I think some of it is insidious but most is probably just pettiness

...95% of it is people doing their job and making sure that news postings get out there and events are scheduled. Say, someone hits Google news every day and copy-pastes relevant articles. All the "Playbook" postings and the email@e.washingtonpost.com redirects. Not actual work, just copy paste jobs sent out to everyone. The vast majority of these emails are going to the VAN system and are publicly available to the tens of thousands of DNC staffers. Event scheduling is par for the course.

Probably, from what I've seen, 4% of the emails are idiotic back and forths over really stupid shit, like Pablo Manriquez's stuff. Much of those emails are people effectively insulating DWS for whatever dumbass reason but you get hints of it from the bad stuff some of the same staffers said about her (mocking her tardiness and dipping shortly after arriving to an event). This is the most "daming" aspect of the emails because it illustrates DWS's absolute incompetence.

1% of the emails are about the Sanders' campaign unwillingness to basically do anything for and with the DNC and the DNCs incompetence working with the Sanders campaign and coaxing them to get their shit together. That Sanders committee appointments took so long is testament to that.

from people who imagine political parties can and should be completely impartial.

I hope along the way most of us read this post or others noting that these emails show the DNC is amazingly clean. And decent compared to what's been going on in the Republican Party.

Thanks to JoshCryer for adding information and, critically, context and perspective to this conversation.

Sorry, Josh...

Kind of feels like bigotry to me. So bigotry against atheists is okay as long as Third Way Democrats are the ones doing it?

But no more low than the shit said about John Lewis, Dolores Huerta, Elizabeth Warren, Planned Parenthood, and so on.

What's important is that they never actually went ahead with it. It was an argument someone made in an email. Yes it was ugly. So the fuck what? You get paid to make a strategy. Others also mocked DWS (their, uh, boss) about how she was always late to events and how she left early and didn't really put in the time. As I said in my other post, there was a lot of pettiness in there.

I'd expect a comment if this was, well not a left leaning site

I hope I'm allowed to say this

I didn't think anyone at DU wore that old thing anymore.

I didn't think anyone at DU would make excuses for religious bigotry but I see I was wrong.

And acting cool in front of your friends.

Hence, the very cool and trendy over-use of "neo-lib" and "third-way," used as often and with as much grace as toilet paper by all the cool kids.

That's breaking the rules. Start trying to defeat Trump.

The comment was about how a block of voters would view Sen. Sanders. That is part of the DNC's job--analyze the electorate and build strategy for dealing with those things. I think it speaks worse about Southern Baptists who would view negatively someone who is (Jewish|not active|atheist) than the DNC staffer pointing out it could be an issue.

There are emails where venues were being picked apart because lobbying groups were connected to them. There are emails where people in the DNC are questioned for potential lobbying experience (with a denial). Over 50 emails about the subject and the language clearly is against lobbying at the higher levels.

I think some of the emails with obviously poor grammar may be pysyops but even they aren't bad persay.

when it was supposed to be impartial.

I'll wait.

The email scandal was the final nail in the coffin.

I'll note she still plans to full on run the convention, and she will remain the chair until it's over.

You got a handful of emails "deriding" the Sanders campaign (over math), meanwhile you have the same kinds of emails deriding the Democratic Chair, saying she was always late to venues and never stuck around for long anyway.

Come on. You surely read the articles. It's not just math. It's emails from higher-ups planning how to make Sanders and his campaign look bad.

No math here:

And Sanders was being seen as someone who was going to throw a wrench into things, so they were obviously and unambiguously trying to think of ways to discredit him. They are seeing the Sanders campaign in a past tense because like many DUers here they can do math.

well, we agree there.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a special exception to the DNC's rule on impartiality that they get to "obviously and unambiguously try to think of ways to discredit him" because of math. In fact, they have to be impartial all the way to the convention, or until all the other candidates have officially pulled out. That's what this is about.

I don't follow twitter. I am responding to legit news accounts analyzing the emails.

I also don't trust Wikileaks and I know this was all a Russian hack--which corresponds well with my lack of trust in Wikileaks. Still, the emails are the emails.

...was absolutely bullshit.

Manafort does a nasty interview, a DNC staffer quotes the arguments, it's the DNC staffer making the argument.

How she handled the hack, for instance, was a clusterfuck.

But it was nice that she could use her eventual resignation to end the debacle sooner or later. It actually plays well to her staying in for so long when she should've resigned months ago.

To lessen the damage done to the party on the eve of the convention?

I'm still confused about all this. What *actions* were actually taken to harm Sanders' campaign, per these emails? All I've read is the personal opinions of certain (petty) individuals.

...in emails that were sent long after Clinton made it mathematically unlikely for Sanders to win are proof of a grand conspiracy, you see. Some 20k emails and that's all that's there.

I'll wait.

The biggest bundlers get niche positions in government.

That the bundlers in question have more connections to Clinton than Sanders is largely irrelevant; blunders raise money for the party, Sanders was an outsider to the party. What would be more surprising is if he did have a connection to them.

What has to be shown in a political favors case is that the money was being exchanged for a position. Simply talking about top fund raisers to reach out to does not reach that level because they raise money for the candidate, not using their own money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/10/this-very-telling-map-shows-which-u-s-ambassadors-were-campaign-bundlers/

This is not illegal. It may be in a grey area of morality, however, the argument can be made that top blunders are also top die hard democrats, loyalists, and generally competent. Those are factors you want in your administration appointments. That they fund raised does not make them evil.

No math here:

Both are Jewish. So Really? I doubt it!

because continuing to fight the smears coming from the Sanders campaign was costing money and manpower that was needed to fight Trump.

This is a big nothing, engineered by Putin for Trump, apparently, and that the unpleased-able left has fallen for like an old man on a banana peel.

The "unpleased-ables" and "corruption" screamers are nothing but a bunch of drama mongers.

Sid

twisted into some evil conspiracy! That would be how they would approach those emails. No intent whatsoever to look at the big picture.

How many party insiders do we have at DU?

Assange and Greenwald are laughing their asses off... Not only do they kneecap Hillary, they never have to live with the daily consequences of a Trump presidency...