General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease make room under the bus for Robert Reich
He obviously wants Trump as President (sarcasm thingy here for those w/o the gene)
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/robert-reich-is-furious-with-debbie-wasserman-schultz-after-alleged-email-leak-fire-her-now/
The alleged leaks reveal emails from staffers questioning former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders faith, Wasserman Schultz contacting NBC political news director Chuck Todd questioning commentary on Morning Joe and calling Republican nominee Donald Trump names.
Reich wrote on a Facebook post Saturday that the alleged emails clearly show the DNC tried to sandbag Bernies campaign. As such, he believes Hillary should fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Now. Dont wait until next week to replace her.
Reich continues, giving examples of alleged Clinton preference when the party should have remained impartial. When the director of communications wanted to complain to CNN about a segment the network aired in which Bernie said he would oust the chairwoman if he were elected, Wasserman Schultz emails back, he isnt going to be president,' he wrote.
Other emails show officials of the DNC using us language when referring to Hillary supporters and them language in reference to Bernies, Reich believes this is further evidence that the DNC was secretly working behind closed doors to help Clinton in the primary over Sanders.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)for quite a while now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the same?
I'll throw Reich under the bus, but for reasons other than recommending DWS's dismissal.
https://timcanova.com/
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It's ultimately her responsibility to enforce the parameters of what's permitted and what's not permitted. And with responsibility comes accountability.
Time for her to demonstrate that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)he was chair of the DNC 2001 - 2005
merrily
(45,251 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)or the power to do so, at least until she has the nomination?
merrily
(45,251 posts)My point all along has been that Reich should not be calling on Hillary to fire Debbie.
However, let's not play brand new, either. If Hillary did not want her out, she would not have resigned.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)There's a difference between supporting our candidate and making sure that we recognize that our future processes for selecting a Democratic nominee are... well... actually democratic.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Do you really believe that any other campaign doesn't fight for their position?
I didn't hear much kumbaying for Hillary from the Sanders campaign either. Nasty worked both ways.
This is beyond over the top.
Pffft.
Glad we aren't reliving that ugly primary. Both sides have ugly actions to account for.
Putin's Russian hackers cherry picked for a reason. And the timing is perfectly placed.
The dots are unfortunately are cleverly hidden behind the big omg news feed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Also a violation. Just curious.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)PatSeg
(47,500 posts)is suppose to be republicans, not other Democratic candidates.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not as though this stuff hasn't been all over DU since the debate schedule was announced a year ago.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)in the Bernie/Hillary wars here, other than serving on countless juries for GD-P posts. My goal was and is to win the Presidency, either with Hillary or with Bernie.
But this truly is disappointing, and saying that DWS and the DNC were in the bag for Hillary doesn't mean I want to Trump to win, it just means that I expect better out of Democrats, namely, DNC impartiality during the primaries.
Good post, thanks for sharing it.
PatSeg
(47,500 posts)For the most part I stayed away from DU during the primaries and when I visited, it was for Breaking News or non-political threads. I never ventured into GD-P territory. I would have lost my mind.
One issue that has bothered me, however, from the beginning of the primaries has been how Wasserman Schultz was running the DNC. I wanted more debates and I wanted them aired at reasonable times. It was not for a preference of any one candidate, but I thought Democrats deserved it.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)People are entitled to the best defense they can get. That doesn't mean the best defense is honest or even in the defense of honesty.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)1. Both joined a party they had no interest in serving.
2. Neither of them released their tax returns.
I think it's understandable why some within the party did not like Sanders. That being said, more of an effort should have been made to be as impartial as possible. But human beings are emotional, not rational, creatures.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Hillary or Putin.
Who you going to vote for?
randome
(34,845 posts)We don't want everything to remain the same in the world but we also don't want to throw it into turmoil just so we can shout, 'America is Great!'
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Ya "we should be more like Russia and Fidel had a great governing style"
We've sure heard this theme inserted into the 2016 campaign..more often then we ever should have.
The bigger picture is revealing itself lately and its not the picture of America's future anyone should be ok with.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It relates to the OP because DNC insiders being disdainful of an outsider is not an isolated incident. The RNC is not all that supportive of their own outsider.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)wish for !
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... over Democrats already.
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)100% agree.
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)Donald Trump being beaten.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)campaign to take down Sanders, then she should go, but not before November. To go sooner would be to give advantage to Trump.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)PatSeg
(47,500 posts)Who on earth thinks she is a progressive Democrat?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Try this instead: "That train left the station long ago."
Or this: "Your slip is showing."
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We have more important things to do right now.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)The DNC and only the DNC owns this mess and they better be working hard to make things right including firing DWS immediately!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think she will be dealt with accordingly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Definitely under the bus.
But seriously, did Reich expect anything different?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Oh wait
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)lark
(23,105 posts)1 - she;s not a real dem, supports FL Repugs over Dem candidates. This sin is unforgivable and by itself is sufficient to disqualify her.
2 - Supports Israel over the US. Supported little murderer when he came here just to embarass Obama.
3 - Worst Dem losses have been under her so called leadership
4 - not an honest broker in her role as party chair
Get her out of there. Reich is 100% correct on this need for action,
alarimer
(16,245 posts)There are a lot of people who are going to be needed to pressure Hillary from the left. He's one of them. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are others. We cannot let the selection of Time Kaine move the dial back to the right. And Schultz has been worse than useless as DNC chair anyway, emails notwithstanding.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,181 posts)But I DO know that the Clintons have the political clout to make it happen, if they so desire.
Either way, it's now moot. DWS is going, soon to be gone (and good riddance).
I don't know that immediately appointing her as Honorary Chairperson of the HRC campaign was a terrific idea, though. I know "honoraries" don't really do spit, bit it smacks of giving her a pat on the back for doing such a good job in her previous position, which leads to all sorts of different interpretations (some not so benign).