina, she already HAD institutional support among Democrats, she has a LOT of endorsements, etc, etc, etc.

Why would she need to collude with DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on anything like Datagate? (and, yes, there are hundreds of allegations of collusion between DWS and the DNC and the Clinton campaign on this issue)

Bernie Sanders’ staffers improperly accessed proprietary data of the Clinton campaign.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I believe, overreacted and should really be fired, IMO...but I fail to see why Hillary Clinton would be any kind of participant in Datagate when she had NOTHING to gain from it and everything to lose.

Look, I am aware of many the Clintons' political sins of the past. Bernie’s supporters never fail to remind us of that.That’s not the issue here (and it’s also the reason I don’t support Hillary Clinton at this time but that's not the issue here, either).

When I was a kid, very often I would get caught doing something and I would excuse it by reminding my parents of what my brother had done the day before...or two days before...or two years before.

I assume that you know how my parents responded to that...Because your parents probably responded the same way.

Please read the outstanding article of David Atkins in the Washington Monthly ​on Datagate.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_12/an_explanation_of_what_bernie059035.php

Yes, what 4 Sanders’ campaign staffers did was serious...as were DWS’s actions.

And would any Sanders' supporters be willing to admit that what tht Sanders' campaign did was wrong?

(This is a diary that I modified somewhat from an earlier diary at DK)

83 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WTF did Hillary Clinton have to gain from this? (Original Post) Chitown Kev Dec 2015 OP
they are following the Karl Rove principle... attack your opponents at their strength... Leftyforever Dec 2015 #1
Karl Rove under your bed! NuclearDem Dec 2015 #3
what? where? Leftyforever Dec 2015 #6
Damn it, he's gone. NuclearDem Dec 2015 #19
LOL! Leftyforever Dec 2015 #21
Look, Martin O'Malley fan...lol Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #9
Yep, I think you nailed it. TDale313 Dec 2015 #11
They sure tried. But the stink of DWS is sticking to Hillary Matariki Dec 2015 #45
Hillary did not gain, Sanders downloaded early state primaries information Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #2
There are lots and lots of Sanders supporters here openly and loudly admitting that what his campaig Number23 Dec 2015 #4
Please... Leftyforever Dec 2015 #10
You should read this Number23 Dec 2015 #26
I take issue with the loaded term... "unethically breached" Leftyforever Dec 2015 #30
Yeah, you go with that. Number23 Dec 2015 #33
ok... thanks ... I will... check for the logs and the querie folder names.... eom Leftyforever Dec 2015 #34
We will because of logic. Fawke Em Dec 2015 #57
That's what I called them earlier.. the download truthers. Cha Dec 2015 #22
His campaign? It was 1 staffer who was immediately fired. jfern Dec 2015 #46
So... a staffer is not a member of a campaign? And you think that this is the only person who is Number23 Dec 2015 #47
A campaign is far more than a staffer that they quickly fired jfern Dec 2015 #49
When did Hillary do it? Do you have a link that shows a Hillary Clinton campaign worker Number23 Dec 2015 #53
The lawsuit mentions the prior incident jfern Dec 2015 #55
Please describe the "prior incident." What happened, LuvLoogie Dec 2015 #61
Then you shouldn't have any problem clearly telling me what it is and providing links Number23 Dec 2015 #64
It's referenced in items 23, 32, and 53 of the lawsuit jfern Dec 2015 #66
Let's see... Number23 Dec 2015 #73
Unintentional on whose part? jfern Dec 2015 #77
Sanders OWN DAMN LAWSUIT says it was unintentional Number23 Dec 2015 #78
This thread says it involved Obama campaign data jfern Dec 2015 #67
A thread by some DUer with no links? Number23 Dec 2015 #70
I linked the lawsuit, but it didn't bother to mention which confidential data was accessed jfern Dec 2015 #71
When a thread trying to minimize/excuse a Sanders scandal on Sanders Underground only gets 9 recs Number23 Dec 2015 #74
Okay. Sanders Campaign National Data Director LuvLoogie Dec 2015 #59
Number23, don't take this the wrong way.... MeNMyVolt Dec 2015 #68
Hey.... thanks! Number23 Dec 2015 #75
Nothing to gain, everything to lose. JaneyVee Dec 2015 #5
Not a damn thing other than DonnaM Dec 2015 #7
I'm glad you have a good memory. Ride it back to 2007-2008 Scootaloo Dec 2015 #8
Barack Obama was a much more serious challenger to Clinton Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #18
I'm not sure you got what I was saying. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #27
Attack one of his greatest strenghts. Hepburn Dec 2015 #12
Oh yea, Mr Honesty........not! leftofcool Dec 2015 #31
Or maybe accept that wildeyed Dec 2015 #79
Nothing. Starry Messenger Dec 2015 #13
You might ask what Hillary's advisors have to gain, their interests may not align totally with hers Fumesucker Dec 2015 #14
Clinton is the victim in this. Nt NCTraveler Dec 2015 #15
Nothing.. The BS Team Sabotaged their own campaign and now they're trying to Bluster Cha Dec 2015 #16
You forgot "inherently amoral" arcane1 Dec 2015 #38
My mistake: the correct quote is "hilary is morally depraved" arcane1 Dec 2015 #81
Sanders fan here. What the campaign did was wrong. bigwillq Dec 2015 #17
...and BINGO was his name... Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #23
Thank you for a rational response. Nonhlanhla Dec 2015 #52
Just call it like I see it. bigwillq Dec 2015 #58
I can totally respect that. Nonhlanhla Dec 2015 #62
You have to do what you have to do. bigwillq Dec 2015 #63
This served to make sure the first front-page stories about Bernie were negative Ron Green Dec 2015 #20
Oh, I think that she tries to gain a lot. sadoldgirl Dec 2015 #24
She didn't have to. His staff, their theft, the filing in court, did it for him. Laser102 Dec 2015 #35
I agree, because I don't think HRC is that stupid. DWS, sadly, is. And petty. She needs to go. zazen Dec 2015 #25
As I stated in the OP...and as I've stated many times Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #36
In June, 1972 Nixon led McGovern 53%-37% Jarqui Dec 2015 #28
Yup, Nixon was already going to win in a landslide jfern Dec 2015 #50
Assault Bernie's trustworthiness, be the injured party at the debate, cover her side's culpability senz Dec 2015 #29
What you have seen over the past 48 hours is a preview of the next 4 years if Clinton is elected tularetom Dec 2015 #32
Really? You and other Democratic supporters are going to attack her like you are now? randome Dec 2015 #41
IMO, noone is making this a typical Clinton scandal Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #60
Possibly a 2016 version of "Shame on you Barack Obama"? arcane1 Dec 2015 #37
Because she's quaking in her little boots, of course! randome Dec 2015 #39
She will not go, I predict. And no matter what anyone says that Hillary isn't involved here, libdem4life Dec 2015 #40
Nothing ismnotwasm Dec 2015 #42
Another possibility as to why DWS reacted in the mAnne she did ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #72
This is true ismnotwasm Dec 2015 #83
It's all about Debbie, the vendor and anyone on the Sanders side that abused the opportunity Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #43
Here's what I don't get Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #54
Kick! The BS team stole the data from Hillary's files. Cha Dec 2015 #44
Hillary's campaign might look like they're panicking Califonz Dec 2015 #48
^^ Thread win! n/t winter is coming Dec 2015 #69
By that logic, what do Hillary supporters have to gain by shitting on Sanders people 24-7 on DU? Warren DeMontague Dec 2015 #51
What would she have to gain? Is that a sarcastic question? merrily Dec 2015 #56
Thanks for the link. OilemFirchen Dec 2015 #65
The answer to your OP question is scattered about DU Doctor_J Dec 2015 #76
I'm sorry, that's not an issue here with this OP Chitown Kev Dec 2015 #80
KICK.. poor bernie Cha Dec 2015 #82
 

Leftyforever

(317 posts)
1. they are following the Karl Rove principle... attack your opponents at their strength...
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:05 PM
Dec 2015

to any casual political observer... Bernie has more integrety and is more principled than hrc... so this is now an attempt to undermine Bernie's long history of principled governance....

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
9. Look, Martin O'Malley fan...lol
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:13 PM
Dec 2015

have you had enough popcorn yet, lol?

If I were an O'Malley supporter (and I can still be persuaded on that score), I would be FULL.

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
11. Yep, I think you nailed it.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:14 PM
Dec 2015

And despite the polling, I don't see the Clinton campaign passing up opportunities to attack Sanders or treating him like he's irrelevant. Now, whether that's based on him having a real shot or nervousness/an abundance of caution cause she's been "inevitable" before and seen it slip away I'll leave it to others to decide.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. Hillary did not gain, Sanders downloaded early state primaries information
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:09 PM
Dec 2015

Complied by the Clinton campaign. The question is what did Sanders campaign gain, probably gave a clue to how data is compiled and information. Now Sanders has to face the questions about the breach. Whatever was gained in information will be lost in getting his story out. Shameful decision on the part of a staff worker has damaged Sanders.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
4. There are lots and lots of Sanders supporters here openly and loudly admitting that what his campaig
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:10 PM
Dec 2015

did was wrong, was stupid, corrupt etc. But as post #1 in this thread shows you, there are still a group of people that are determined to see this as Hillary's fault/wrong doing.

Even after you lay out the facts saying that not only would she have had nothing to gain by somehow "making" the Sanders campaign steal her information, she didn't FUCKING NEED TO. She is in such a prominent lead and in such a strong position, there would have been absolutely no benefit whatsoever to her using her mystical powers to make a rival candidate's campaign do something like this.

The whole "it's Hillary's fault" is going down as one of the stupidest, most dishonest bullshit tactics I've ever seen. IMO It's up there with the Obama wasn't born in America crap. It is that stupid and says far more about the people touting it than it ever will about the target.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
26. You should read this
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:21 PM
Dec 2015
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_12/an_explanation_of_what_bernie059035.php

Snip:

This doesn’t mean that Wasserman-Schultz hasn’t, in David Axelrod’s words, been putting her thumb on the scale on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She clearly has been, judging from the intentionally obfuscated debate schedule and from her demeanor and reaction to this recent controversy. The Democratic Party would have been wiser to bring the campaigns together privately and resolve the matter internally. Instead, Wasserman-Schultz chose to take it public to attempt to embarrass the Sanders campaign, and merely managed to embarrass herself and the Party’s data security vulnerabilities in the process.

Still, the Sanders camp’s reactions have been laughable. It was their team that unethically breached Clinton’s data. It was their comms people who spoke falsely about what happened. The Sanders campaign wasn’t honeypotted into doing it—their people did it of their own accord. NGPVAN isn’t set up to benefit Clinton at Sanders’ expense—and if the violation by the campaigns had been reversed, Sanders supporters would have been claiming a conspiracy from sunrise to sundown.
 

Leftyforever

(317 posts)
30. I take issue with the loaded term... "unethically breached"
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:25 PM
Dec 2015

from the logs I have been able to see.. the folders in question were named "not sanders" don't think that leads one to believe they were trying to do anything nefarious.. and to imply so seems to me to be nefarious itself..

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
57. We will because of logic.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:53 PM
Dec 2015

If you were trying to do something nefarious, why would you make the query name obvious?

Logical answer: You wouldn't.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
46. His campaign? It was 1 staffer who was immediately fired.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:40 PM
Dec 2015

Meanwhile, no one ran to the media or punished the Hillary campaign when they did similar things.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
47. So... a staffer is not a member of a campaign? And you think that this is the only person who is
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:41 PM
Dec 2015

going to be punished for this?

I'm thinking there had to be some reason for your reply other than the "Hillary did it too" thing. Which I'd just love a link to, by the way. A link that shows a Hillary staffer inappropriately accessing and downloading information from a rival campaign. I'm sure you've got that all ready to go.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
49. A campaign is far more than a staffer that they quickly fired
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:43 PM
Dec 2015

When Hillary did it, there was no punishment, no running to the media, and probably no one got fired. Quite a double standard.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
53. When did Hillary do it? Do you have a link that shows a Hillary Clinton campaign worker
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:46 PM
Dec 2015

inappropriately accessing and downloading information from a rival campaign? It doesn't even have to be MULTIPLE times like the Sanders' campaign did and I certainly won't ask for video of her campaign rep hollering at the media even though her campaign was the one in the wrong and I most assuredly won't ask for a link where she sued a Democrat org which is probably one of the things that led to the media focus in the first place.

Just a link to a Hillary staffer accessing and downloading info from a rival campaign would be great.

And I won't even get into the desperation that goes into the level of word parsing that you're trying to do in this thread.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
73. Let's see...
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:42 PM
Dec 2015

23 (AWESOME number by the way) -

23) Upon information and belief, a similar security incident arose with the NGP VAN software during the 2008 national presidential primaries, resulting in the unintentional transmission of Confidential Information to the campaign of Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton (the “Prior Incident”)


Do I really need to draw your attention to the word UNINTENTIONAL in that paragraph? Are you going to say that you didn't see that before now??

32) Upon information and belief, no action was taken in response to the Prior Incident in 2008, nor was any candidate’s access to Voter Data suspended as a result of that Incident.


I'm just spitballing here, but do you think it was because -- by the lawsuit's OWN ACCOUNT -- unintentional??

53) Defendant has failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in ensuring that the security breaches that occurred during the Prior Incident, under Defendant’s supervision, would not recur.


So let me get this... because nothing was done to fix an UNINTENTIONAL sharing of info, the Sanders campaign is now saying that makes it perfectly okay for them to jimmy up a couple of 100% INTENTIONAL ones seven fucking years later??! This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
78. Sanders OWN DAMN LAWSUIT says it was unintentional
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:48 PM
Dec 2015

Or are you saying he's now part of the vast Clinton conspiracy against him now???

Number23

(24,544 posts)
74. When a thread trying to minimize/excuse a Sanders scandal on Sanders Underground only gets 9 recs
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:43 PM
Dec 2015

That should give you a very strong sense of how feasible/reasonable/good the minimizing is.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
8. I'm glad you have a good memory. Ride it back to 2007-2008
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:13 PM
Dec 2015

Think about clinton's campaign then. all the shit that was going on. What did she have to gain then? She was in the lead all the way up to Super Tuesday, but still the dirty attacks and cheap shots and all manner of hacky bullshit kept coming. It was actively detrimental to her campaign, but she didn't stop, and even kept it going a little while after the convention!

Why?

because it's not enough to just win. Nah, all opposition - especially potential rivals - must be utterly destroyed. Ruined. Burned to the ground, and the dirt salted. It's the Clinton's style of politicking, they're both famed for nasty scorched-earth campaigns.

There's really nothing to gain in this race. But if your goal is to own a political party, the utter demolition of all potential rivals and competitors, no matter the cost, might be considered a sound strategy.

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
18. Barack Obama was a much more serious challenger to Clinton
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:17 PM
Dec 2015

than Sanders ever has been.

Obama had leads in Iowa as early as July 2007. Obama had basically tied Clinton in SC even before the Iowa caucuses.

Hepburn

(21,054 posts)
12. Attack one of his greatest strenghts.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:15 PM
Dec 2015

Unlike HRC, Sanders is seen as honest and trustworthy. Damage that and maybe Clinton does not look like the totally corrupt political tool that she truly is.

JMHO

wildeyed

(11,240 posts)
79. Or maybe accept that
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:09 PM
Dec 2015

Bernie Sanders is also a politician and plays political games when it suits. You can't win if you don't play. It is like the law of gravity or something. New politicians always think they can ignore the rules and still win. But they never do. They either adapt, or they lose.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
13. Nothing.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:15 PM
Dec 2015

She's been doing great, these accusations of skullduggery from Weaver just show some deep problems in the Sanders camp. Tonight's debates should be interesting.

Cha

(295,971 posts)
16. Nothing.. The BS Team Sabotaged their own campaign and now they're trying to Bluster
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:16 PM
Dec 2015

their way out.

The proof data is critical to a campaign is how devastating the DNC’s punishment was to Bernie’s campaign. Given that, do you understand how the Clinton camp feels knowing their data was accessed by their opposition? If the shoe was on the other foot, the level of hysteria would be outrageous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=922340

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
17. Sanders fan here. What the campaign did was wrong.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:16 PM
Dec 2015

I think those who did wrong should be held accountable. They should face criminal charges, if crimes were committed, and then the campaign needs to move on. Staffers have often made mistakes in past elections. It happens. You take out the trash and move on. The voters will ultimately decide the campaign's fate.

I think the DNC is also accountable for this fiasco. It seems like this situation could have been handled better on their part.

I don't see what Hillary did wrong in this situation. Believe me, I am not a HRC fan, but don't see how her or her campaign are responsible for this situation. Her relationship with DWS has little to do with what the Sanders campaign did, imo.

This situation may have legs for a few days, but I don't believe it will influence or affect the primary or GE. Folks will vote or not vote for Bernie, Hillary or Martin because of other issues.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
52. Thank you for a rational response.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:46 PM
Dec 2015

I think this is the first response by a Bernie supporter I've seen here since yesterday that is rational. I agree with all you said.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
58. Just call it like I see it.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:56 PM
Dec 2015


Still voting for Bernie. I think he has more to offer than this situation.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
62. I can totally respect that.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:00 PM
Dec 2015

This whole thing has actually driven me towards Hillary. I was more or less neutral until now, but I did not like what I saw from the operation Bernie is running. However, I like him a lot.



Ron Green

(9,821 posts)
20. This served to make sure the first front-page stories about Bernie were negative
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:17 PM
Dec 2015

for sound-biters and low-information voters.

I think as the story fleshes out the bigger issues of HRC protection by DWS and DNC will become their own sound bites.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
24. Oh, I think that she tries to gain a lot.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:20 PM
Dec 2015

Will she shout today"Shame on you Bernie, shame on you"!?

Of course, she is trying to undermine the trust people
have in him, in comparison to her. Oh, yes, she might
play the innocent victim tonight, but I doubt that it will
work for her. He can point out among other things, that
he filed the case in court, which no one with a guilty
conscience would do.

zazen

(2,978 posts)
25. I agree, because I don't think HRC is that stupid. DWS, sadly, is. And petty. She needs to go.
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:20 PM
Dec 2015

She's our Katherine Harris, also of Florida. Entitled, smug, petty, & unapologetically biased with no appreciation of the impartiality of the role to which she was elected/ appointed.

She reminds me of Harris' smug behavior in December 2000 when Harris proudly participated in stopping every fair attempt to recount votes in Florida, with that attitude that the Presidency was Bush's (her buddy's) inherent right. Her condescension and entitlement were enraging, as is Debbie's.

I really, really don't want Clinton to win the nomination. However, if she does, I want our party's candidate to be above this kind of pettiness. And I want the leader of our DNC to have the best interests of our nation and party at heart, not the interests of a particular candidate. Diminishing our debates and letting the extremist right control the airwaves like this is shameful.

For Hilary's and everyone's sake, I hope Debbie finally resigns.

I hope we can all agree on that. This is hurting your candidate far more than it's hurting mine. And hurting America.

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
36. As I stated in the OP...and as I've stated many times
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:30 PM
Dec 2015

Hillary Clinton IS NOT my candidate.

Otherwise, I agree with your post...DWS is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top and needs to go.

Jarqui

(10,111 posts)
28. In June, 1972 Nixon led McGovern 53%-37%
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:24 PM
Dec 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1972

On June 17, 1972, burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C.

In Aug, 1974, after a couple of years of trying to cover it up, Nixon resigned.

Nixon was a chronic liar too.

If Hillary could take Bernie out quick, it would save her campaign a bunch of dough and she'd collect more dough for her campaign that would otherwise have gone to Bernie. It might be as simple as a campaign money motive. If you look at the Clintons history, and all the money they've taken in, money does appear to have been a motive for them in the past.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
50. Yup, Nixon was already going to win in a landslide
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:44 PM
Dec 2015

But those candidates who have their own enemy's list tend to take the low road in other aspects.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
29. Assault Bernie's trustworthiness, be the injured party at the debate, cover her side's culpability
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:25 PM
Dec 2015

for starters ...

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
32. What you have seen over the past 48 hours is a preview of the next 4 years if Clinton is elected
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:26 PM
Dec 2015

One slimy Cliinton scandal after the next. Little or no progressive legislation passed or even proposed. Endless congressional investigations culminating in articles of impeachment. Slim chance of surviving impeachment proceedings since a congressional majority is impossible with a no-coattails candidate like Clinton. 50-50 chance that Clinton will not serve out her full term due to removal from office.

Some of this gloomy future may already be cooked into the process. But it might help Clinton gain some badly needed traction with actual Democrats if she disavows Wasserman Schulz right now and in no uncertain terms. Conversely, her failure to do that will convince her doubters that she was in on it from the beginning.

I have no idea what she thought she would gain from this but if she wants to stop the bleeding she needs to toss Wasserman Schulz under the bus right fucking now.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
41. Really? You and other Democratic supporters are going to attack her like you are now?
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:37 PM
Dec 2015

Sounds to me like a threat!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
60. IMO, noone is making this a typical Clinton scandal
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:56 PM
Dec 2015

but Bernie supporters.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign has done nothing wrong in this instance. To extrapolate this into all the other off-the-wall bullshit is unnecessary.

Now the DNC...have at it.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
39. Because she's quaking in her little boots, of course!
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:36 PM
Dec 2015

Fear the Bern!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
40. She will not go, I predict. And no matter what anyone says that Hillary isn't involved here,
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:37 PM
Dec 2015

she is. People aren't going to take kindly to her pals undergoing investigation. Lord, we've been here with the Clintons before. She is supremely stubborn and letting DWS go would seriously reflect a lot more than just her judgment. Plus, she still has to contend with the staff of, what we now know, is a list of her buddies. And I'm going to make a wild guess that if HRC did fire her, she could scorch the earth with her own information.

I saw a more complete list of the officers of this IT place...and it's more than just the top people.

And as to that last sentence, it doesn't deserve an answer...where have you been?

ismnotwasm

(41,922 posts)
42. Nothing
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:37 PM
Dec 2015

It's all a conspiracy theory driven deflection. Sanders staffers fucked up. To what extent? Not sure. Some analysis indicate it's fairly serious, which is apparently is what led DWS to react-or overreact if you prefer the way she did. My guess is it was seriously stupid, but not criminal. I could, of course, be wrong.
(BTW, referring to another situation, calling a woman the "C" word does NOT up ones feminist cred)

Then the Sanders campaign and on-line supporters got into it and made the whole thing worse with even more conspiracy theories, blaming Hillary because reasons and generally looked a fool.

I expect the situation to be over by Monday, and I expect both candidates to conduct themselves with decorum tonight.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
72. Another possibility as to why DWS reacted in the mAnne she did ...
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:38 PM
Dec 2015

She was reacting to what she saw as being bullied.

From what I've read, she called the Bernie campaign about cooperating regarding the breach and that was when things blew up.

Is it possible, she called and they told her to F-off and she lost it, as the DNC head.

Pissing matches, that get out of control are not unknown in the political world.

ismnotwasm

(41,922 posts)
83. This is true
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:49 PM
Dec 2015

Sanders' on the ground campaign has had a number of issues with organizational procedure in general, so who knows?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
43. It's all about Debbie, the vendor and anyone on the Sanders side that abused the opportunity
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:38 PM
Dec 2015

created by this vendor who is at best fully incompetent. Sanders instantly fired the responsible party on his side, which is what should have happened to these vendors, who instead are collecting more fees from the DNC, which claims to be broke, for not delivering important services promised. Party data not being secured is a big, big issue. VAN and DWS did that, not Sanders and not even the man who looked at files. Who else looked? What other back doors and flimsy firewalls are they employing?
And Debbie, she went to the press. She did not follow the contractually agreed process. She needs to be fired or just step down.
I am not comfortable with bogus data security in a world with Republicans in it.

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
54. Here's what I don't get
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:47 PM
Dec 2015

Apparently, uploading the code (and it was the uploading of the code that exposed the data) is a 40 minutes-hour process.

Why not notify the campaigns that the voter database will be closed "for maintenance" for that length of time.

I assume that the campaigns have other limited databases/files of their own creation with which they can work with for ~an hour why the new code is being uploaded.

As people have noted, this happened in 2008...but neither Obama nor Dean went all "drama queen" about it and went to the press...and it really wasn't to Hillary's advantage for DWS to that.

If I were Hillary Clinton, I don't think that I would hesitate to throw DWS "under the bus" for these histrionics.

 

Califonz

(465 posts)
48. Hillary's campaign might look like they're panicking
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:42 PM
Dec 2015

and act like they're panicking but don't let that fool you. They really are panicking.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
51. By that logic, what do Hillary supporters have to gain by shitting on Sanders people 24-7 on DU?
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:45 PM
Dec 2015

I mean, she's got it in the bag, right?

But for the past 5 months Sanders amd his supporters have had a neverending stream of inane, lowest valence rhetorical ad hominem turds flung at our heads. Why?

It's certainly not contributing to party unity and victory next November.

But someone must think they're accomplishing something productive.

Derp.

Edited to add: i agree DWS is a clusterfuck and needs to go.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
76. The answer to your OP question is scattered about DU
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:46 PM
Dec 2015

It takes attention away from the fact Hillary is a pro-war, anti-healthcare, anti-minimum wage, pro-wall street, pro-TPP, pro-XL, corporatist republican.

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
80. I'm sorry, that's not an issue here with this OP
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:16 PM
Dec 2015

I have my own reasons for not supporting HRC at this time.

Many Sanders supporters think that Hillary was the one ultimately behind THIS incident right here.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WTF did Hillary Clinton h...