Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Where is the evidence for this? Obama was also not a big name candidate in 2008. It's harder to be a bigger name than someone who was both a first lady and a senator.



Wikileaks released DNC's internal emails, where they made plans to sabotage Bernie.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sa...

Bernie supporters filed a lawsuit against the DNC for disenfranchising them. The DNC argued they operate as a private corporation and are free to pick whomever they want "over cigars in a back room".

> “There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here . . . it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said.

> The DNC is advancing the argument that any claims to be neutral and fair to all candidates were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable by law.

https://www.salon.com/2017/05/13/the-dncs-elephant-in-the-ro...


None of this is evidence for GGP's claims.

It is also not evidence for any interference above 2008. Workers for the DNC had their own preferences for party candidate. This was the case in 2008 as well, but without the emails, it's hard to construct a conspiracy theory. There was no evidence of "sabotage" in the emails.

> The DNC is advancing the argument that any claims to be neutral and fair to all candidates were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable by law.

This is a legal argument for throwing out a case (which was thrown out). It is not an admission of being unfair.


one partisan event I found in a quick web search (can't vouch for anything):

from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2143741/fact-che...

    On Thursday, Brazile released a excerpt from her new book on Politico’s website. The excerpt explained how the Hillary Victory Fund, Hillary for America, and the Democratic National Committee signed a Joint Fund-Raising Agreement, which gave a significant advantage to Clinton’s campaign.

    “Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

     “The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” Brazile notes. “This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”


_fs didn't say she wasn't a big name, only that "no big names ran against her."


No big names ran against her in 2008. No big names ran against Obama in 2012. No big names ran against Biden. Big name is a relative term.


Yes, the Democrats have a history of fighting against competitive primaries. 2016 wasn't the first time, but it was the first time some of mechanisms they use to suppress other candidates were exposed in their own words.


You keep saying that without providing any evidence. Once more, where is the evidence that the DNC ever told anybody that they wouldn't have a future in the DNC if they ran in a primary?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: