Hillary Clinton swayed the DNC’s primary in her favor by financing the Democratic Party’s debt and putting herself in a position of power, asserts Donna Brazile in Politico. Due to mismanagement, the party became heavily indebted after Obama won the 2012 election. The Clinton campaign capitalized on this by resolving this debt and helping with a loan, giving itself more leverage. Over time, its influence over operations grew, which gained it an edge once the party had to decide on a candidate. While not illegal, this process was strongly amoral. Clinton gave herself an advantage that ultimately pushed Bernie Sanders out.
Donna Brazile’s theory that the DNC colluded against Bernie Sanders is incorrect, holds Boris Heersink of The Washington Post. While she is right that the Clinton campaign grew its influence among the party, this was not decisive in her getting the nomination over Sanders. This concerned matters like a veto over replacing staffers. The degree of control that Clinton had was minute and certainly not enough to win her 3.7 million more votes than Sanders got. Her campaign’s actions were entirely within party rules and not against the law. Considering this story as “collusion” wildly exaggerates what really happened.