Please rec if you are ready to move on from the wikileaks story

[KMOD]

and to start getting pumped about our Democratic Convention.

An apology has been issued. Let's move on.

"I deeply regret that my insensitive, emotional emails would cause embarrassment to the DNC, the chairwoman, and all of the staffers who worked hard to make the primary a fair and open process," Marshall said. "The comments expressed do not reflect my beliefs nor do they reflect the beliefs of the DNC and its employees. I apologize to those I offended."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/top-dnc-official-apologizes-insensitive-email-after-leak-n615606

[misterhighwasted]

1. Nice apology. Appropriate. The Primary is over.

Thanks.

[liberal N proud]

2. Yesterday

It is a non story to begin with.

[humbled_opinion]

87. Non story ?

It plays right into Trumps claim that the system if rigged to support specific entrenched interests... I for one have always been against that, why would anyone be for that?

[BlueCaliDem]

3. K&R! Let's not forget that the DNC and DWS preferred Hillary in 2008 - and Obama won. Why?

BECAUSE OF VOTERS. That's all that matters. WE the voters matter, and as a democracy, the candidate with the majority of vote wins. It really is that simple.

Let's not let Putin divide this country and allow the Dumb-Don to win by default.

[AgadorSparticus]

7. That's EXACTLY right! It is about the voters. People are still looking for a scapegoat

[sheshe2]

8. Yup!

[Motown_Johnny]

19. The debate schedule matters

Any influence the DNC exerted on the Super delegates matters.

The corruption matters.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. Naw. With all the FREE publicity Sanders got, the debate schedule lost its importance. I know it's

hard for Sanders followers to accept, but fact remains that PoC, the true base of the Democratic Party, preferred Hillary Clinton because she was just the better candidate. Bernie was good, don't get me wrong. He exceeded everyone's expectations and he ran an amazing campaign, but there was just too much angry for Dems to support despite the skewed balance of coverage he got compared to Hillary Clinton.

Nothing but VOTERS matter. And VOTERS overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton. End of story.

Now let's stop trying to fight the last primary - which is against the new DU ToS rules, btw - and do as Bernie asks of us and make sure Trump doesn't get anywhere near the White House.

[center][font color="blue" size="14" face="face"]STRONGER TOGETHER[/font][/center]
[center][/center]

[Motown_Johnny]

77. If she were the better candidate

then why was there a need to break the rules?

I reject the premise of your argument completely.

[BlueCaliDem]

106. She WAS the better candidate. She WON. Period. Move on already.

[Different Drummer]

177. I agree w/Motown_Johnny. n/t

[appalachiablue]

67. All OK now officially..

[Snotcicles]

31. "Let's not forget that the DNC and DWS preferred Hillary in 2008 - and Obama won"

And they weren't going to let something like that happen again.
Besides Howard Dean was chair of the DNC then.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. It doesn't matter who was at the head of the DNC. Fact remains, the DNC overwhelmingly preferred

Hillary Clinton - and yet Obama won. Those are the facts...if they mean anything to you.

[Snotcicles]

41. I kind of funny about fairness. I

even prefer playing euchre with people who actually shuffle the cards whens it's their turn to deal.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. I kind of funny about people who attempt to skirt Rules on this site in order to

continue to try to divide Democrats - which can only benefit Trump/Pence - by trying to fight the last primary under the guise of "fairness". I guess that fairness doesn't extend to following the rules they, themselves, signed up for...just for everybody else, right, Snotcicles?

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Oooh...so mature.

[Snotcicles]

54. The threat of getting banned for here carries no weight with me whatsoever. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Who threatened that?

[Snotcicles]

60. LOL." kind of funny about people who attempt to skirt Rules on this site in order to continue to

try to divide Democrats" kind of passive aggressive don't ya think?

[BlueCaliDem]

64. Whatever you want to call it, it was NO threat. But I'm certain you know that. Btw? It was a

statement of fact. You only perceive it to be a threat, and I wonder why that is.

[uhnope]

144. so they cheated, manipulated and fudged on "impartiality" in 2008 but failed.

That makes it okay when they do it in 2016 and succeed.

[BlueCaliDem]

148. Oh give it a rest already with the conspiracy theorizing. Unless and until you've got proof

that this had, indeed, happened, it's all tinfoil-hattery - and that should be beneath you. There was NO cheating, NO manipulation, and NO fudging on anything at the DNC, let alone the impartiality rule. Stop letting the Russian government manipulate you because that's exactly what you're doing now.

[uhnope]

149. wait what? Have you read any of the emails that show impartiality was compromised?

or is this a case of fingers-in-ears, la-la-la?

I am the opposite of a conspiracy theorist, so maybe stop the personal attacks and start addressing facts

[BlueCaliDem]

151. Wait, what? Do you have proof that anything mentioned in e-mails between two staffers ever came to

fruition that compromised the impartiality rule? No. And that's a fact. Anything other than that is, YES, conspiracy-theorizing on your part. That's not a personal attack. That's what we call stating incontrovertible fact.

Stop being Putin's puppet, take off the , and stop trying to sow disunity among Democrats on a Democratic Party supporting website. Plenty of other sites to go to and pontificate anti-Democratic Party rhetoric, friend.

[uhnope]

153. you're totally wrong. The emails show the DNC discussing how to sabotage Sander's campaign.

That, in itself, is a basic violation of the impartiality rule and there's no two ways about it; it doesn't need "fruition."

If you think it's a "incontrovertible fact" that this sentence above is "conspiracy theorizing", then you really don't know what a fact is. I am not saying that to be unkind.

People who know my posting history re Russia and CTs would be LOLing at you calling me "Putin's puppet" and a conspiracy theorist. Wow.

Your basic argument is that we shouldn't talk about this because it could hurt Clinton. Sorry, but trying to stifle discussion is not too popular among progressives and anyone who believes in the basics of democracy, so good luck with that...

[BlueCaliDem]

159. Now you're really grasping. Sabotage?? Bwaaaaahahahahahaha! Words in electronic letters between a

couple of staffers at the DNC that never came to fruition is now sabotage in your view?? So, people shouldn't have an opinion of one candidate over the other? They should all have blank-brains. What universe do you live in?

The incontrovertible fact is and remains, the impartiality rule was never broken in deed. There was no "cheating, manipulation, or fudging" at the DNC as you try to assert. That's the conspiracy part of your posts. Understand now?

Opinions were shared and then slapped down. Nothing was done at the DNC that skewed anything in favor of Hillary Clinton. To believe otherwise is the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

People who know my posting history re Russia and CTs would be LOLing at you calling me "Putin's puppet" and a conspiracy theorist. Wow.

Maybe. But your posts in this subthread are full of hyperbole, giving in to sowing disunity among Democrats at a time when we need to unite against a common enemy, and this discord and disunity is exactly the reason for this Putin-backed hacking and then information-dump by Wikileaks. Your criticism as a progressive and (maybe) a Democrat should be more fact, less conjecture, and taking the source of any given issue into account. Wikileaks is NO friend to the U.S. or to Americans - and just as a refresher, neither is Putin who is behind this non-scandal. He's manipulating you and you're falling for it.

My "basic argument", as you call it, is simply this: look at the facts and the outcome. I know it's hard for people who didn't get their way and came up short in any contest to try and be impartial, but you owe it to yourself to at least TRY.

Sorry, but trying to stifle discussion is not too popular among progressives

Sorry. No stifling of discussion is happening here. Killing conspiracy theories and fact-free gossip where I see them especially when these CTs and gossip are detrimental to electing our nominee? Yes. Stifling honest discussion? Never.

[uhnope]

163. I always thought "Bwahaha" was a RW thing

and you're acting like one: Get in line, do as the party says, think as the party thinks, kneel down before the machine, don't question, and derisively mock anyone who disagrees.

though I can't tell if you're actively lying or really believe the falsehoods you posted. Have you not read a single article about the DNC emails? If you had, you could never write this:

So, people shouldn't have an opinion of one candidate over the other?

Um, the emails are not simple exchanges of opinions. The emails are suggestions of how to discredit the Sanders campaign. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't intentionally lying and that you are just ignorant, but you're also just making stuff up to support your POV. I suggest you at least educate yourself about what you are attempting to clamp down on; that there was anti-Sanders bias at DNC, in violation of the impartiality rule, actually is a fact, not "conspiracy theorizing", and so yes, you are advocating the stifling of discussion. In fact you keep doing it every time you try to label it CT (and I have fought against CT BS on DU forever).

Sorry but as you can see from the discussion on DU, most progressives don't agree with your suggestion to shut up about this.

If "fruition" is your standard--not the (actually) incontrovertible fact that the emails show lack of impartiality and an anti-Sanders bias at the DNC--then I guess you'd welcome a full investigation of the matter, to find out how much fruition actually happened, right?

btw

here’s Sunday’s output at Little Green Footballs, the go-to site for fascists of the extra-annoying “bwahaha, it’s the liberals who are the real fascists” variety.

[BlueCaliDem]

166. And you thought wrong (no surprise there!). To make matters worse, you accuse ME

of acting like a RWer when you're the one who's supporting this non-scandal against Democrats. Even you can see how proud Republicans would be of you.

I don't post falsehoods. That's your area of expertise. I don't use hyperbole. That's your forte. I have actually read up on the internal and hacked DNC e-mails, and I didn't instantly go ,but actually did my research, as you can read here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8044567

But then again, I AM a Democrat, and I don't take the first negative attack on a Democratic politician as truth just because I have a personal vendetta against said Democrat.

Um, the emails are not simple exchanges of opinions. The emails are suggestions

BOTTOM LINE: none of the opinions and/or suggestions materialized. PERIOD. None of it disenfranchised Sanders and caused his huge loss. Voters caused it. Voters just didn't want him. Accept it and stop trying to refight the primaries. The vast majority of Democratic voters made their choice. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee, and she won fair and square and by ALL metrics. Those are the facts even though they still appear too painful for you to accept. I'm sorry about that, but life goes on.

[uhnope]

167. oh, the Sanders-lost-so-none-of-this-matters argument

yeah, keep going with that if you want.

You claim you know all about the content of the emails--which showed the DNC seeking to discredit the Sanders campaign and even get someone to publicly ask about "atheism" against the campaign--all in clear violation of the DNC's impartiality rule. Then that means you really were lying when you claimed they were just about people's personal opinions and that's all. Do you understand that while it might make you feel good to lie and dissemble in order to defend your POV, you lose any rational people in the process?

Nothing to see here folks, move along (or "move on" in this case)...
yeah, keep going with that if you want.

Here, a parting gift

[BlueCaliDem]

170. Move on, uhnope. You lost. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

I no longer have any intention of engaging you in your conspiracy theories of myopic proportions.

Buh-bye.

[uhnope]

171. I've confronted many Putin shills & CTers on DU & you act & argue just like them. n/t

[spooky3]

50. Howard Dean was the DNC chair in 2008. I don't

Recall that the DNC showed any preference then.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. I never said he wasn't. And I don't recall that the DNC showed any preference then

because Wikileaks didn't hack the e-mails back then, did they?

Fact remains - and it's the core of my argument - that despite the preference by the Democratic Party and the DNC for Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama - the outsider - won anyway. He was who we wanted, as in WE the voters. The voters have spoken. The voters chose. Just as we've done this time.

Time to either unite or move on to another Party more to these so-called critics' liking.

[spooky3]

59. I think it's important to be precise about the facts. A

Key fact here (to me at least) is that there is no evidence in the hacked emails that suggested that DNC actually did anything that gave either Sanders or Clinton an unfair advantage of any significance.

So I'm in the camp of "let's move on."

I also think authorities need to pursue an investigation of the hacker(s) and prosecute if they have the evidence.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. "So I'm in the camp of "let's move on." " I'm right there with you - and agree with your arguments

that we need to pursue an in-depth investigation of the hackers and prosecute to the fullest extent of national and international laws. Wikileaks has become a beneficial tool for Putin, and he's using them and our M$M to attack Hillary Clinton in favor of DumbTrump because why didn't they hack the RNC? Why only the DNC? Reporters who still deserve that title, should ask those questions.

[KPN]

91. OMG! eom

[Blue State Bandit]

114. I have just one question...

how does a convicted election fraudster, Michael Vu of Sequoia/Dominion Election Systems become the county registrar of San Diego in the most liberal (in raw votes) states in this country... counting votes? And just so we are clear. I have been a Democrat since 1988. I did not leave the party, they kicked me out, and continue to ask me for money.

[BlueCaliDem]

119. And it will be needed to be answered by somebody else.

I did not leave the party, they kicked me out, and continue to ask me for money.

Yeah. Okay. Sure.

[Surya Gayatri]

125. Inconvenient truths:

Fact remains - and it's the core of my argument - that despite the preference by the Democratic Party and the DNC for Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama - the outsider - won anyway.
...

Time to either unite or move on to another Party more to these so-called critics' liking.

[Urchin]

71. We, the People, Are Cheated Too

It's not just Bernie who was cheated--we citizens have been denied our right to freely choose who will lead us and where.

How can anyone think this is OK?

[leftofcool]

134. What? Someone tied you up so you couldn't vote?

Bernie lost, get over it!

[DeeDeeNY]

135. Yes

The playing field can't be rigged.

[Urchin]

168. Everywhere these days

it seems those who cheat get rewarded by the very people they cheated.

[Cobalt Violet]

4. no I wont.

It's not all out yet and those who did wrong need to be held accountable.

[renate]

15. I agree. Party unity doesn't mean sweeping BS under the rug

I don't, myself anyway, hold Hillary responsible for DWS's behavior in anyway, but Debbie needs to be gone. She's a distraction at best during a week that should be all about the nominee. Just like a teacher should be fired who gives As to her favorite students regardless of their performance, she was not doing her job correctly.

Hillary, IMHO, wasn't responsible for DWS's behavior. But if the convention is going to be about Hillary and the Democratic platform, DWS needs to be seen to be held responsible for this mess. She should resign now and end this conversation.

[Jim Beard]

22. You are absolutely right, we can continue and support our candidates but some

party administrators need to be removed and whatever else can be done.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. And you know this how? Gut feeling? Dislike of Hillary because of 25 yrs of Republican

gossip that made her "untrustworthy" in the eyes of some Americans? What is your source?

[The Wizard]

131. My guess uis Hillary advised DWS

to not mention a word of her chicanery to Hillary to allow for plausible deniability. Do what you have to do, just don't tell me about it.

[SticksnStones]

145. So your gut tells you

To make up something derogatory about the democratic nominee for president on a site that specifically is for supporting the election of democrats.

Your gut?

[Gene Debs]

23. +1,000

[KittyWampus]

27. Does that include Sanders? Need I list the many infractions and illegalities of his campaign?

The point is the primary is over.

[BlueCaliDem]

40. They just won't let it go. eom

[erronis]

66. +1 - I would have preferred to downvote the "Please rec if you are ready to move on"

This platform (DU) is showing its faults/schisms and also its favoritism. I used to come here several times a day - now once a week and usually leave in a hurry.

"Democratic" should mean that we want to help the party move forward. Not just an annointed candidate or an apparatus. But the PARTY - to become better than another back-room deal maker (ala Tamany Hall, etc.)

[hrmjustin]

5. Yes it is time to move on.

[Cooley Hurd]

6. I want the Democratic Party to rid itself of the horrible, NON-Democratic people who caused this.

I started my run as a child who stuffed envelopes for Senator George McGovern in 1972. And worked for President Carter (x2), Vice-President Mondale, Governor Dukakis, President Clinton (x2). Vice-President Gore, Secretary Kerry and President Obama (x2) and every Democrat in between. I am doing this now for Secretary Clinton.

I have never voted for any candidate ever of any other party.

And DWS needs to resign now!

[newthinking]

16. This!

[Jim Beard]

28. I feel the same way. I started voting straight Democratic earlier but I didn't have the opportunity

to stuff envelopes. You are 100% right!

[DURHAM D]

9. The media needs to get back to calling

the anarchists and libertarians "the Democratic base".

That is way more fun.

[eShirl]

10. it's a substory to the Russia Owns Trump story

nothing more

[retrowire]

11. We should be tired of "moving on" imho. nt

[Squinch]

99. Didn't you just write that Hillary should fuck herself and you will never vote for her?

Why are you here if that's how you feel?

[retrowire]

107. minds can be changed

That's why I'm still here. My mind in particular.

[Squinch]

108. So you didn't mean it when you said you WERE voting for her, and now you are saying you didn't

mean it when you said you WEREN'T voting for her.

How very tiresome.

[retrowire]

109. lol

I meant it then. Then that decision was made more difficult by recent events.

Your lack of understanding the human mind's ability to make decisions is tiresome.

I'm here for information. I'm not discrediting Clinton here, that's against the TOS which I am following.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to report. I'm sowing no dissent by actually being fucking concerned about a potential Trump presidency.

[Squinch]

110. And before you said you WERE voting for her, didn't you also say then that you weren't voting

for her?

So you weren't, then you were, then you weren't.

And with this latest "weren't," you felt the need to say "Fuck you Hillary," and then accuse her of cheating. But you might change your mind again and vote for her.

I don't think what we are dealing with here is the "human mind's ability to make decisions."

[MohRokTah]

12. Yep, we ended the primary fights long ago.

It's time for the usual suspects to stop fighting the last Democratic Primary.

[leftstreet]

13. What story? What happened?

[R B Garr]

14. I think it's that Bernie smeared a few Democrats nonstop and some people

noticed. That's about it.

[WIProgressive88]

20. What are you talking about?

Despite all the bickering that occurred on forums like this, BOTH candidates ran a civil, issue-based campaign that we can all be proud of. Much cleaner than the Obama-Clinton battle of '08 and far, far better than the mess that happened over on the GOP's side this year. I cannot understand why you and a few others continue to make these senseless little digs at Sen. Sanders. It reeks of being sore winners. Your candidate won. Congratulations--she ran a great campaign in the primary. Now let's focus on making sure she gets to the White House instead of re-fighting the primaries.

[R B Garr]

92. Sorry, mostly disagree. It was more civil and issue-based compared to the GOP side,

but it was unnecessarily divisive on many levels, including many of the personal insults here just for responding to a current story that is being spammed here. I'll just leave it at that and agree that uniting behind Clinton at the Convention tomorrow is the first step to getting to the White House. Can't wait for the convention to start! Yes, let's focus on that and not these unnecessary duplicate email stories that are being posted here today.

Thank you for your input.

[WIProgressive88]

100. Oh I wouldn't argue that there was plenty of unnecessary divisiveness, I just think that it was

supporters of the two candidates, rather than the candidates themselves, who were responsible for most of it. I think that, aside from a few missteps, our candidates both ran honorable, reality-based campaigns and I feel proud of both of them.

Can't wait for the convention to start either!

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Unrec

Corruption matters.

The apology is meaningless.

[emulatorloo]

30. Catty emails about how irritating Jeff Weaver can be = office gossip.

Office gossip is petty, but hard to extrapolate from there to "corruption"

But yeah, DWS is terrible as a DNC chair. We could do much better

[Motown_Johnny]

76. Conspiring to help Hillary was corrupt.

They were supposed to be completely neutral but clearly were not.

How is that not corrupt?

[emulatorloo]

84. if one reads the emails minus the Assange spin, there's no evidence of "conspiracy"

You'll be hard pressed to find actually evidence of a conspiracy and Certainly no evidence that anything was actually done to harm SBS campaign.

Don't get me wrong, DWS disgusts me. I'm happy as hell to see her humiliated, and glad she's been kicked out of the convention.

However what I've read shows Irritation at Weaver, sure. Catty comments. Otoh Plenty of emails helping out Sanders campaign submit documents they needed to submit.

Some analysis of Assange's misleading spin:

"Shills and Scandals: The misleading #DNCLeaks, tweet by tweet."
http://www.amalanetwork.com/2016/07/23/shills-and-scandals-the-misleading-dncleaks-tweet-by-tweet/

"The leak was announced with a series of tweets—some containing screenshots of text from emails—and links to said emails on their website. Several of these tweets are framed in a compromising way against the DNC and those involved, but examination of their source shows Wikileaks is being a little bit misleading with the public; some tweets make assumptions regarding the information of the emails that don’t really hold up under scrutiny, while others seem to omit important information at odds with Wikileaks’ presentation.

We’ll be looking at ten tweets from #DNCLeaks, comparing the information to the framing used by Wikileaks."

More at link.

[bettyellen]

113. Great link! Thanks!

[uhnope]

154. not all of us are reading the Wikileaks Tweets and so they don't affect our conclusion that

the DNC's impartiality rule was compromised in favor of Clinton and against Sanders.

I am a detractor of Assange and Wikileaks' SOP, but these emails speak for themselves

[joeybee12]

104. Got proof of a conspiracy? nt

[uponit7771]

132. nope, they don't.. bout the tenth post I've read asking for proof where none is given

[joeybee12]

136. They need to go to free republic or jackine lunatics

Baseless accusations and hate are SOP there

[harun]

156. +1

[Lifelong Protester]

18. Maybe if they just let DWS go.

Maybe she (DWS) will resign and put the party first.


I want us to move on.

[obamanut2012]

21. Yup, that's what Putin wants liberals to do -- argue

And forget the GE and Trump winning.

DWS ill lose her DNC position this, and has lost her De,Con role, so I agree.

Great post!

[Dream Girl]

25. This such and obvious manipulation..don't take the bait

Ask yourself who benefits?

[LWolf]

26. Er...

wikileaks or not, it's been awhile since I was going to be "pumped" about the Democratic Convention.

Interested? Somewhat. Paying attention, yes. Pumped? Doubtful. Skeptical? Probably.

disclaimer: I'm a Democrat.

[rjsquirrel]

29. Couldn't care leas

And if anyone thinks politics used to be different (as in better) all I can say is lol. The DNC didn't change the outcome. Hillary won by millions of votes.

[WhiteHat]

32. I'll be ready to move on when the will of the people is satisfied.

An apology doesn't solve the problem.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is the nominee, and it's important to defeat fascism. But problems remain.

[avaistheone1]

52. Yes the problems are serious and I think there are more where these came from.

Where there is smoke there is fire. I also am hearing some noise that the DNC was
unfairly and secretly directly funds beyond what should have been allotted to the Clinton campaign...

[avaistheone1]

57. Sorry this is too important to ignore. It is about who Democrats are and how we do business.

Instead of worrying about the Russians let's stop acting like Putin ourselves.

Let the sunshine in and disinfect the DNC now!

[LW1977]

33. K&R

[mjvpi]

35. The manipulation of the press is the story here.

I remember when the press ran with this. The press didn't research this story, they ran with it. A good reporter and we wouldn't need Wikileaks. The progressive wing of the Demacratic party is large and includes most Hillary supporters. What this leak shows is how a the pressure needs to be kept on the people who have comfortable, powerful jobs in the party infrastructure, to embrace a paradigm shift in the party. The guard must change.

[CBHagman]

36. We can't afford to be distracted by quarrels and resentments; the consequences are too grim.

And future generations are going to care a lot about what we do with the Supreme Court. Do we want the Citizens United decision to be the model going forward?

[MisterP]

97. yeah, the candidate who ran on CU money is gonna give that up

right after she ends the TPP and busts Wall Street's chops

[CBGLuthier]

38. you have a large enough rug to sweep this under?

Somehow I think if the bias ran the other way people here would be asking for their heads.

[raindaddy]

53. There's dust and there's permanent stains..

Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the governing body of the Democratic party working to undermine the presidential bid of Bernie Sanders.. Is a permanent stain that isn't going away for a while...

[erronis]

68. Agree. The new voters aren't your parent's Democrats.

The new voters are in the 18-30 block and they are very cynical about machinations used to obtain votes and nominations. They know about media biases and empty words spouted from left/right, conservative religious maniacs to Gaea-embracing groups. They know that lies are the order of the "establishment".

If you want to get these new voters on board with your beliefs, then you need to clean the crap out of the establishment organizations and media. You need to be honest, transparent, up-front, willing to talk new ideas that challenge your own. You really never want to be shown in a venue that restricts access via such obvious tokens as wealth and fame (part of the same), party-affiliation (super-delegates), or obvious affiliation with an extremist group such as the RNC or DNC (and of course the DLC.)

[raindaddy]

73. So well stated ^^^^^^^^

As the Democratic party continues to lose members, they're alienating the young voters. If they continue down the same road they've taken for the last thirty years they'll follow the Republicans off the cliff of relevancy...

[ismnotwasm]

42. I was ready yesterday

I've been reading the emails--not just the handful posted and bruited about by the media. Let's just say they paint a different picture of DNC impartiality. To pick out a handful of 20,000 is very asshole, however, the one email that gives me concern is the one questioning religion. The apology was one that should have been made and it was.

[George II]

43. I was ready to move move on seconds after I saw this was from "wikileaks".

[ismnotwasm]

44. +1

Oh hell yes.

[DawgHouse]

46. +1

[NastyRiffraff]

89. You said it! +1,000

[R B Garr]

147. Bingo. And the one little email about religion is what any political science

class talks about. Much ado about nothing.

[harun]

157. What is that suppose to mean?

Do you not think whistle blowers have a role?

[George II]

160. Foreign operatives are not "whistle blowers".

[yurbud]

48. "These aren't the droids we're looking for...move along..."

[Bad Thoughts]

51. Censure, Fire and Move On.

We don't have to go back to the primaries, but we must discipline wrong-doers.

[Warpy]

58. I'll move on when Marshall gets fired

and goes back to the Atwater Memorial Division of the Republican Party.

"Oops, I got caught. I'm sorry now" doesn't cut it. Some people need to get canned.

[KPN]

61. Apologies are insufficient. Of course he regrets his actions ...

he got caught! Untrustworthy, unethical, unintelligent. It's time Brad Marshall's ass got booted out the door. Anything less is meaningless given the act.

[kestrel91316]

62. Now that DWS is gone it's time to move on.

[bobthedrummer]

69. I'm not moving on until you stop calling it "the wikileaks" story as per the New Democrats orders.

[ismnotwasm]

74. Wikileaks *is* involved

Wouldn't you say?

[bobthedrummer]

81. Reddit is more nuanced

https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks

[PoliticalMalcontent]

70. Wikileaks may be owned by a piece of shit with poor ethics.

But new information is new information and should be viewed as part of the equation instead of blindly swept aside, in my opinion.

I'm pro-transparency, every time.

I also don't believe apologies cut it when the actions of a few may have swayed the 'pre-election'. It seems like a lot of people who want to just ignore these emails (I.E. new information) are the same people who got their way (I.E. candidate).

I'm trying hard not to be a hypocrite, but the entire world seems to work with amazing shades of hypocrisy. I think we could do better. Not being ignorant to facts is a good starting point.

[ismnotwasm]

78. It's still a handful of emails out of tens of thousands

And not an impressive handful weather when you read them in context. I hate being manipulated by shock headlines

[PoliticalMalcontent]

85. Were those few emails doctored?

Were they untruthful?

I don't think the entire email drop was specifically about the campaigns, but more the inner workings of the DNC. In my mind the DNC clearly has some things they need to fix sooner rather than later. Had those emails never seen the light of day the world would have kept moving forward without change. Sometimes facts seeing the light of day, even through nefarious means, can be a positive thing.

That's why those emails were important (to me at least).

[Ccarmona]

72. Not Shocked At All By This Story

It was apparent from last Summer the DWS and the DNC were doing all they could to stack the deck against Sen Sanders. It's too bad that they couldn't stay impartial, and lied about that very thing. But the primaries are done and we must vote for HRC. She's fortunate that the Radical Right won on that side and the choice of who to vote for this November isn't in doubt.

[harun]

158. I am shocked at how many people here think this wasn't going on.

It was pretty obvious.

[grahamhgreen]

75. No. We can all agree this conduct must be prevented IN THE FUTURE.

[realmirage]

79. The whining and concern trolling needs to fuck off

[pkdu]

83. Yep...and pronto. nt

[PoliticalMalcontent]

86. Thanks for your graciousness and understanding. :)

[SHRED]

80. How is DWS still head of the DNC?

[Stryst]

90. She's not!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-replace-debbie-wasserman-shultz-with-clintons_us_576318bae4b034ff3eef265a

[aikoaiko]

82. Move on? We just found out about this and it is still being revealed.

And whether or not this email revelation occurred I don't think I'd be getting pumped about this convention.

I'm voting for the Democratic party nominee. I'm not fan or cheerleader.

[Fla Dem]

88. A few snarky comments like we've all made in our professional and personal lives when

someone new comes into your group and tell you how to run it, or what you're doing wrong. Much ado.

[Rex]

96. It is a two week news cycle, like every other story year after year.

It will be gone and forgotten, we all know this. Much ado indeed.

[zentrum]

93. It would be such a class act

…..if all Democrats who so insulted Sanders and Sander's supporters during the primary, who said there's something wrong at the DNC---- would just apologize.

Donna Brazile did just that. Wish all Democrats had similar instincts.

Also, BTW, whistle blowing matters.

[randr]

94. I have always been ready for the convention

The nomination of Hillary and the development of the most progressive Democrat slate in history will not be denied.
It is a good thing that we can bury the hatchets and do a little house cleaning over at the DNC while we are at it.

[Scuba]

95. Please promise it won't get worse.

[dembotoz]

98. nope

[TalkingDog]

101. In related news: Humans Now Have Shorter Attention Spans Than Goldfish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/humans-have-shorter-attention-span-than-goldfish-thanks-to-smart/

[Squinch]

102. You mean the wikileaks that Putin commissioned to help Trump? Those wikileaks?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

122. I'll pay good money to see your proof. You don't have any.

I'm challenging the veracity of your claim.

[warrprayer]

103. What if I am not ready to move on

Before all the facts come to light?

Is there a button to press for that?

[Yo_Mama]

105. If you let it get talked out now it will disappear shortly. If you try to suppress it,

you are going to perpetuate the story.

Human nature doesn't work the way you want it to work.

I am also not sure that on a progressive discussion board this shouldn't be talked all the way through. Party leadership/principles are important. Those who care about them are likely to be the most committed Dem supporters. Attempting to treat them as trolls won't do much for the party.

[calimary]

111. Definitely recommended, KMOD. It's the timing that bothers me most.

Something REALLY smells fishy about this.

[PoutrageFatigue]

112. Nope. This needs to be properly investigated and ALL of the ratfuckers....

...exposed and fired.

Sweeping this under the rug is the worst thing the DNC could do.

[L. Coyote]

115. Would you have moved on from Watergate after a few days?

[wwwmovetoamend]

116. Not so fast

Mr trump is going to use this against the Dems ... we need to clean house first, then and only then do we move on

[Arugula Latte]

117. Aaaaand this thread illustrates how low DU has fallen recently.

Corruption and rightwing behavior are excused if someone has a D by her name. Absolutely disgusting.

[Rex]

120. I dunno about that, DU seems to like this thread too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8042938

[m-lekktor]

123. exactly.nt

[uponit7771]

133. Or bullshit anecdotal statements taken as fact and 2143 ops based off of it. good try though

[DisgustipatedinCA]

181. What bullshit do you refer to? The poster's assertion is factual.

Facts don't give a single fuck about whose side someone is on.

[uponit7771]

182. Fact not in dispute: There was no show of operational bias shown by the DNC before the lock up of

... the 16 dnc primary.

NO one has shown ANYTHING that's outlines a concerted effort by the DNC to bias the primary towards Hillary

NO ONE

[DisgustipatedinCA]

183. You're attempting to answer a different question than the one I asked.

[uponit7771]

185. The premise of the one asked is irrelevant to the issue at hand

[DisgustipatedinCA]

186. Got it...we answer the questions we want to answer, not the ones actually being asked.

In that case, I'm answering questions with 3.14159 from here on out. It's been nice being incoherent with you.

[harun]

172. Sickening, we used to be better than this. Now it's just make up whatever

narrative makes you feel good.

[applegrove]

118. I can't wait to hear more about the Russia part of the story.

[Iliyah]

127. Natonal Security too!

Although T-rump will be getting Intelligence Briefing starting today.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. Move on if you'd like. That's not what the rest of the world is doing.

[RandySF]

129. The rest of the world does not give a shit about this story.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

155. You're wrong about that, bubble boy. Step outside the bubble and take a look. You'll be shocked.

[jmg257]

165. Just the MSM does as they are reporting on it - on all 3 stations 1st thing this AM. nt

[Marr]

124. As our authoritarian wing so often says, DU is not representative of the country.

I guarantee you the rest of the country is not ready to 'move on'. This *just* came to light. Strap in an get comfortable.

[Raine]

126. NO nt

[Hekate]

128. Needs to be federally investigated as an act of foreign sabotage of a US presidential election....

OTT, damn right I'm ready for our convention!

[David__77]

130. I consider that a non-apology apology.

"I deeply regret that my insensitive, emotional emails would cause embarrassment to the DNC, the chairwoman, and all of the staffers who worked hard to make the primary a fair and open process."

He doesn't state that he disavows the content of the emails; he states that he regrets that others had a certain reaction to them. This, to me, seems akin to "I'm sorry you're offended."

"The comments expressed do not reflect my beliefs nor do they reflect the beliefs of the DNC and its employees. I apologize to those I offended."

What are "the comments expressed?" By whom? By him? Why does he not assume ownership of "the comments?" I would have understood "my comments in my insensitive, emotional emails do not reflect my beliefs..."

Of course, he doesn't owe it to me to write or not write any particular thing. I'm simply stating how what he wrote occurred to me.

[Tarc]

137. Assange, Putin, and Snowden walked into a bar...

[Hissyspit]

138. When I came to DU 12 years ago, I didn't do it because it was a place where I could stick my head in

the sand.

[DemonGoddess]

139. K&R!

After reading much, much more, I have to say I overreacted at first to some of this. That would be my sense of fair play being completely outraged, by the way.

Now, what this guy is apologizing for, he should apologize for. That he even THOUGHT of bringing religious bigotry into it, makes it to where I think he needs removed. It wouldn't matter to me WHO he said this about.

For the most part, I see the emails as catty gossip. We certainly didn't see any actions from either campaign to play the way (I think it might have been a total of two people) was suggested to. I also see a reaction from people within the organization at being tired of being harangued against by one of their own candidate parties.

[yodermon]

140. "I apologize to those I offended" is not an apology. It's an "apology". n/t

[Highway61]

141. Move on??

This story just broke and it's just the tip of the iceberg. You're kidding me right? What's going on here at DU?

[Matt_in_STL]

152. Ethics and integrity don't matter as long as you repeat the mantra "I'm With Her".

They'll be the first ones to complain the next time it happens but goes against them. She is the candidate but it doesn't mean we shouldn't clean our house.

[uhnope]

142. UNrec. This scandal goes to the heart of what's wrong with American democracy n/t

[Starry Messenger]

143. I never put much stock in them.

[jtunes]

146. from PUMA to PURN nt

[jtunes]

150. the DNC's best defense, is that Sanders was not a party member

if he were, this would be a total disaster

[bighart]

161. I think the relevant question may be

what impacts is the media endless discussing this going to have moving forward and how quickly does this get forgotten as the next issue that gets breathlessly reported bubbles up.

[rocktivity]

162. I'm not quite ready

Not when it's possible to tie the Wasserman Wikileak AND Donald Trump to the Russians -- that's a brilliant conspiracy theory!


rocktivity

[tblue37]

164. I am ready for the Wikileaks story to lead the MSM to excplore the

shady connections between Russia and Trump and Russia and Manafort.

[Blue_Tires]

169. There shouldn't have even been a fucking apology

Apologizing when you're in the right is a sign of weakness...

[B Calm]

173. Did you see Nancy Pelosi last night on MSNBC say the DNC gave Hillary

Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)

an unfare advantage? They were interviewing her on the convention floor.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-convention-226174

[Blue_Tires]

174. I missed the part where politics is supposed to be "fair", but that's me...

[cally]

175. I want Hillary to win but the DNC bias has to be addressed

More staff need to be fired! Those emails are atrocious. So not ready to move on but want to untie behind Hillary

[mwrguy]

178. This ginned-up "scandal" is OVER

Hillary won. End of story.

[thucythucy]

179. It depends. If you're talking about

splits in the Democratic Party caused by the insensitive comments of a few staffers, then yes.

If you're talking about the ties between Wikileaks, Russian intelligence, Vladimir Putin and his attempt to influence American politics to the benefit of his good friend (and debtor) Donald Trump, then no, I think we need to push this story for all its worth.

Much as I hate to say it, I think George Will is on to something. Trump won't release his tax returns because they'll show how indebted he is to the Russian oligarchy. No American or European bank will extend him credit, so it's the Russian mafia funding his "empire." And in return he's promised, at the very least, to dismantle NATO and allow Russian imperialists free sway in the Baltic nations and Ukraine.

Trump is the worst traitor since Burr. Connect the dots, and this story demonstrates what a sociopath he really is.

[backscatter712]

180. I'm ready to move to Trump's role in this.

Think of it this way. This is a 21st century Watergate. Back in Nixon's days, they had burglars ("plumbers&quot physically break into Democratic offices to steal dirt.

Now, they have Russian hackers doing the same thing. Putin's hackers, trying to get Trump elected...

[Calista241]

184. you realize that julian assange is going to keep releasing stuff

and news organizations are going to focus on it for weeks afterwards. And now the Dems can't just fire the party chief to make the issue go away.