2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Not healthy for a Party to embrace only one candidate. No room for us there now. [View all]Justina For Justice
(94 posts)It was the DNC chair's chosen computer company that violated the confidentiality of data by dropping the fire wall that separated the opposing candidates data. When this was discovered by the Sanders campaign in October, the Sanders campaign quietly reported it to both the DNC and the DNC's computer program company. They were assured it would be fixed. It was not fixed and the problem reoccurred.
In October, the Sanders Campaign did not expose this issue to the press, nor did the DNC.
After the vendor caused the same problem again in December, Wasserman-Schultz issued a public press release blaming the Sanders Campaign for accessing data which its own vendor had exposed and then refusing the campaign access to its own voter data.
Insodoing, Wasserman-Schultz violated the specific terms of the contract between the DNC and the Sanders campaign governing use of the voter program.
The contract between the DNC and the Sanders Campaign provided a mechanism for dealing with any problems, allowing for a 10 day window for dispute resolution before taking any action such as shutting off access to the computer system.
Wasserman-Schultz not only breached that contract by denying Sanders access to his own voter information within that 10 day window, but took the outrageous step of publicizing the campaign's supposed "theft" of an opponent's data.
That Wasserman-Schultz, the top official of the DNC, whose job it is to be neutral during the primary process, took these actions, damaging not only Sanders campaign, but the public reputation of the Democratic Party. Why should any voter want to give their information to any party representative, for any primary candidate, if the party can't keep that information confidential?
Wasserman-Schultz's actions hurt general party voter recruiting efforts as well as the Sanders campaign. Her actions also potentially cost the party money in litigation costs and damages from her breach of the DNC-Sanders contract.
In the past, while DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz refused to support Democratic candidates in Florida because their Republican opponents were her friends. She likewise presided over the DNC's failure to properly support Democratic candidates in the 2014 election, contributing to disastrous losses. We need a reliable, strongly committed Democrat as DNC chair, that does not describe Wasserman-Schultz.
Wasserman-Schultz cannot be relied upon to make rational and considered decisions on behalf of the Democratic Party and its national committee. She must be removed and a competent, loyal and committed Democrat appointed in her place. I suggest that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, now a deputy chair of the DNC, would make an excellent replacement.