Email fallout: 3 Democratic National Committee resignations

[reddread]

Source: Associated Press

The chief executive of the Democratic National Committee and two other top officials have resigned in the wake of an email hack that embarrassed the party on the eve of its presidential nominating convention.

CEO Amy Dacey, chief finance officer Brad Marshall and communications director Luis Miranda left their jobs on Tuesday, the party said in a statement.

The resignations are the latest fallout from the hacked emails, which exposed an apparent lack of neutrality in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with some party officials disparaging Sanders.

Marshall wrote the most explosive email, questioning Sanders' Jewish faith and suggesting he could be portrayed as an atheist. He has apologized for the missive.

Earlier, party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned her position and, after being booed at a pre-convention appearance last week in Philadelphia, chose not to speak from the convention stage.



Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/latest-news/article93249722.html

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Good.

[HereSince1628]

2. The resignations are convenient, but I wouldn't trust it to end there.

The notion of fair and impartial administration of the primaries in a culture promoting 'winning is everything' seems ever vulnerable to being pushed aside.

[mpcamb]

10. "He [Brad Marshal]has apologized for the missive." NO HE HASN'T....

Unless that type of Repub language is now acceptable

He said: "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. 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."


It's not about "offendied", it's about cheating and using someone's religion to marginalize their candidacy. He doesn't even bother to express regret for sending the email. Rather he expresses regret that his colleagues are embarrassed.

[HereSince1628]

11. Just as DWS resigned because she'd become a distraction.

These are classic "modified limited hangouts"

[reddread]

13. yep

a broken system with no real accountability.
good thing for them they didnt deflate some footballs.
people would be upset.

[Fast Walker 52]

3. I wonder how much of this is for appearances or was really because these were bad people?

the problem is firing them gives more ammo to the Hillary-stole-the-election-from-Bernie crowd.

[RBInMaine]

5. Nah, the DNC was made an organizational mess by Wasserman and they need to re-boot.

Wasserman should have been canned long ago. She totally SUCKED. They need to ALWAYS allow the DNC chair to be an ELECTED job, and not appointed by the President when the Dems have the White House. Obama and Co. usually get things right, but many people saw a long time ago that Wasserman SUCKED and they should have canned her back then.

So now they need to re-organize at the top and get that operation running right.

All that said, NO, there was no widespread conspiracy and NO widespread actual ACTIONS done to "rig" the primaries for Hillary. That is just absurd. This episode amounted to a few DUMB comments and SUGGESTIONS that were NOT done. There were even exculpatory emails. Nothing done at the DNC "sabotaged" Bernie's massive national primary campaign and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in zero-reality land. Still, yes, what some of those people said was WRONG, they DO need to GO, and they need to fix up that operation.

[Ford_Prefect]

4. Actions observed being taken in the field suggest the rabbit hole runs much deeper than this.

The implication being that more than the lead staff reflect the views exposed in the emails.

At the very least there remains the lasting impression among many in the party that the central committee and its subordinate elements have been organized to blunt and eliminate any alternate points of view about current policy and party goals rising from within the party membership, contrary to party rules on this very point.

[RBInMaine]

6. No, you're exaggerating. Yes, they need to go, but let's not overblow this either. There is no

evidence of any widespread conspiracy or actions actually done to cause an actual disadvantage to Bernie in that massive and complex primary campaign basically run OUTSIDE the DNC by the two campaigns. At the end of the day, Bernie got all the same resources as Hillary, and that's pretty good when he was never even a member of the party, had in past years badmouthed the party, and was in fact badmouthing the DNC DURING the campaign itself. That Bernie, Weaver, and Devine smelled bad to some at the DNC is totally understandable. BUT, that doesn't mean ANYTHING was actually DONE which made any difference at all in that campaign. A few DUMB email comments by a few staff members didn't "rig" the primary.

[Ford_Prefect]

7. I've been listening to that denial for over a year while day after day we saw actions

Last edited Wed Aug 3, 2016, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

reflecting that point of view occurring throughout the run-up to the primaries and caucuses.

It may not have been a tightly organized conspiracy but there was a clearly bent process going on that could not have developed and continued without a degree of involvement from above.

I don't propose that the whole party organization is somehow infected with the degree of cant evident in the emails. I think it is impossible that the attitudes of leaders like those removed did not have an impact and persistent effect on lower levels.

[reddread]

8. just take the Blue pill

everything will be ok and on the up and up.

[Sancho]

9. Here's an interesting comment on FB...not someone I'm familiar with, but interesting...

https://www.facebook.com/michael.arnovitz.3/posts/1109362805795791

You can read the whole thing. You may not agree, but it's a comment intended to be objective, so it provides some of the viewpoint of people in the DNC.

Actually, in my view organizations like the DNC need to make changes with some regularity anyway. There's always a chance for criticism and a need for change. I'll add an excerpt, but read the whole thing if it seems useful.

Melody, if you get yourself a copy of the DNC delegate selection rules, you’ll find a very clear statement by the party about presidential candidates. It states (Rule 12, K, 1b) that, “…all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair…”
Let’s recap that:
1) “shall have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party”
2) “as determined by the National Chair” (That was DWS by the way)
Let’s be clear - in no way does this apply to Bernie Sanders. And we all know it. As such, the DNC would have been well within their rights to refuse to even allow Bernie Sanders to run for president as a Democrat. And by the way, more than a few influential democrats wanted to do exactly that. But the DNC allowed him to join the party and run as a Democrat even though everyone knew he was only doing so because he had no chance as an independent. So if you’re going to ding DWS for any slights against Bernie, you should also be fair and give her this credit as well. Her position in the party gave her the authority to shut him down right from the start, but she didn’t do it.
Also, this idea that the DNC must remain completely neutral among all candidates regardless of the situation is belied by the existence of the superdelegates, which were explicitly created to help party elites put their finger on the scale if needed. In my view, and I know that many may disagree with me on this point, it’s not neutrality that must be maintained by the DNC, but fairness.

[freebrew]

12. Wow! what a bunch of crap...

So, DWS, the party chair turns the Democratic platform into
repub lite and this guy thinks that's the way it should stand?

DWS lost us more elections than any other chair I can remember.
Her steadfast loyalty to the DINOs of the party made her unacceptable long ago to me.

And what is this 'fairness vs neutrality' crap? shouldn't those have the same goals and ends?