They're apoplectic over the DNC

My links were four more examples than what you provided to back up your opinion.

The word "apoplectic" is open to interpretation, so since we are into deductions lets deduct that your unsourced comments might not be viewed as "apoplectic" by someone else.

All of my link were by people who had expressed support for HRC in the past and all of them criticized DWS - some to the point of wanting her to go.

Your comment and the word choice that I replied to was an opinion on your part as well.

Notice that your opinion had absolutely no links, no proof - merely your interpretation of the reaction of commenters on another blog(s).

You might want to note that my links are to posts by actual blog owners or front page writers on blogs who have indicated that they support HRC. They are not just random comments.

I read something today that might help people understand this whole thing a little better.

The first thing to understand is that NGPVAN is a creaky voter database system that looks, and feels like it was put together in the 1990s. It has been the mainstay of Democratic campaigns all across the country and has intense loyalty among national campaign professionals--though it should be noted that the California Democratic Party uses one of its more robust and more expensive competitors PDI (PDI, hilariously, sent an email this morning to its users with the subject line "At PDI Data Security Is Our Top Priority.") I myself have extensive experience running campaigns on both platforms, both as a campaign consultant and as a county Democratic Party official in California.

[...]

The other important piece of information to note is the difference between a "saved search" and a "saved list." NGPVAN's voter tracking has the option of being dynamic or static, meaning that you can run dynamic searches of voters whose characteristics may change as NGPVAN's data is updated, or you can pull static lists of voters who currently fit the profile you are seeking. Most voter data pulls within an NGPVAN campaign will be dynamic searches--and in fact, that is the default setting. You really only want to pull a static list if you're doing something specific like creating a list for a targeted mail piece--or if you want a quick snapshot in time of a raw voter list.

However, merely pulling a search or a list doesn't mean you can automatically download all the information on those voters. You can see topline numbers. You can take a few screenshots--though it would take hundreds of screenshots and the data would be nearly useless in that format. To download the actual data, you would need to run an export--a step that requires extra levels of permissions only allowed to the highest level operatives. Despite the breach that allowed them to run lists and searches, Sanders staffers apparently did not have export access.

However, the access logs do show that Sanders staff pulled not one but multiple lists--not searches, but lists--a fact that shows intent to export and use. And the lists were highly sensitive material. News reports have indicated that the data was "sent to personal folders" of the campaign staffers--but those refer to personal folders within NGPVAN, which are near useless without the ability to export the data locally.

I have no idea why anyone would think it made sense to do what apparently was done by several Sanders campaign staffers.  

I don't think this is going to kill the Sanders campaign; but I imagine the Clinton campaign is breathing a sigh of relief that no one on their staff took advantage of the 40-minute break in the firewall.  Given what Clinton went through with respect to her e-mail, I'm not sure she'd have survived the damage if her campaign staff had done this.

I do think the Clinton campaign needs to tread carefully; too much umbrage, too much high-horsing, is not going to help bring either campaign's supporters to a position of unity once a nominee is chosen.  And the Sanders campaign needs to back off demonizing the Clinton campaign.

I wish they could both agree that DWS needs to go, but that doesn't look likely.

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.