Kind of frightening how the Sanders campaign...

[NCTraveler]

Has reacted to in this crisis. Disorganized, angry, very mixed message, lack of message unity among their own people.

Compare that with how Clinton handles the whole Republican Party and the media coming after her daily. Get that. What the Sanders campaign did was real. It was an assault on the Clinton campaign. Yet they are the ones floundering. On the other hand Clinton goes into an eleven hour hearing designed to end her candidacy and flat out beats the whole Republican Party.

This has shown Sanders is more of a Vermont politician. Small ball.

[MohRokTah]

1. I hope a good Dem runs against Sanders in 2018

I know I would donate.

[cali]

11. Lol. A million flatlanders like you could waste your money that way and we vermonters

Would laugh in your faces. Not a chance the likes of you outsiders prevailing.

[MohRokTah]

13. The seat Sanders currently holds was held by Jim Jeffords before him.

So even a Republican can win statewide in Vermont.

I hope the DNC dumps eight figures into a campaign to unseat the corrupt and dishonest man.

[DonCoquixote]

30. corrupt and dishonest man.

Please...you do NOT want to try and speak as a voice against corruption. Perhaps if Bernie donated to the Clinton foundation, it might soothe some egos.

[MohRokTah]

32. Samders proved himself to be corrupt and dishonest in the Sanders Data Theft Scandal. eom

[DonCoquixote]

40. because he fired the person that stole

or because said person warned Hillary about the security months beforehand, when any GOP could have hacked into it (and probably did).

I used to feel sorry for the people who would get thrown under the bus by Hillary ten minutes after the election. This is no longer true. I know when that Bus rolls on, many of the people screaming will be the old guard that would never ever disagree with anything Hill did or said.

and DWS career will roll on right after that bus, crunching the bones.

[Gman]

94. They downloaded and saved data.

That makes it theft.

[MoonRiver]

103. He warned Hillary that he was going to steal her data?

Btw, there's no evidence anybody, including GOP, but Bernie stole her data.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

57. Theft? Methinks you state untruths.

[MohRokTah]

60. Yes, theft.

Violation of federal law type theft, too.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

62. Really. Cite the law.

I have the statutes handy. Name it or shut it.

[MohRokTah]

71. 18 U.S. Code §1030 eom

[ChairmanAgnostic]

132. you do realize how silly you look when people

READ THE ACTUAL FUCKING WORDS FROM THE DATA COMPANY in describing what really happened, don't you? After all, there was no breach of military, intel, national security data, Atomic Energy data, right? And those last few subsections? Bernie's team was authorized to use the data. And they found, again, that their permissions included some raw data analysis by HIllary's crew. That was a database problem, not theft by Bernie's team.

How can you live with yourself when you lie so readily?

[MohRokTah]

134. They inappropriatly accessed data on a protected computer they were not authorized to access.

Clear felony under the letter and spirit of the law. Open and shut case and they have the smoking gun on four perps.

[enid602]

177. perps

Ummmmmx, perps. I like the way that sounds.

[Gman]

95. Someone downloaded and saved data

That makes it theft.

[thesquanderer]

78. How so? What did Sanders himself do, that proved himself to be corrupt/dishonest? (n/t)

[upaloopa]

104. You know something, all that bluster has lost it's punch

Your guy is the villain now and you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

[Armstead]

49. A few stupid nerds compared to Selling Out the economy

AND flaunting the rules of National Security systems withn a home-grown e-mail system..

Yeah, you've got your priorities straight

[MohRokTah]

55. You are free to beleie whatever you choose.

I now know Sanders for the corrupt and dishonest man he is.

[Amimnoch]

100. ahh, so cheating to steal an election is the little stuff, and not worth sweating?

Were you, by any chance, part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove team in Florida circa 2000?

[Armstead]

102. Yes I was the mastermind of it

[thesquanderer]

77. You want the DNC to try to primary a popular incumbent...

...and thereby increase the chances of flipping the seat back to a Republican? Good move.

Eight figures no less. What a waste of DNC resources, when there are actual seats to be contested and won.

[hack89]

80. Sanders wanted to primary a popular incumbent in the White House. Nt

[thesquanderer]

105. Three things...

Last edited Wed Dec 23, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)

1. Sanders' job, as an Independent Senator from Vermont, was to push his agenda. The DLC's job, among other things, is to protect safe seats, not increase the risk of losing them. Although their missions overlap, they are not identical.

2. Sanders' suggestion that Obama should have an opponent was not for the purpose of actually defeating him for the nomination, but to provide some leftward pressure on him.

3. Even if you didn't agree with Sanders' desire to move the conversation to the left with that suggestion, it would not justify handing the seat to a Republican.

[hack89]

108. Sanders is a good small state senator. He needs to stay there. Nt

[Amimnoch]

129. Hell, even in that roll he's been pretty useless.

decades of "service" and only 3x of the bills he either sponsored or co-sponsored ever made it to law.

Here's Sanders in the Senate:


Sitting back, owing nothing to any party, and nobody owing anything to him. He just sits back at a distance and heckles those who actually do keep the government running.

[cali]

83. You haven't a clue. The last time Jim was elected as a republican was over 15 years ago. Bernie

is the most popular Senator in the country, garnering more constituent support than any other Senator. And Vermont has become much more liberal in the last decade.

It's always amusing to see people blather on about something they know nothing about.

Oh, and there isn't a reputable dem in state who is stupid enough to run against Bernie.

Please, do throw your money away.

[cali]

84. You're confused. Hilly is the thoroughly dishonest and corrupt candidate.

[hughee99]

122. For a person whose own candidate is caught up in many

Different ethical scandals at the moment, you sure are quick to declare Sanders guilty for the actions of staffers.

[Omaha Steve]

25. Start here

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforhillary

[Amimnoch]

96. or someone who is actually a Dem.

I prefer to support a Democrat in the Democratic Party primary.

[fasttense]

111. Just another rabid Hillary supporter

Why are you guys so mean and nasty? It's like you are never happy and are always slinging mud. I've seen meaner posts but the Hillary supporters are always the rudest.

[Juicy_Bellows]

176. Wealthy with an entitilement complex perhaps?

Just trying to understand it myself.

[George II]

112. Thankfully, I doubt he'll run again. He got his day(s) in the spotlight, now he'll probably retire.

[yardwork]

2. This is part of a pattern

Not ready for prime time.

[tecelote]

23. Absolutely.

The DNC has had this lack security problem before this.

A full independent audit needs to be put in place now.

The vendor needs to be replaced, at the very least.

Let's get to the bottom of this and find out who else had access. Bernie advised them so they know about that breach but there could be many more.

We need to do it ASAP for the integrity of the entire party. This is not a Bernie/Hillary thing. This is needed for the reputation of our party to be upheld.

[longship]

35. Well, there is no practical way to replace the vendor.

That would require a complete disruption of all of the campaigns at a time just weeks before the primaries. It would also be very expensive as NGP VAN undoubtedly has a contract.

Sadly, we are stuck with the insecure system.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. Does their contract require them to actually do the job? Most contracts do.

If you are contracted to provide data security and you don't, you can not in fact collect for providing that service because you have a contract. Unless DWS gave them a 'pay you no matter how you do the job' contract, which is reserved for cronies in most industries.

[longship]

131. Well, that argument may be valid, but irrelevant.

Because nobody in their right mind would replace that vendor at this point. We're stuck with them. It's not just like changing a program on ones laptop.

Plus, all the campaigns would be negatively affected.

The best solution is to make sure the database is secure and that equal access is never again abridged. That's what we're left with.

Plus, there are likely very few outfits who do this kind of specialized software. I imagine all of them are partisan, in that they work solely for one party and not the other. In fact NGP VAN may be one of a very select few. The DNS probably did not have many choices when they selected them.

But, who knows. These are only my suspicions having worked in both politics and IT for decades, however not directly in the area of such a large scale operation as the national party data infrastructure.

[Dustlawyer]

36. There was a problem with the Vendor's code, not a virus.

The same Vendor who worked in Hillary's failed 08 campaign. Mistake or intentional? Given that they never fixed it after 2 months I would believe it was intentional. Then the question is "why"? Did they want to intrap Bernie's people? Was it done so Hillary could access Bernie's info? Or was it both?

[tecelote]

93. And, why take it to the media?

[Nonhlanhla]

98. So the Bernie defense is that this was a honey trap?

One of the oldest excuses in the book.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. The asking of the question 'why' is not the same as an assertion, much less an excuse.

Why did the vendor fail to provide services they were paid to provide? Why did they fail to fix firewall issues when told about those issues? Why has DWS not audited the vendor, nor even required that they actually do the job they are paid to do?

And that is why we have due process available. To be blunt, DNC should explain why without being asked at all. To do otherwise reeks of complicity.

[RoccoR5955]

184. Some folks think that a computer bug IS a virus

Just shows how much they know about computers.
They should STFU if they don't know what is being discussed.

[sufrommich]

3. Yep. No one that thin skinned will win a presidential election.nt

[merrily]

4. "Small ball" describes the OP post very well.

[SmittynMo]

22. You're missing an "s".

[merrily]

38. !!!!!!!!!!!

We are SO not worthy.

[restorefreedom]

81. that gif rocks!!! nt

[merrily]

85. Thanks. I thought I'd toss it into that reply because that reply rocked even more.

[restorefreedom]

86. it totally worked. the berners are on fire today!! nt

[merrily]

87. I KNOW! I've already proposed to several and it's only a few minutes after 9.

Well, not exactly proposed.

[restorefreedom]

88. tee hee hee. you bad girl! edit

just realized you might be a guy. whoops. you bad girl/guy tee hee.

apologies!

[merrily]

110. Neither.

I guess, in 1971, this was a feminist anthem to some people????

Bernie, taking care of his son of his son while at work in 1971

[restorefreedom]

113. good grief....W.O.M.A.N.....too bad the music is so catchy.

LOVE the bernie photo with son. i never get tired of seeing that one.

edit...son's name is Levi i think...?

[merrily]

119. I think so.

It's funny. I expected the lyrics to be feminist, but geez. That intro by Johnny Cash made it worse.

[restorefreedom]

126. true, but jc was so campy in that, it made it worth watching. nt

[merrily]

127. Yeah, no. It was worth watching only as an object lesson. Or lesion.

[restorefreedom]

130. i think his campyness actually adds to the lesson of shunning male domination and chauvinism.

that i could laugh through it is only bonus

[MrMickeysMom]

142. Results of your jury...

On Sat Dec 19, 2015, 09:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

You're missing an "s".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=919094

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Really? "Small balls"? That's a blatant personal attack and a clear violation of the TOS. Also it's just tacky.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 19, 2015, 09:59 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The tacky thing is the OP... The response to it is definite snark, but not a blatant personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[SmittynMo]

152. Times like this really make me wonder

about people in general. I NEVER thought I would be called out on this. Unbelievable.

And No 3, was right on.

[Mbrow]

47. Yeah know,

If HRC and the DNC are what prime time is all about is it any wonder that people have been leaving the Dems in droves, looking for any viable choices and only voting Dems as the lesser of two evil? It's the only reason I will vote for HRC if she wins and you can bet your last dollar if there was a REthug who I thought would not destroy the country I'd vote DSA or Green. For god's sake just look at polling on the values that most Dems have and how far to the left of the DNC they are.

I swear there are so many people on DU that keep pissing on my back and telling me it's raining.

[merrily]

50. I've posted many times, given where I live, I could vote for Donald Duck all day long and my

county would still go to the nominee of the Democratic Party. Other counties would go to the nominee of the Republican Party, no matter what. Only in certain purple counties does your vote really matter anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778561

[Jester Messiah]

63. Yeah, I live in a purple county in a purple state.

I was going to try not to let the power go to my head, but then I decided it would be more fun to hold my vote hostage. It's my way or the highway, and my way ain't the Third Way!

[merrily]

76. Thing is, not every purple county is deemed critical. As the post I linked said,

someone narrowed it down in one Presidential to only 8 counties nationwide.

You may have to check each Presidential election to see if your county is considered critical to that election. (I never have to check.)

[Mbrow]

64. I hear you,

I'm currently in Idaho. if you anywhere left of Atilla the hun, you are a liberal.

[merrily]

68. Could be worse. You could be in Indiana! Obama did take it in 2008, though.

That was a real jawdropper.

A friend had volunteered to work for the Obama campaign that summer, indicating that he would re-locate. They assigned him to Indiana. He turned it down. When I told him Obama had carried Indiana, he said in an awed voice, "Indiana. If I had known he was going to take it, I would have gone."



In any case, not voting in one of the 8 to 100 critical purple counties is freeing.

[Mbrow]

75. My wife worked hard

here, she was a local captain, Obama took 35 % of the vote. we had over a 1,000 people show for the caucus
when we normally get maybe a 100. Then the local higher ups in the county Dems just wasted all that energy, I swear it was on purpose, (long drawn out story) so we left the local Dems and donated to out of state progressives.

[merrily]

79. You don't have to tell a long story to convince me.

I was in Massachusetts when Martha Coakley blew through a 30 point lead in a matter of days to lose Ted Kennedy's seat to Scott Brown. Not a thing from the DNC--and that was the ONLY election in the entire country at the time--for the 60th Dem caucus seat. Not a dime, not a strategist, not a TV ad. Nada, zip, zilch, bupkes, nothing. And there's more, but what's the point?

(So, that happened. And after she did that, whom did they choose to run against the current Republican Governor of Massachusetts? Yep, you guessed it.)

[INdemo]

155. In 2008 during the Primary Indiana played a big roll in

Deciding the Democratic nominee.
We need signatures to get Bernie on the ballot in Indiana this cycle.

With that said my county is so Red and township that any yard signs supporting Democrats are not just torn down they are Demolished.
So you say call the sheriff? a Republican?

[Human101948]

5. Hillary is still seen as the most dishonest by most people...

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/poll-clinton-seen-most-dishonest-untrustworthy-top-presidential-candidate

[NCTraveler]

6. Sanders hasn't had any media coverage...

So there is really no true comparison in polls.

[Human101948]

9. But she is virtually equal in that poll to Donald Trump...

though she does beat him by a couple of points. Kudos!

[rjsquirrel]

24. Excuse of the week eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. No ... We are told on a daily basis about the lack of coverage ...

Do you think all of the coverage will ask questions crafted by BernieTV?

[NurseJackie]

27. He's getting coverage now!

[thesquanderer]

90. Actually, that poll is still informative

Sanders: 41% say honest and trustworthy, 27% not, leaving 32% without a strong opinion.

Clinton: 31% say H&T, 53% not, leaving 16% without a strong opinion.

The difference in how many don't have an opinion is presumably at least partly due to, as you say, his lower media coverage... obviously he is not nearly as well known. But even if the ones without an opinion broke 2-to-1 against him (highly unlikely, considering that those with an opinion so far break 1.5-to-1 for him), he would still have better numbers than HRC.

[drynberg]

28. I 2nd that claim as true, even with such close competition from the liars of the right...

[peacebird]

7. I thought the Sanders campaign proved they were strong, would not lay down & be bullied by DWS

I also think the DNC would not have reversed course so quickly if not for the tsunami of calls, tweets, and outrage by Bernie supporters across the country. So, no, I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one NCTraveler.

[Alfresco]

8. Will Bernie apologize to Hillary tonight during the debate?

He has been touted as a man of integrity. We shall see.

[Human101948]

10. Hillary should apologize for DWS...

and her atrocious partisanship.

[Alfresco]

14. I think he will apologize to Hillary. It would be the right thing to do.

[cali]

12. Hillary should tender her apologies to him.

[Alfresco]

15. I think he will apologize to Hillary. It would be the right thing to do.

[NCTraveler]

18. I think you will change tune...

Once the subpoenas and arrest warrants are handed down. So amazingly foolish what Sanders National Data Director said on TV yesterday. He fully gave them everything needed to show this was criminal. Just extremely sloppy messaging coupled with nefarious admittance. Guy should have lawyered up and never said a word.

[Bluenorthwest]

141. If that was the case DWS would be eager for court instead of folding at the filing in a court of law

On TV last night she insisted there had to be a full audit no matter how long it took before she could consider releasing the data. Then she released the data without even a minor audit. Her tune, it changed. Her position, it flipped. Her resolve, it evaporated.
Bernie fired the responsible party on his end. Thus far, DNC has not done the same. That speaks volumes to anyone who has ears.

[reddread]

16. "the media coming after her daily" with donations

Hillaryland, the not so magic kingdom.
Not quite Shambhala, but just as imaginary.
not counting the money.

[NCTraveler]

19. Promoting the "left wing media" isn't going to get you far. Nt

[reddread]

20. wow, what sort of glasses are those?

returnable, I hope?

[Jester Messiah]

17. And that's why he has his data back?

Pretty effective for "small ball," getting the DNC to capitulate so quickly and raking in a shit-ton of money while he did it.

[NCTraveler]

37. He has his data back because...

It's the right thing to do and the system is currently safe from the nefarious actions of Sanders aides.

[Jester Messiah]

43. Ah, that's beautiful.

You'd think they'd have secured their system from his "nefarious" aids after the first time they reported it was broken. But no, he has his data back because he did not spare the rod on DWS and her little band of idiots. Try it again, see what happens.

[NCTraveler]

67. Never seen a group work to pass the buck this bad.

That's why it makes no sense.

[Jester Messiah]

82. If it makes no sense

Then it follows that you're missing a key bit of context or info. Check your assumptions maybe?

[Laser102]

99. Taking things that don't belong to you is stealing. Why are people trying to justify stealing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I think the reversal was more a matter of ...

The Democratic players, including HRC pressuring her because they anticipated the denial and conspiracy theories now evident among Bernie followers.

[Jester Messiah]

54. That's certainly one way of looking at it.

Another would be that Bernie followers would recognize this wretched charade for what it is and not take the heaping helping of shit they tried to feed us.

But, you know... To-may-to, to-mah-to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Okay. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

139. I'm no attorney, but I do hire and fire them for the purposes

of negotiating and crafting contracts for my services. DWS folded when a suit was filed, her strong demands vanished and the data was released. On TV yesterday she was adamant that there would have to be a full audit prior to releasing that data, it might take awhile but that's how it had to be. Then not. Almost instantly.

In the past I have offered praise to DWS in one area only. She is usually very skilled at speaking to the press and especially on TV. For many Democrats this is a weakness, she's got chops. Yesterday her demeanor was very different, she was nervous, stammering, coughing, she evaded questions and refused to even consider holding the vendors to account for their obvious failures. Not even words of reprimand for them. Sanders instantly fired his responsible party, DWS is still defending her vendors, who clearly dropped the ball they are paid to carry.

In my occupation, if I do not deliver I am not paid. My contact is void. I have never, ever been retained and paid while making a mess out of my project. The fact this vendor gets treated as if they were entitled to the position suggests the possibility that their errors were in fact directives from DWS. They have to address that. They can't claim to be above reproach, no one has that right in politics.

Does your company pay for services not rendered? Of course not. Would your company protect and retain a vendor that brought disarray and shame to the company? Of course not. So why is this vendor not held to account?

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. I was an attorney ...

And, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect that the lawsuit was coincidental to the strong demands vanished and access to the database being granted.

I suspect the mover on this was due to pressure brought to bear by Democratic Party players, who anticipated the clusterfuck of denial and conspiracy theories that are now evident among Bernie followers. Had DWS not relented, both would have spun farther out of control, making a G/E campaign all but impossible.

That said, I would wager the DNC would have prevailed had an agreement not been reached.

However, we agree ... the vendor's lack of responsiveness regarding the glitch is inexcusable, and should be held to account.

But you've gone well beyond the facts with your "suggestion" that the lack of responsiveness was by DWS' directive ... which is exactly the kind of conspiracy theory stuff that I referred to earlier

[Bluenorthwest]

160. What I am saying but you are not is that no one knows what motivated her to hire this firm

nor to change her mind. Your speculation is speculation and so is mine, neither is conspiracy nonsense, it's speculation.
If you are correct, then those Democratic Party players should have kept DWS off the TV yesterday with her absolute statements about this required audit which is now magically not required.
When I see that sort of swift and full retreat, I strongly suspect it is due to more than the pressures you speak of, which must have made themselves heard before she went on every TV show in the country drawing lines in the sand and sounding combative.

If it was internal Party 'pressure' it must have been of a very high stakes kind. Like her job on the line.

[1StrongBlackMan]

165. The pressure was no doubt applied AFTER she went on air ...

But I have to disagree about speculation being speculation ... when tge,speculation pulls a nefarious collusion motive out of rhinestone air, that crosses into C/T land.

[ljm2002]

70. What nonsense...

...DWS and the DNC were in clear violation of their contract with the Sanders campaign which stated unequivocallly that, IF there was an ongoing pattern of abuses (which there was not) THEN the DNC had to notify the campaign and give them 10 DAYS to rectify the situation before they could pull access to the data.

DWS pulled access immediately, even though this was just one incident rather than a pattern. I guess, since the Sanders campaign also notified them months ago about this sort of breach, they could argue that is a pattern. But the pattern is one of trying to notify the DNC about a serious bug in their system rather than trying to save data from the other campaign.

The data director may have been trying to document the extent of the breach; however, given that this is a national political campaign, he should have also realized how sensitive that data is and should have stopped after one or two searches. That IMO is why he was fired. The real people who should be fired are those who ignored the warnings in October about this problem, and did nothing about it. If I were any of the three Democratic campaigns, that is what I would want to see -- as well as assurances that now, at last, it has really been fixed.

[ms liberty]

89. +1. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. Care to post a link to the agreement?

Thanks in advance.

[ljm2002]

140. Here you go...

...please see Exhibit A of this document:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d1ae-add5-f76f14db0001

and also Exhibit A-2 which contains this paragraph:

7.2. Either Party may terminate this Agreement immediately for Cause. As used in this Agreement, “Cause” means, with respect to any Party to this Agreement, a material breach of this Agreement; provided that (i) the non-breaching Party sends written notice to the breaching Party describing the breach in reasonable detail, and (ii) the breaching Party does not cure the breach within ten (10) days following its receipt of such notice. Also, Licensor may terminate this Agreement without notice if Licensee becomes disaffiliated with the Democratic Party in any way

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Thanks ...

I suspect the counter-agreement would be that the contract was suspended, pending investigation, and to protect the interests of the other parties to the agreement; rather than, it having been terminated.

But, thanks.

[OilemFirchen]

163. If I had to guess...

it would appear that the DNC restricted access because there was evidence of a breach involving multiple culprits, and that there was a need to stanch what may have been an ongoing theft of data.

The contract should be rewritten to accommodate emergencies such as this.

[1StrongBlackMan]

164. Agreed; but, the contract should be with a different vendor. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

168. Why?

We don't know the terms of the contract between NGP VAN and the DNC. Despite the assertions of some theorists on this thread, we don't know if NGP VAN has incurred (or will incur) damages.

As far as I can determine, this was an isolated incident and it was resolved. NGP VAN software and services are used worldwide. Is there any evidence that, on the whole, the products and/or support are flawed?

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. Because the DNC was responsible (per the contract) ...

for providing for data security. The vendor's lack of responsiveness regarding the glitch, is a problem.

Besides ... changing vendors will close down a whole C/T branch! LOL.

[OilemFirchen]

172. What lack of responsiveness?

They dropped the firewall for about forty minutes, then rectified the situation. Were they informed during that period, and did they neglect to correct the problem? Did the DNC relegate security to the vendor? I honestly don't know, but if so, then the vendor should be liable. If their contract with the DNC doesn't address liability, then it clearly should be rewritten - though I suspect it's in force through the end of the election.

As mentioned above, there really isn't a substitute solution - certainly not at this time.

As to the C/T industry, any change will only fortify their narrative. As will no change. That's how they roll.

[Number23]

185. When Sanders cooperated with the DNC he got his data back. Those trying to pretend it was

because the DNC "saw the light" are shoveling it as usual.

[rjsquirrel]

21. Agreed

Really embarrassing for Sanders.

He was never gonna win, but I never figured him for a sore loser before.

His supporters are like children.

[NurseJackie]

29. +1

[ejbr]

42. Sniff....sniff

You hurt my fee fees. Sniff

[Jester Messiah]

46. To be a sore loser, one first has to lose.

Looks like he's coming out ahead in this round. Good game though. Y'all will do better next time.

[nyabingi]

74. Sore loser? Please

The DNC just outed itself as being 100% in the pro-Hillary camp and literally tried to sink Bernie's campaign in a truly galling over-reaction to a technicality.

I guess all you "mature" Hillary supporters really understand the need to win at all costs.

[Vinca]

26. I viewed the reaction as the exact opposite: strong and forceful.

I want a leader who isn't going to put up with BS and holding files hostage was BS at the highest level.

[polichick]

181. Exactly, which is what the Clinton Machine didn't count on. Surprise!

[eridani]

31. So, what is Clinton going to do with the Sanders data she grabbed?

The security leak certainly allowed that.

[NCTraveler]

33. Please back what you are saying.

It appears to simply be an unhinged attack on a democrat. Back your wild claim up.

[Madmiddle]

39. When this plays out

you'll see the Shillary is losing and she has Wasserman Shults to fix it for her! Very sad.

[NCTraveler]

41. Wow.

[eridani]

44. Just a repeat of what she did in 2008. It's been posted n/t

[wildeyed]

48. Where?

I have not seen the proof. Link please.

[eridani]

72. here

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d1ae-add5-f76f14db0001


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”).

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.

[wildeyed]

106. No, that is a Sanders document

claiming there was a security breach in 2008. First, Sanders did not run in 2008, so that is a completely different election. This is 2015, remember? And anyway, it would be circular logic, even if it was about 2015 since that is a SANDERS campaign document that simply make accusations. It is not proof.

What you need to prove is "So, what is Clinton going to do with the Sanders data she grabbed?"

Prove she grabbed the data. They could track the data being manipulated and downloaded by the Sanders campaign. Show me the proof that Clinton did it too.

And FYI about 2008 race, Obama and Edwards were both connected Democratic politicians too. They had DNC supporters. If she had done something like that in that race, a whistle would have been blown and they would have been on her like a pack of wild dogs. She does NOT have a history of doing anything like what you are claiming AT ALL.

[Madmiddle]

34. NCTraveler

Drank tainted cool-aid from the Wasserma Shults/Clinto DNC. No, you would be wrong to see and say this. The DNC run by that woman is trying to ruin the Sanders campaign. It's quite marvelous how you are buying the lies she tells.

[Armstead]

51. Yes, you're correct. Sanders is not as experienced at handling Screw Ups as his opponent

[Scuba]

69. You win the internets!!!!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. The response by his fanatical supporters has been terrifying

These people cannot be near any power.

[Jester Messiah]

59. Why so terrified?

People who get angry at injustice are nothing to be frightened of... unless, of course, one intends to propagate injustice.

[ljm2002]

73. Scary, isn't it...

...every time someone tries to paste bogus nonsense onto Sanders, his cra-cra supporters go and give him more money! Shameless!!

[Katashi_itto]

154. It's awful.

I just gave sanders 500.

[RandySF]

56. I admire their shamelessness

I thought only the Republicans were capable of outrage over being caught cheating.

[DURHAM D]

66. LOL

Been thinking the same thing since I saw that bald angry man from the BS campaign blowing a gasket yesterday because they got caught.

[magical thyme]

61. I guess that's why the DNC backed down shortly before the hearing and restored Sanders' access

Look, the DNC breached the contract back in October when they failed to remedy the buggy firewall. They were contractually required to fix the situation and failed to do so.

The IT director of the Sanders campaign did what IT people do -- when the firewall failed again, attempted to document the extent of the failures. Overzealous, but not unusual in the IT world.

Sanders' senior management, on learning of the IT Directors wrong move, investigated, fired him and notified the DNC.

The DNC's reaction is in no way comparable to GOP attacks on Clinton because Sanders had absolutely no reason to anticipate their deliberate breaching of the contract by shutting him out of his own data.

The language of the contract is clear -- either party can breach the contract with written notice explaining the reason. The breaching party is then required to provide 10 days to cure. The DNC failed t provide written notice and failed to allow Sanders 10 days to cure.

That the DNC demanded that Sanders do the impossible -- prove a negative and without access to his own data -- makes their behavior even more indefensible.

Sanders response was, imo, presidential. Their message was clear and on target. The follow through was clear, on target and apparently successful.

The lawsuit remains in effect, despite the DNC's backing down, because the multiple contract breaches by the DNC caused serious financial harm to the campaign.

[Jester Messiah]

65. And that's the bottom line. [nt]

[ms liberty]

92. well said. n/t

[Gman]

91. I don't think Sanders has any control in his campaign

It's being run by this mob that's not a lot different than the mobs at Trump rallies. I guess both sides have them.

[Punkingal]

145. What bullshit.

To compare Sanders supporters to Trump supporters.

[Amimnoch]

97. very professional victim status players.

[bigtree]

101. mostly agree

...I can already envision an embattled Sanders WH with a testy, balking pres providing sullen visuals to to fill out the media narrative.

Maybe this will be a good learning experience for him. Hillary and her husband are already pros at these puffed-up scandals. One thing you shouldn't do is feed the story by publicly escalating the squabble. It's a poor strategy to come out the day after a mea culpa type firing and demand everything go back to normal immediately. There are still important questions and issues related to the data breach for all sides in this incident to address. The DNC and the Clinton campaign have every right and responsibility to ensure their voter info is secure.

[Armstead]

107. Yes the Clintons are pros at scandals

I could say more, but won't.

[bigtree]

136. I'm 55

...I paid as close attention as anyone could to the Clinton years in public office. I've never seen ONE scandal directed at the Clintons which I thought amounted to a hill of beans, including lying to Klayman about a private affair.

Say what you will, but most Americans see through the scandalmongering directed at the Clintons and many more resent it.

[Armstead]

143. I'm 63 and was incensed at the GOP but....

the Clintons have skirted and crossed too many lines over the years to give them ammo.

And, a lot of what weren't scandals should have been at least controversies, like handing over the economy to the Banksters, handing the media over to Clear Channel, Murdoch, Viacom and GE/Comcast and other assorted actions that did fundamental damage.

And, to be honest, if Bill had just taken some saltpeter, or at least told the truth about his little indiscretion with the intern when he got caught, or if his "team" had not doubled down and allowed him to continue to lie about it (I remember being just as angry about the Clintonian bullshit coming from the WH back then as I was mad at the GOP for persecuting him over a minor indiscretion)

When it became clear that Hillary was going to run again, my reaction was "oh no. not again" because I know that we're just going to get mired in more of that stuff for the next nine years.

[bigtree]

147. you changed the subject

...to your objections to Hillary as a pol. That's not what we were talking about. The Clinton scandals have been tempests in political teapots.

Btw, I don't want to know about ANY politician's sex life. It's none of our business.

[Armstead]

148. Unfortunately Hillary is part of a larger network

Same crew as before. Same cronies. Same husband.

BTW I donlt want to know abnout any politicians sex lifer eitehr. But that requires the politician to behave and curb those instincts while in public life.

[bigtree]

151. all of that doesn't automatically make her some sort of miscreant or criminal

...you still need to make that case - most of it requires a political response which, so far, has failed to render the verdict you believe is warranted.

[Armstead]

162. I'm not saying she is a criminal....The problem, is that she represents business as usual

We have allowed en elite to emerge that doesn't live by the same rules as thee or me.

Illegal? Not automatically. But ways of doing things, and the forming of tight Oligarchical relationships and cronyism that have far too much money and power. And that have different standards and ethics and concerns.

And so many temptations through the revolving door to either enable or allow abuses of the system on both a widespread and individual basis.

And when we start restoring dynasties -- whether last name of Clinton, Bush or Smith -- we undermine the nature of democratic government, reform-ism, and the necessity to clear the waters periodically.

[bigtree]

167. I think that's exaggerated

...while it's certainly worthwhile to support a candidate who intends to challenge the status quo, presidential elections aren't a zero-sum contest. Even without a progressive victory in the primaries, there's still a great deal at stake - and the almost certainty of a great deal of good done - from a Democratic presidency; yes, even a Clinton presidency.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that our democracy is more than the govt. offices and officials we elect. Nothing precludes us from remaining active and insistent on the changes we want and represent with our votes and advocacy.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. We are about the same age. I still have problems with the Clinton entitlement to a 'private affair'

when juxtaposed against DOMA and their insistence that marriage was a huge sacrament which must never be shared with those of us who apparently have no right to any private life, family, affairs, nothing for we are offenses to the God of DOMA, while adultery with subordinates, that's a private affair that no one should even mention, what people do as adult is their business, unless they are gay or trans and then it's everybody's business, going to pass a law about your private life while I get to hide behind Jesus while I fuck around and call you sinful.

Yeah. I liked them until they demanded double standards. Bill's affair should have ended their spewing of 'My faith says no marriage equality' rhetoric but it did not.

So it is a matter of perspective and privilege and such I think.

[bigtree]

159. I think that's fair

...and understandable.

I have no such transgressions in my own life, and my defense of privacy is consistent. Besides, that fishing expedition by Klayman wasn't some exercise in holding Pres. Clinton to the same standard he exhibited in approving the DOMA. It was a direct assault on our own Democratic votes; on our election of a Democratic president. It was a subversion of democracy and most Americans objected to that.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. That last line. DNC has reponsibility to esure the data is secure. They have not done so.

They have hired a vendor that neglects their duties, consistently. The vendor that built occasionally functional firewalls has not been held responsible, in fact DWS spent time on TV last night defending them, evading questions about them. Her verbiage suggested to me that the vendor was merely following her directives. If that is not the case, why are they not being held to account? Have they at least returned the fees they took to build firewalls they did not build? Does DWS expect us to pay them millions to just not do their job?

That responsibility thing, that is where the DNC is failing. Only Bernie has held anyone to account. The vendor is probably getting a bonus for this.

[bigtree]

137. I agree the DNC has a vendor problem which needs addressing

...that's a far less serious problem than a campaign accessing information they well knew they weren't allowed to view, much less save and file.

It's incompetence vs. outright, deliberate wrongdoing.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. It's also a man fired for wrongdoing vs a company currently rewarded for ineptitude on a grand

scale. The problem here is that by not holding them to account DWS suggests that perhaps the vendors were following her directives in using weak firewalls and in refusing to address the concerns raised by Sanders in October. It's that simple. She looks complicit because she's refusing to so much as criticize the company that very clearly botched their duties. She hired them. It is a fact they worked for Clinton 08, that does not make the optics better for anyone involved.
And it is not yet established that the vendor is merely incompetent. That is your assertion. Prove it or do not assert it. I do not agree that the ineptitude has been proven to be accidental nor that DWS has been proven to be not complicit in their actions, mistakes or tactics.

When faced with a problem, even with wrongdoing, how does the leader react? Bernie brought the hammer down, DWS is out there defending her people who fucked up. She's also smearing Bernie. That is really, really not part of her job nor is it her place.

To me, it looks like she told the to drop firewalls at certain times, also to ignore other campaigns if they noticed that fact. More accurately it looks like that could be the case. It is not acceptable that any hint of wrongdoing go unchecked, not just the guy Bernie fired, but all wrongdoing.

It's accountability vs impunity.

[bigtree]

150. why should I have to prove your charges?

...it's a stretch to say the Sanders campaign was somehow coerced into accessing the data; more than a stretch, it's a sad justification for such improper conduct which is already in evidence.

Show me where the vendors acted unethically or acted nefariously - only then would I'd be prepared to equate the misconduct of the Sanders campaign with the vendor problems. Right now you have a clear violation which resulted in the firing of a senior staffer. Sanders supporters and DNC detractors can't just equalize the conduct of the two sides with innuendo and speculation.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. You were asked to prove your own assertion that the vendor was merly incompetent.

If you can't support your own assertions do not expect me to swallow them whole. Read what I wrote. I did not say anyone was coerced that is again your own assertion.

What I am saying is that DWS needs to demonstrate that the vendor was just incompetent, then explain why she hired incompetents and why she is retaining them after this. Incompetence is not a good defense, incompetence also requires response. That vendor was not assigned by God. They were hired. They have not responded in a timely manner to the issues that arose. DWS has not held them accountable for any of that, on any level. She just keeps paying them.
Sanders on the other hand fired the guy on his end instantly.

Aside from the partisan politics, I am personally very tired of these highly compensated persons and companies which make massive bollocks of the job they are paid to do being met with 'oh, it was just a mistake' followed by bonus money and a contract renewal. America seems to have decided that mediocrity is to be our metric, that one still gets to collect the fees even if the bridge one builds falls down during construction.


To be clear, I don't like that the guy looked at data that was not his. Bernie was right to fire him, even if it only looks like the guy cheated. I really, really do not like that the data was not secured. I do not assume that other campaigns did not look at the data, nor that the vendor did not assist others in taking advantage of this lack of security. If our Party firewall was down, that is simply not good. That part can not be waved away. And to some extent it looks like DWS really does not want anyone to look at that aspect of this story. Our data is not secure in a world full of Republicans. What the fuck? Yeah, I want to audit the vendor. You bet I do. Everyone should.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Discovery is the magic word. Note that last night, DWS was insisting that there must be a

full audit before the data could be released, there has been no such audit and yet she is releasing that data. She folded when challenged. This is because she was in breach of contract, hugely. This is because she has employed and then protected inept vendors with strong associations with one candidate. The vendors, paid to secure the data, did not secure the data. DWS has not fired them, nor held anyone to account. Senator Sanders instantly fired the party responsible on his end, not accepting any hint of wrongdoing, making no excuses, parsing no words. And yet that vendor, red handed and if not guilty then at least highly incapable, is still in charge of securing the data they had not secured, still being paid out of Party coffers to not provide security to our data. Are they entitled to be paid even if they fail to deliver? Why is that?

Americans know they get fired if they fail to deliver so when they see vendors like this coddled when they fail, Americans are disgusted. It looks, the appearance is that the vendor was doing as DWS told them to do, she can't fire them because their errors were actually her directives. That's how it looks, and that is not acceptable, even the appearance of such shenanigans is not acceptable.

Where is the accountability on the DNC's side? It's absent.

[SHRED]

114. Bingo.

[Bluenorthwest]

133. I've been enforcing contracts under which I work since my early 20's.

I know the folding of a blustering bluffer when I see it. DWS is pretending that their contract is not a contract which binds DNC or the vendor but only the candidates. Like many persons in charge, they forget that the contractual obligations they have made need to be upheld or they can't enforce their side of the agreement either. They like to say 'but you agreed to do this' while overlooking the fact that they agreed to many things themselves.
If I contractually owe them 10 cents, they want it. If they contractually owe me 10 thousand they hem and haw and suggest that it is insulting to ask for that which they promised. Some people call that 'doing business' but I call that constant attempts at fraud and intimidation.

[Betty Karlson]

115. Please, stop being a mouthpiece for Debbie.

She has overplayed her hand, and you should hope and pray she didn't break the party with her reckless partisanship.

[NCTraveler]

121. I'm not a big DWS fan.

That has nothing to do with the Sanders campaigns action. I get you aren't big into transparency nor do you support the concept of fair elections. Everyone trashing Clinton when she has done nothing wrong are supporting a clear narrative. It stands in direct opposition to fair elections. You are doing the exact opposite of what you claim and it's obvious.

[Betty Karlson]

124. I suspect you and I are not even within the same paradigm anymore. eom

[Bluenorthwest]

135. When posters criticize DWS, you claim 'everyone trashing Clinton'. That's not wise verbiage.

You hear DWS and respond with 'don't trash Hillary'. Sanders never mentioned Hillary, he criticized the DNC and DWS. Correctly. He criticized the vendors DWS is defending even as they fail to deliver.

The very idea of saying 'transparency' when only Bernie has held anyone to account for this is laughable.

[retrowire]

116. looked pretty organized, clear and direct to me

plus, he never attacked Clinton, he attacked the DNC. Clinton's just an accomplice. :/

[George II]

117. All one has to do is look up Jeff Weaver's background to see why they're so disorganized:

From Mother Jones (the publication that released Romney's "47%" video):

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-jeff-weaver-victory-comics

Meet the Comic Book King Running Bernie Sanders' Campaign
Jeff Weaver is the Robin to Bernie's Batman.

It's an interesting read. All I could think of yesterday as the saga unfolded was, "welcome to the real world, Mr. Weaver".

[SoapBox]

118. So when is that DNC $30,000+ per plate Billionaires Fundraiser, hosted by Hill and Willie

in NYC? Entertainment by Sting!

Hill, Willie and DWS will be hob-knobbing with the richest of the rich!

And how much of those monies, "donated" to the DNC will go to help Democrats Sanders and O'Malley?

After this reaction from the DNC, guess we can just figure that it's all for Hill.

It's all blatantly rigged and in the pocket for Hill...the best surprise is, just like her mess of a campaign in 2008, she's going to lose again.

You all can keep trying to slime Bernie...but it just makes the Berners STRONGER.

[MFrohike]

138. Hoo boy

You can tell who doesn't understand the story with an OP like this. The truth is that the DNC screwed up massively by making a big deal of this. The DNC, which the average person thinks is an organization that matters more than a fart in a thunderstorm, looks disorganized as hell. Disorganization is the kiss of death in politics.

In short, this whole shebang hurts ALL the Democratic candidates because the amateur-hour dumbasses at the DNC decided to play power politics while forgetting they have no power. If you don't believe it, look how fast their whole bullshit got shut down once a suit was threatened. The people with actual power read them the riot act and told them to shut this shit down fast. In a year with Trump and Cruz on top, the last thing the candidates need is a pack of disorganized morons undercutting them.

As for your post, I have to laugh. If you're going to use analogies, I'd recommend using ones you actually understand (aside from the hilarious analysis). Contrary to popular belief, small ball works quite well in baseball. As I recall, one of the better known championship teams, namely the 96 Yankees, were quite good at it.

[Sheepshank]

144. It's actually not surprising to me that Bernie and his campaign .....

..are damaging the Dem brand. I've been vocal about this possibility for some time, but as it turns out, I didn't think this would be the vehicle for the damage, but damage has happened none the less. No thanks to Bernie's staff and supporters.

[cantbeserious]

156. This Citizen Heard Pitch Perfect Response From The Sanders Campaign

eom

[TwilightGardener]

161. Bernie turned their bullshit back on them and got his way.

[Persondem]

166. Definately makes Sanders look bad, like apoor leader. K & R nt

[Dawson Leery]

170. Bernie has not be tested as Hillary been, multiple times.

Bernie could be in trouble in the General Election.
He does not want to discuss foreign policy and immediately attacks the DNC/Hillary for something his own staffer did.

[artislife]

171. Keep pushing that boulder up the mountain!

I have to admire some of your hard work.


But these last 72 hours (more or less) has been a turning point. This is one of those times in the primary cycle that will be noted for a great shift. You are noting nothing about the larger picture of what happens around h. The veil has been parted.

[ChiciB1]

173. I Think What Bernie Did Is What MANY Before Him NEVER Had

the guts to do! Say what you want, but I'm hearing LOTS of comments from people in the know who are basically saying THIS action is something the CLINTON campaign never thought would happen.

To me it sounds like there's been a pattern of "stuff" like this long before Bernie! Bernie just is the one who said NO MORE!

I don't have and inside track on any facts, but it sure seems that way to me. I'd bet money that WE know very little of a WHOLE LOTTA STUFF!

[R B Garr]

174. It has been very scary to watch this!

I figured him to be an opportunist, but he's a major phony, too. One gimmick after another!

[Cha]

175. sanders flounders.. exactly.

[Scootaloo]

178. There's kind of a difference

Clinton expects the republicans to act in the interest of the Republicans.

Bernie shouldn't have to expect the DNC to act in the interest of the Republicans.

[Matariki]

179. Bwahaha - it must be opposite day on GD:P

[Matariki]

180. The DNC got CLOBBERED yesterday by the sheer volume of people who support Sanders

Now they're scrambling to do damage control. It's delightful to watch!

[gwheezie]

182. He just recently became a dem

So he may not be familiar with our customs.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. "Compare that to..." I guess you dont remember Hillary's train wreck press conference in Vegas?

So that was the A game political expert in action, sports fans?