What The Wikileaks DNC E-mail Leak Tell Us About Hillary Clinton’s Nomination
The glow of Hillary Clinton’s history-making nomination is damaged and looks dimmer because of revelations that DNC rigged the primary.
Effective at the end of this week, amid the WikiLeaks DNC e-mail scandal that broke on Sunday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz will step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee. As it happens, her resignation announcement coincided with one of the biggest and glitziest events in American presidential politics, the Democratic National Convention, which is currently underway in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
If you believe that the timing of the WikiLeaks leak and the fallout that followed was a coincidence, then I have a bridge I can sell you.
Before the ink was dry on the page, Hillary Clinton had hired Schultz to do essentially the exact same thing that she was doing for the DNC — that is, chairing her presidential campaign. That she did so despite a recent poll suggesting that 68 percent of American voters distrust her speaks enormous volumes about how out of touch she is with the American people — and how strained her historic nomination will be in the months to come.
Not only do the 20,000 leaked e-mails confirm what Bernie Sanders and his passionate supporters has suspected about the political establishment’s influence on the primary from the start, but they reinforce the belief wafting within the populace that every single officeholder within Washington’s status quo is, or is on the way to becoming, ethically and morally compromised.
The trust in government is gone.
According to 2015 Pew Research Report, between 1958 and 2015 the American public’s trust in its governmental institutions dropped by 50 percentage points.
As of 2015, 19 percent of Americans said they trust the government. Of that 19 percent, 16 percent trust the government to do the right thing “most of the time” and only 3 percent believe it will do right by the American public “just about always.”
No doubt these numbers are tied to the entrenched apprehension of the American public about the political establishment. And, no family embodies establishment politics more than the Clintons.
Rising to influence as so-called “New Democrats,” the Clintons, in staking a claim on leftist values and operating within the structural limitations of capitalism, betrayed the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and The New Deal by exploiting old racist stereotypes to reach white voters who defected from the Democratic party with the advent of Nixon and Reagan.
From the ’94 Crime Bill to ’96 Welfare Reform Act to mass deportations to the repeal of Glass-Steagall to her support of the Iraq War to her refusal to release her Goldman Sachs speeches to her support of NAFTA and TPP to her support of Wall Street bailouts to the infamous e-mail scandal to her recent affirmation of the Blue Lives Matter movement during her remarks at NAACP Annual Convention, Hillary Clinton had all but completely destroyed the last vestiges of faith progressives had in the Democratic party as the party of working people.
The content of the DNC e-mails and the revelation that DNC was collaborating with the Clinton campaign to ensure that she snatched her party’s ticket — no matter the cost — is the nail in the coffin. It is telltale proof that the Democratic establishment is corrupt, that the primary was rigged and that Democrats are no friends of working people or progressive values.
The DNC communication’s director, Luis Miranda, colluded with writers of major publications — such as Politico — to spin write-ups of Sanders into negative op-eds that downplayed his political efficacy.
Strauss declared Clinton the winner before the race had even begun, even suggesting that Sanders didn’t deserve the nomination — not because of his principles, but solely on the fact that he’s no Democrat.
DNC personnel drafted talking points for Clinton to address scandals that could damage her campaign, such as a money laundering situation earlier this year.
But, perhaps the most damning one of all is the revelation that DNC may have installed a plant in the Sanders camp to help them sabotage his campaign.
The DNC was supposed to be neutral in its dealings with Sanders and Clinton. It wasn’t. It was supposed to deal fairly with each candidate. It didn’t. Because it doesn’t care about working people or progressive values. It didn’t care that Sanders had a pulse on progressives. It didn’t care if Clinton embodied the values of that pulse or not. It only cared about its own self-preservation and maintaining its power and oppressive hold over the political imagination of voters. And, because of its conceit and its desire to manufacture more symbolic change by breaking that final glass ceiling, the true glow of Clinton’s history-making nomination has been severely damaged and will forever shine dimmer than what it might’ve done.[adsense1]