Ken Martin was the safer pick for the DNC chair, he helped turn around Minnesota politically and financially, and won seats -- and kept them, often by very narrow margins. Ben Wikler was the progressive minded disruption pick that helped flip Wisconsin and was a driving force in turning Wisconsin blue including that historically expensive fight that Elon Musk lost over the Wisconsin Supreme Court pick. You can decide which of these is more noteworthy.

David Hogg must have realized that under the fresh new leadership of the DNC they were still too caught up in rules and formalities to effectively fight and so he chose to walk his own path. He didn't run just to quit and run a PAC. He ran and realized without Ben Wikler signing off on his idea to primary safe seats with his PAC to build a progressive base, he would not have a clear path to his vision... reforming the DNC to reflect progressive politics to win like they won in Wisconsin.

He asked permission from Ken Martin to use his PAC for its intended purpose -- which was subsequently denied -- realized Ken Martin would never sign off on primarying safe DNC candidates and wrote the DNC off in favor of his PAC. When the DNC got caught up in a procedural error, he decided to exit stage left and put his energy elsewhere -- primarying the old guard. To be fair to Ken, he made the argument that the DNC should abstain from interfering with primaries altogether. Who you agree with depends on how you feel about disruption in the DNC in favor of progressives; if you feel that party unity, procedures, and small progress over the status quo is the way forward, then Ken Martin. If you feel that shaking things up, being disruptive, and primarying the old guard out for new blood progressive Democrats is ideal and worth the risk, then David Hogg.

David Hogg found himself with a $20 million PAC he built himself and was told he had to choose not to spend it on primarying progressives against safe establishment Democrats or else the DNC won't let him have a seat at their table. That's why when you hear Democrats talk about the matter they sound whiny and say things like "we think losing Hogg is missing an opportunity to engage with younger voters." Because it is, and they are... and the tone has shifted because he has a $20 million dollar progressive werebear named 'Leaders We Deserve'.

The old guard you mention -- the two committee members -- aren't solely responsible for the issues with primaries. While you're correct that Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, stuck to her superdelegate guns in favor of Hillary over Obama and by the same token Hillary over Sanders, she voted for David Hogg and Ben Witker... the progressive disruption candidates. She may be idealistic in trying to get a woman elected to be President, but she's entitled to that ideal. She's no Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I don't share your enthusiasm for the DNC and many of them are just starting to realize how much their predecessors have messed up -- the immediate exit of David Hogg despite being handed a position in the DNC he already won shouldn't be met by your confusion about his original intent. Instead, it should be a sign of how bad things actually are. Who knows, Ken Martin may turn it around and he shares many of the same ideas as Ben Witker, but mostly by copying his homework and playing it safe yawn. Doubtful the DNC has that much gas left in the tank to turn anything around. They can't even run an internal election without fucking it up. The fuck up not being the procedural error. But losing David Hogg.

Losing in this manner is a signature DNC move. You almost hate to see it for the thousandth time. Even Twilight was less predictable.