If the smear worked for Bush, why shouldn't it have worked for brilliant Clinton? Well truth be told, it might have; however, smearing Bernie would not be enough for Wasserman (who was gaining momentum by the hour), and fearing the worst, she panicked.
Why?
She was aware that Bernie's crowds were consistently much bigger than Hillary's; Sanders also had just gotten some major endorsements, and was raising more money from supporters without the help of super PACS, and recent polls showed Sanders doing better than Hillary against Republicans.
Wasserman decided to use the breach-of-data smear to summarily end Sander's political life. By appealing to moral values--Rove Tactic #6, she would say that Sander's act was so egregious it disqualified him from running for President. And so as retribution, she deprived Bernie of the data that he owned, that had been collected by his own volunteers and workers. In other words, she was trying to win the nomination for Hillary by by blocking his ability to communicate with volunteers and staff.
One can only speculate that she hoped that Bernie would make the same mistake that Kerry made when he was smeared. (Kerry said that he wouldn't "dignify" the Swift boaters patently false accusations (Rove Tactic #5 the Big Lie) with a reply, which turned out to be a huge political mistake).
Turns out she totally misjudged Sanders.
Instead of being cowed, Sanders immediately demanded a full, independent investigation, and sued the DNC.
Sanders never was a wuss.
When Sanders sued, Wasserman turned to her lawyers. They told her that she could in no way, shape or form defend her actions. Sanders had an open and shut case. She had no right at all to deprive Sanders of data that he owned. That she had better back down. Wasserman put her tail between her legs and backed down.
Wow!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
