Emails have leaked showing that the inner circle of Democrats in charge of the party were supporting Hillary, and some had discussed how to stop Bernie from getting the nomination. 
It’s true that Hillary spent years cultivating support among Democrats (which is what you’re supposed to do if you’re running for President). All the leaders of the party were in favor of her.
Bernie comes along and decides to run and changes into a Democrat from an independent. The insiders are kind of upset about that (as probably any group would be if someone who was never a member suddenly joined and announced that he wanted to take the group over).
They talked bad about him in private emails and otherwise discussed campaign strategy, because they were worried that if he got the nomination, they would lose in November. (I disagree with their analysis, but you can understand why they think that way.) One staffer even discussed attacking him for being an atheist.
Now, I’ve talked bad about people in private emails, too. Everyone does. Glad no one sees them. Nothing illegal about that.
However, I have seen nothing to say that they “fixed” the primaries as some of the Bernie people are saying. Were they pro-Hillary? Of course. Did they do political stuff to try to get the nomination for her? Yes, this is politics. Politics happens in politics.
Having the people in power support someone you disagree with does not make an election “fixed.”
Further, it doesn’t look like anyone did anything other than talk. There was no attack on Bernie about religion, for instance.
Part of the problem comes from people who don’t really understand politics. I’ve railed against Bernie supporters who don’t know the voting laws (but think they do), who don’t realize that Superdelegates aren’t “illegal”, who don’t comprehend that the way a party chooses its candidate does not have to be open to the public.
Wasserman-Schulz should still resign over this (EDIT: And she did, a few hours after I posted this. I am mighty!) This is not the image the Democrats want. The party leadership should be neutral during primaries. But it’s not illegal. (I’ll bet the RNC emails are even worse, as they really didn’t want Trump to get the nomination.)
I’m willing to look at any evidence that says that something illegal occurred. Haven’t seen it yet.
ventrellaquest.com 
I’m hoping that this ends up a tempest in a teapot. Except for a few (rather loud) holdouts, I think most people are ready to come together now. If nothing else, last week’s spectacle in Cleveland should have helped a lot of people focus on the real enemy. With any luck, this issue will just go away due to lack of interest.
It does speak to a larger question as to what sort of rules people ought to follow regarding e-mail. At Microsoft, I used to tell people, “Before you send that e-mail, imagine that you’re in court and a lawyer is saying, ‘please read the circled portion for the jury.’ If there’s anything there you really wouldn’t want to be reading for them, then don’t send it.” But is that really a reasonable rule for all people sending any e-mail to anyone?
LikeLike
I’m pissed, but I’ll vote for her to stop Trump. But there are going to be a non-trivial percentage that will stay home, vote for the idiot Trump, or throw away their vote to Stein in protest. There are people who cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton. Clinton has not done the hard work to win over the progressive wing. Not being Trump gets most of them. But she needs as many as possible and so far her response has been a finger in the eye and a lot of blowhard attacks that assiduously avoid the underlying issue. She then picked a VP which did nothing to help matters. She then hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her campaign, despite her supposed firing. You can poo poo the people’s feelings and beliefs on the matter, but it won’t change their vote.
LikeLike
“Clinton has not done the hard work to win over the progressive wing.”
ITYM “Clinton has not done the hard work to try and convince the so-called progressive wing (who are ready to throw it all away to Trump – not so progressive after all) that most of the attacks on her are unfounded and that they should actually look at her history as a lawyer and what she’s fought for before politics and right through her political career (which are often some genuinely progressive positions)”.
She has been held to a genuinely higher standard than anyone else during this campaign, she’s expected to maintain her cool despite continuous unfounded attacks, and you wonder why she wants DWS – DWS is an absolutely prolific fund-raiser (which is why she was chairman of the DNC). You may not like Kaine, but I suggest you listen to his introduction speech – it’s pretty remarkable, and espouses many genuinely progressive positions.
LikeLike
How do you know there was no attack on Bernie Sanders over religion? Perhaps they followed Donna Brazille’s advice as heard on the air recently: Pick up the phone. It’s clear the DNC had their fingers on the scale. They contacted journalists and spread stories that bolstered Clinton and denigrated Sanders. They gave talking points to Clinton. They consipired with the media on their stories such as the Politico writer who passed his Bernie-critical stories to the DNC for their approval or feedback BEFORE giving them to his editors. The fact that the DNC is caught talking about smearing Bernie Sanders during the primary is enough to alarm Democrats. You can spackle over the cracks in this wall all you want, but the building is on fire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Media treated Bernie with kid gloves. Hillary took heavy fire. Any suggestion otherwise is laughable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i get the distinct impression, based on your phrasing, that you have a firm belief that we work for the government, and not the other way around. i do not care about the personal feelings of the delegates, superdelegates, or whomever. their job is to represent us based on our votes, and not lord over us with their opinions. the political process *is* highly corrupt, based on not just my statement, but the CONSTITUTION. it is for the people, BY the people, and not for the politicians, by the politicians. your argument is invalid.
LikeLike
If you ever read my blog, you’d find plenty of examples where I have said exactly the same thing about them working for us.
Which has nothing to do with this.
This is a private organization running their own internal process for choosing their candidates. It is NOT a Constitutional election. You DON’T have a constitutional right to demand that they do it the way you want. They don’t have to represent you based on your votes.
I’ve blogged about this many times; please feel free to read so I don’t have just repeat myself here.
LikeLike