Progressives Are Calling On Debbie Wasserman Schultz To Step Down From DNC Chair

[tecelote]

Source: Huffington Post



The progressive activist organization CREDO Mobile launched a petition Wednesday evening calling on the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), to resign from her post.

CREDO’s petition capitalizes on yet another moment in which Wasserman Schultz has raised the ire of progressives. Earlier on Wednesday, the DNC chair suggested in a New York Times Magazine interview that there is “a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.” The comment, which immediately angered reproductive rights activists, was in response to a question about whether she saw “a generational divide” among women when it comes to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. (Wasserman Schultz’s comment inadvertently implicates her, since she was only 6 years old at the time of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.)

Wasserman Schultz’s comment revived a claim that reproductive justice advocates have refuted previously. After the interview came out, Erin Matson, co-founder of the group Repro Action, encouraged those born after Roe v. Wade was decided and who are active on reproductive justice issues to talk about their work using the hashtag #DearDebbie on Twitter. Hundreds of examples followed. Wasserman Schultz later released a statement saying that her message was meant to convey that she believed "women of every generation -- mine included" needed to speak out for reproductive rights.

"For many in my generation who lived the majority of our lives with the right to make our own health care choices, there wasn’t a sense of urgency after Roe v. Wade settled our right to a safe and legal abortion," Wasserman Schultz clarified. "Since then, opponents worked aggressively to chip away at women’s reproductive freedom and they have awakened a sleeping giant in the millennials leading the fight in defense of the progress we’ve made."




Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resign-dnc_568d86c2e4b0cad15e6335f9

[rjsquirrel]

1. Ooooooooh progressives

DWS better watch out.

Lol.

[merrily]

4. I am always interested in what a very infrequent poster finally deems worthy of commenting upon

and what comment he or she finally deems worthy of making.

And, no, this is not an insult to all infrequent posters or an implication that all infrequent posters are trolls. Far from it. Some of the posters I enjoy most post very rarely. Sociologically, it's just interesting.

[rjsquirrel]

11. I post every day

I just doubt DWS is actually scared of progressives.

[merrily]

14. I stand by my first post on this thread, you've reworded yours.

Last edited Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Whether or not you post every day, you registered Apr 6, 2014 and your number of posts as of when I posted was 686 or lower.

If you make at least a post a day, I can understand preferring a word other than "infrequent" to describe the totality of that pattern. Choose a more precise one.

Otherwise, my comments stand.

I don't give a crap what DWS fears, but your Reply 1 was mocking progressives, quite apart from DWS.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Agreed

very anti progressive post.

[rjsquirrel]

21. U r Gud at maths

April 6 2014 to Jan 6 2016 is 21 months.

That's about 600 days.

That's an average of over once a day.

I'm mocking self-styled progressives who display misogynist tendencies.

In case it's not clear I am suggesting there's nothing progressive about sexism.

I was camped at Zucotti Park and started my political life canvassing for McGovern and marching with Cesar Chavez. I am serenely uninterested in whether I meet your standards as a "progressive."

[LiberalElite]

22. Let me guess - could it be

Sanders isn't left enough for you.

[merrily]

25. Thread win so far! LOL!

[rjsquirrel]

26. Not at all

I love Bernie Sanders. I've given him money since he was in the f'ing House. I started out this season supporting him strongly and even changed my registration from Ind to Dem so I could vote for him in the NY primary (which HRC will win easily so it was avprotest vote, I am not a huge fan of her as my senator either believe me).

But then I started observing Sanders supporters. The level of sexism and misogyny directed at HRC, and the level of wishful thinking about the nature of the general election electorate, combined with being the father of a daughter (so I really care about both sexism and SCOTUS), led me to change my mind.

I'm *maybe* voting Sanders in the primary still. But I expect and am happy to vote for Hillary in the general.

But I've learned that many self-styled progressives are just left versions of Trump supporters: pissed off, sexist, and in favor of simplistic slogans that have zero chance of becoming actual policy.

Plus mean.

[LiberalElite]

29. Ahhh.. I stand corrected

Maybe he's too far left.

"...I'm *maybe* voting Sanders in the primary still."
...
"But I've learned that many self-styled progressives are just left versions of Trump supporters: pissed off, sexist, and in favor of simplistic slogans that have zero chance of becoming actual policy.

Plus mean."

And the Hillary supporters? They are always the absolute definition of niceness? Please provide your assessment of the other side.

[rjsquirrel]

30. Problems on both sides

I can agree with that. Plenty of assholes on the HRC side too.

But the level of misogyny on the pro-Sanders side is alarming to me.

If you don't see it you're not looking. It begins with collapsing HRC and her husband into a single entity.

[LiberalElite]

36. Uh huh

"problems on both sides" How fair of you. Occupy really was a mix of folks.

[A Simple Game]

44. This.

If you don't see it you're not looking.

And if you want to find something intangible badly enough, even if others can't see it, suddenly it will be there.

[Cal33]

98. I was a supporter of Elizabeth Warren until it became definite that she wasn't running. Then

I switched to Bernie, because his political views are so similar to hers, as well as to mine. I
will support the candidate whose political views are similar to mine. Gender hardly plays a
role. I am sure there are many others here who are like me.

Your "But the level of misogyny on the pro-Sanders side is alarming to me." is rather overly
strong. Bear in mind that in the heat of a discussion, some do have the tendency to post
the very first angry thought that comes to their mind. It's nothing more than that, just a
temporary angry feeling, but now it has been put into writing, and as such assumes a
different character - it has become something that can be taken more seriously. I, too, have
been guilty of this on occasion. I'll watch myself more carefully.

[merrily]

33. Corrected! LOL! Second thread win.

Bernie Butter. It's my least favorite spread, though it's been spread thick all over DU.

[LiberalElite]

35. I had to think about that for a sec -

LULZ

Yeah the telltale "but."

[merrily]

37. Kudos on getting it at all. You're really on a roll.

[LiberalElite]

49. And- get this -

I haven't had coffee yet!

[merrily]

51. Well, then, go on with your bad self.

To use an expression so old, even Chloe Kardashian finally used it.

I had a cup but it was so many hours ago, it no longer counts. Anyway, I really need at least two.

[chervilant]

66. Now, this is interesting.

I've only begun to read the responses to this OP, and -- thus far -- the only "ugly" response is yours herein above.

Plus bigoted:

But I've learned that many self-styled progressives are just left versions of Trump supporters: pissed off, sexist, and in favor of simplistic slogans that have zero chance of becoming actual policy.

Using the word "many" in that rather "mean" characterization of "self-styled progressives" does not diminish the bigotry of your assertion.

I wonder which progressive(s) trod upon your toes...

(Well, I'll never know, because I elect to use my IL to the fullest advantage, so that I don't have to wade through bigotry on DU.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. Sooo ... You noticed that, too?

But I've learned that many self-styled progressives are just left versions of Trump supporters: pissed off, sexist, and in favor of simplistic slogans that have zero chance of becoming actual policy.

I would add racistish, as well ... and, before anyone does the "What??? Where???" routine, yes ... I can post links from THIS site.

[Dawgs]

107. Did you copy and paste this from another thread.

I swear I've the same one every day for awhile now.

The template is this...

1) Start out with 'I love Bernie. I'm a huge fan and would love to vote for him'.
2) Add, 'but then Sanders supporters turned me away from him because they are sexist'.
3) Then add, 'I'm voting for Hillary now but I might support Bernie in the GE.'
4) Finally, argue for why Bernie would be a bad choice as the nominee.

Seen it too many times to count. So predictable.

[merrily]

24. Please quote my words that have anything to do with the first half of your reply. Thanks.

I thought all I said on that subject was:

Whether or not you post every day, you registered Apr 6, 2014 and your number of posts as of when I posted was 686 or lower.

If you make at least a post a day, I can understand preferring a word other than "infrequent" to describe the totality that pattern. Choose a more precise one.

I see you did not come up with a more precise word, but nothing I said showed that I had either bad skills or good ones. (You do understand, because you've made more than one post on this thread, that people can make more than one post a day, right?)

I'm mocking self-styled progressives who display misogynist tendencies.

First, your reply #1 was not limited the way you claim. Second, calling for DWS's resignation does equal misogyny.

I was camped at Zucotti Park and started my political life canvassing for McGovern and marching with Cesar Chavez. I am serenely uninterested in whether I meet your standards as a "progressive."

Uninterested in my standards for being a progressive and yet....I love irony. You maybe serenely something, but I have no clue what it is.

BTW, I articulated no standard for being a progressive. I don't even like the word.

This make several relatively useless exchanges. Let's not waste any more time on nothing.

[rjsquirrel]

27. Oh please

The anti-DWS rants around here are obviously misogynist.

[merrily]

32. No, they are not. She's done a crap job at 2014 midterm strategy, a crap job at

being impartial about the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominees and these comments of hers are themselves misogynistic and tone deaf toward young women. Anyone else would have been fired long ago.

[ejbr]

38. Mysogynistic???

Sorry to step into the fray, but are criticisms of Carly Fiorino mysoginistic? Or maybe one should not point out flaws in the fairer sex?

[CharlotteVale]

45. DWS insulted young women. Funny how you ignore

That bit of misogynysy.

[Amimnoch]

56. It's not an insult if it's a real discussion.

And has been for some time now:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/24/3430316/after-roe-unsafe-abortions/

https://redswrap.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/five-things-young-women-should-know-about-life-before-roe-v-wade/

Here's one from Mother Jones discussing the merits of the argument objectively (that's without distinct bias or political agenda, a very novel concept):

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/are-young-women-complacent-about-abortion-rights

Now, to live up to my own words and be objective, I don't think DWS comments should be restricted to Roe vs. Wade, or even women's issues. There's been a number of articles, and discussions right here on this site about the complacency of Gen X in particular on a whole mess of issues.

An honest observation does not = misogyny (that's how the word is spelled btw.)

[CharlotteVale]

61. DWS lost any credibility when she endorsed Republicans.

That is being misogynistic and anti-choice in a nutshell.

[Amimnoch]

67. Ref post #53.

already covered this.

[merrily]

62. She was dismissive and one-sided, giving a sound byte/bite. That's not an honest discussion.

[dorkzilla]

69. Dismissive and one sided is her modus operandi

That's her in a nutshell. And to suggest anti-DWS sentiment is inherently misogynistic is a also one-sided and dismissive. As was the stupid comment you initially responded to.

[merrily]

94. "And to suggest anti-DWS sentiment is inherently misogynistic is a also one-sided and dismissive."

And utterly false. And damaging to women as well. If you can't even criticize a female head of the DNC for historically bad job of setting election strategy--the job of the DNC, without being called sexist, crikey!

Reading this board, any prospective employer, male or female, will think six times before hiring a woman. No one wants to live at the EEOC or in court or even to risk it.

[jeff47]

95. Oh good. Time for some nice, generational bashing.

There's been a number of articles, and discussions right here on this site about the complacency of Gen X in particular on a whole mess of issues.

Yeah...as someone from GenX, let me remind you what happened when we came of age.

First, the older half of GenX tends to be teabaggers. So they're really not going to be helpful on this subject.

The younger half tend to be liberal. We had problems like high student loan debt. We were rather concerned about climate change and other environmental issues. We were very upset at the destruction of the safety net. And we were also upset about the Democratic party giving away abortion rights by bits and pieces (ex. Ok...a one day waiting period is ok....well since it's already one day, 3 days is not that different...)

We were told to shut up and vote for Democrats so they could continue to focus on Boomer issues. That our concerns were "unrealistic". That we were demanding unicorns. And the party traded away our issues to placate Republicans. We are a small enough generation that our votes were not needed to win, so our issues were sacrificed.

Shockingly enough, after a decade or so of that treatment most of us stopped giving a damn about politics. To this day, younger GenX turnout is abysmal. You wanna know why we don't have many "younger" candidates for President? Look at what the party did to "the kids" during the 1990s.

The good news is the party is working very hard to do the same thing to Millennials. Surely that will get a different result this time!

[Amimnoch]

97. ROFL, you call it generational bashing.. then prove the point

"Shockingly enough, after a decade or so of that treatment most of us stopped giving a damn about politics. To this day, younger GenX turnout is abysmal. You wanna know why we don't have many "younger" candidates for President? Look at what the party did to "the kids" during the 1990s. "

Your words mate. Do you not see both the hypocrisy and irony?

[jeff47]

101. I never said I would never engage in generational bashing.

If you are going to complain about the lack of activism among GenX, I'm going to bring up what the previous two generations did to GenX.

Or was I supposed to organize my third grade class to stop the Greenspan commission?

[Cal33]

99. I disagree. As far as I can see, the anti-DWS views expressed here are based upon the

way she is carrying out her job as chair of the DNC. Her job requires her to be unbiased
towards all Democratic candidates. DWS went out of her way to help Clinton -- among
other things. I find it amazing that you don't see this.

There is a movement going on asking DWS to resign:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/widespread-calls-for-debbie-wasserman-schultz-chairman-of-the-dnc-to-resign-blacked-out-by-the-news-media-petition-surpasses-40000-signatures-in-first-24-hours/

[noiretextatique]

106. What a ridiculous claim...can you back it up?

I didn't think so, because it is utter bullshit.

[rjsquirrel]

28. "Daily" is a more precise word

than "infrequent."

[merrily]

31. Nope, not for the entire concept. The totality includes being a low count poster.

"Low count" was much more germane to my comment, to my Reply 4. How many posts you do or do not make a day has nothing to do with my comment. So, we've now make another pointless exchange about nothing. You may find some use for wasting that kind of time to discuss nothing, but I don't. I'm out.

[rjsquirrel]

59. 😘😘😘

Low count. Now that sounds like "no account."

I've been a daily poster for almost two years here. Sorry that doesn't get me in the Kool Progressives Klub.

Unlike some around here I do have other interests

[elias49]

60. Keep digging... eom

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Your math lacks practical application. The largest Democratic Caucus in the Congress?

The Progressive Caucus.

[arcane1]

105. Your post mocked all progressives. Or is it sexist simply to oppose DWS?

This place gets more fucked up every week

[SylviaD]

39. I shudder to think what you will make of *my* posting frequency. n/t

[merrily]

43. Reply 4 was not about frequency per se. Read the entire post.

[Mbrow]

65. I think I'll stick my two cents in.

I'm a lurker, there I've said it. The democratic powers that be absolutely need to be worried about the progressives. It stands to reason that based on real polling that the majority of the people are farther to the left then 99% of the candidates running, I could spend a few hours to get the figures to back my statements but I won't because either I'm preaching to the choir or you (collective you) won't believe me no matter what. So why post at all? Because if I can get one person who is reading and lurking to change their mind or do the search themselves I've done something good. As far as DWS or HRC it is a matter of continuing the same old BS that has gotten us to where we are today not anti-women nonsense. Having meet Bernie 20 years ago in a small meeting in San Diego, having time to really talk to the man, seeing how he hasn't changed his view point at ALL, so voting for the same old BS or trying something different? Guess which way I'll vote. Someone can correct me if I mis-quote this but I believe Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" and last but not least why do I mostly lurk with most of my post being K&R's? Because I'm not as literate as a lot of the really good posters are and someone has said it better or more concise then I could and saying "Me too!" gets silly after a while.

[SylviaD]

115. Hello, fellow lurker.

We have different political outlooks (I am a staunch Hillary supporter), but I agree on the lurking part. Not only have others said what I was thinking, often in much better ways than I could express it, but the times I have been moved to post have usually resulted in ugly arguments.

I live alone, I am fairly opinionated, and I have a habit of being a gadfly and an irritant. I am self-aware enough to understand myself and the fact that I am somewhat abrasive.

It's probably best I go back to lurking now.

[restorefreedom]

102. many prolific posters post trash regularly

i think it is quality v quantity. of course,there are some frequent posters who provide gems almost daily.

ya never know. i always wonder if people who don't post often are still reading but not posting (as i sometimes do) or are away from du completely doing other stuff

there is life outside du, right?

[treestar]

82. quit making it about the poster

especially a lower count poster. Not good behavior.

[merrily]

93. I do find it interesting to note what infrequent posters find worth responding to and why.

That's all I said in my first reply. If that's making it about the poster at all, it's the mildest "making it about the poster" I've seen on this board ever.

Oh, and quit telling me what to do.

[chervilant]

63. How condescending

to make this about whether DWS is (or should be?) "scared of progressives."



DWS is both partisan and inept. She is an embarrassment. Time for her to go.

[merrily]

64. And making it about DWS was the back pedal to boot.

[Chakab]

5. I'd say that it's strange to see people mocking progressives on this forum, but sadly, it isn't

these days.

[merrily]

9. In fairness, many on this forum, including me, have said negative things about

Third Way and New Democrats. The division between DU's left and DU's right has been exacerbated around Secretary Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency, especially since she is running against Senator Bernie Sanders. Actually, it's exacerbated just about every division on this board. I am told it was just as bad in 2008 and 2004, but this is the first time I am witnessing it as I did not read here until the 2008 primary was over.

[rjsquirrel]

12. Well I think it's sad

to see people who claim to be "progressive" engage in outright misogyny.

But that's me.

[merrily]

15. It is sad, but LINK and context? Because her remarks can be interpreted as misogyny, too.

[tazkcmo]

87. You sure fling accusations.

Where is your proof? From what I've seen, the largest reason for criticism of DWS has been the her poor performance in getting Democrats of any stripe elected. She's really bad at it. Then there's her obvious support for her BFF, Sec. Clinton. I'm sure you can dig up a comment here or there that can be viewed as misogynist but that would not be "many", most or a lot. It would be the exception.

So, please provide the "many" examples of "people who claim to be 'progressive' engage in outright misogyny".

Thank you in advance

[pnwmom]

13. People may safely mock the idea that that little group represents progressives in general. nt

[merrily]

18. That is not what Reply 1 did and safety is not an issue.

All posters are doing is calling out a poster for mocking progressives. No one is in danger, ffs.

[murielm99]

112. I think it's strange to see people mocking Democrats

on a Democratic discussion board. It isn't strange these days.

[trillion]

8. What is wrong with progressives?

[tazkcmo]

84. Stoopid pruhgressofs.

Them and there dum ooniuns and publik worx.

[Trajan]

90. Time to rid my DU of right wing posters

You don't like Progressives? ... You dislike Liberals?

Thanks for that information ...

You are gone ...

[merrily]

2. Everyone who cares about fairness and the proper role of the DNC should be calling for her ouster,

not only progressives and not only her resignation.

Quite apart from the choice issue.

[trillion]

6. I will need more information. If what's highlighted in this post is it, I'd have to say as a

feminist since 1980, I agree with her. There must be more in the whole article and it's too early in the morning for me to read it to find out. Before Occupy there was a saying - you're not an activist unless you're over 40. After Occupy there became a generation of activists all over the world - thankfully. It appears this woman cited the newly interested in fighting for womens rights in the piece above. My nieces perhaps still take them for granted and the rights to abortion have literally all but been removed (1 abortion clinic left) in several states now. Not exactly a lot of feet on the ground protest that I can see.

[merrily]

7. There's been quite a lot, though not necessarily about choice.

Most of us here, male and female, are feminists, including me. The line on DWS does not seem to be drawn at feminists, but at Hillary supporters specifically.


You must have omitted something here

but is appears this woman cited that above.

[trillion]

3. I don't have a problem with anything she's saying above.

[merrily]

17. Because? Women who were born after 1970 have faced sexism and troubles around

reproduction. She sounds clueless and tone deaf to me and I do understand the wire hanger issues of the pre Roe v. Wade days.

The last thing women need is a woman in a high position being dismissive.

[trillion]

19. " The last think women need is a woman in a high position being dismissive. " Agreed.

[merrily]

47. Thanks for finding my typo. I make quite a few.

I corrected it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. DNC Chair (DWS), Fueled By Booze PACs, Blasts Legal Pot

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told the New York Times she continues to oppose legalizing marijuana – even as she has courted alcohol PACs as one of the largest sources of her campaign funding.

Wasserman Schultz, a House Democrat from Florida, said she doesn’t “think we should legalize more mind-altering substances if we want to make it less likely that people travel down the path toward using drugs. We have had a resurgence of drug use instead of a decline. There is a huge heroin epidemic.”

The fifth-largest pool of money the congresswoman has collected for her re-election campaign has been from the beer, wine, and liquor industry. The $18,500 came from PACs including Bacardi USA, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Southern Wine & Spirits, and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that during a recent period, “excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64.”

When pushed by interviewer Ana Marie Cox, Wasserman Schultz said that she was “bothered by the drug culture that surrounded my childhood — not mine personally. I grew up in suburbia.”

Cox pointed out that despite the dramatic problem with opiate abuse, the state has not made opiates illegal. Wasserman Schultz responded by saying that there “is a difference between opiates and marijuana.”

She’s right about that. An esstimated 8,257 Americans perished from heroin-related drug poisoning in 2013. Nearly twice as many — 16,235 — died from opioid analgesics.

There have been roughly zero deaths from marijuana abuse.

In 2014, 64 percent of self-identified Democrats told Gallup they support marijuana legalization.

<snip>

Link: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/wasserman-schultz-fueled-by-booze-pacs-blasts-legal-pot/

[trillion]

20. Thanks! This helps for us who don't know about her. Now i'm off to bed.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. Madflordian on DU has documented her

standing with republicans over democrats
over the years..... just google in DU and you can find her documentation of her traitorous acts against democrats in Florida


Don't forget her failures for losing the Senate and the House during her tenure.

sleep well.

[Ford_Prefect]

34. Establishment Debbie decrying the ignorance of present day activists is so hypocritical.

We used to laugh at limousine liberals like her. Now they own the party machine (which is 1/2 of the problem).
What Debbie and her ilk leave out that the other side bent the rules and stole elections. Don't even mention the words hanging chad near her. Debbie is just fine with Citizen's United since it weeds out what in her mind are the "marginal" candidates.
She cannot articulate the behavior of the Kochs and other industrialists who have been funding and orchestrating the real war on women since she is so much a part of their class.

[Amimnoch]

40. So.. "progressive" group has issue with woman having opinion on women's issues?

First, a little truth in advertising.. It's not "Progressives Are Calling" it's 1 progressive group. A group that (I'm sure it's just a coincidence) has 9 of it's current top 10 issues about supporting Bernie Sanders (you know that campaign that has such close ties to DWS).

The faux-rage is strong with this one. Would be humorous if it wasn't such a pathetic attempt.

[merrily]

48. Yes, you've captured this thread honestly and precisely. Good for you!

It's all about a woman daring to have a totally reasonable opinion about younger women.

[Chef Eric]

54. CREDO has always been committed to women's issues.

Since its founding, CREDO has contributed over 3 million dollars to Planned Parenthood.

Here is a summary of what they accomplished in 2014:
http://www.credomobile.com/lp/jan15/year-in-review/

[onehandle]

58. Credo didn't even create that petition. See reply #57. nt

[Chef Eric]

41. Here is the link to the CREDO petition:

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/DWS_Resign

[Tortmaster]

42. Just because your favorite candidate was not ...

... completely ready for prime time doesn't mean you can shoot anger rays at everyone in sight.

[Amimnoch]

52. but.. but...butt.. this is surely just about what DWS said,

and has no other ulterior purpose other than that sole comment!

Really. truly.. seriously!!!



The faux-rage is strong with this one.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Is DWS a candidate? No. Are you suggesting that one candidate is Debbie's choice and thus to

criticize Debbie's longstanding assbackward conservative views on say, cannabis is actually an attack on Debbie's candidate?
What's your basis for that belief, exactly? Be specific.

[CharlotteVale]

46. Her endorsing Republicans should have gotten her fired

On the spot.

[Amimnoch]

53. Now there, at least is a real issue

and argument.

/agree.

[PeteSelman]

50. She's horrible.

In every way. She represents the very worst elements of this party.

[Sunlei]

55. She will not step down, quit her position at this point in our election process. Shes no quitter!

Petition the board of directors and follow the process of rules if some people don't want her to work for the D party anymore.

[onehandle]

57. LOL! Anyone can create a petition at that site. This is not Credo itself.

A long time DUer who got tombstoned was pushing a user created petition to 'not vote for Hillary in the GE' from that site.

You could go there and create a petition to ask Senator Sanders to quit. A 2 cent a word 'writer' at huffpo could write about it. Would that be news?

This is a political side-show article, not LBN.

[Buzz Clik]

68. Is this still about HRC's data that Bernie's staffer stole from the DNC computer?

[Odin2005]

70. This woman has been a disaster.

[djean111]

71. I live in Florida. Debbie openly supports her GOP buddies AGAINST Dems, because she likes her

"working relationship" with her GOP buddies. DWS is a DINO, and she does not get one penny or vote from me, if the occasion should present itself. Anyone who labels me misogynistic for this should know that, as I am a woman, I find DWS to be an embarrassment and a setback to feminism. Her gender has nothing to do with how I feel about her. And I feel the same way about all the members of that new Democrat Coalition. ALL of them. Not just Debbie.

[Sunlei]

80. What issue has she "supported republicans" on? what law?, what policy?

I could see a republican wanting to shun co-workers, ignore the president because they are not republican.

IMO, we Ds need people who have "working relationships" with all other elected people.

Some things still do get done in this country, laws are written, bills are finished when the two sides work together.

[Green Forest]

86. She refused to campaign for Democratic opponents to her GOP colleagues in FL.

Democratic party leaders have tapped Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to raise money and coach candidates in a high-stakes, aggressive bid to expand the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines... Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political campaigns, said the lack of support from top Democrats could make donors leery... Wasserman Schultz benefited from a close affiliation with the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which since its founding in 2003 has contributed $22,000 to Wasserman Schultz's campaign committee... Wasserman Schultz said the PAC support played no role in her decision...

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24478039.html#storylink=cp

Imagine if Bernie had done this? The hypocrisy among the " Who's the real Democrat?" crowd reeks.

[Babel_17]

72. The Republicans put our economy in the crapper, and that after the disastrous destruction of Iraq

And yet our leadership has supervised our losing both houses of Congress. And somehow there's no clamoring to deal with this. Everything is serene at the top of our party.

Things must look different, from those rarefied heights. Certainly no whiff of the fear and despair that many down here at ground zero are suffering.

[Sunlei]

75. Our party has to many Ds who will NOT get off their ass and vote.

That's why our Congress is the worse congress in history. "The people' voted for them.

[Babel_17]

79. They're emulating our leadership, not all that upset over Republicans winning elections

When Democrats win, Republicans point to it being a sign of the end times. They shame their base into showing up. We barely pretend to oppose what the Republicans favor.

We should be yelling at the top of our lungs about feckless foreign policy, the need to expand Social Security, and fairness for those at the bottom. We should reinstate our status as being the party of the people, and not just a servant for the elites.

[Sunlei]

83. people do 'yell about those things, yelling does no good in America if people do not vote.

[Babel_17]

85. I'm not hearing my party leaders yell about expanding (for example) Social Security

I do see Republicans I know getting pumped up by their leaders over their supposed issues.

[Sunlei]

88. ss probably will not expand much more then it is today. maybe rise a little with inflation costs.

Medicaid and Medicare could expand. Those should be our 'for all' non-profit gov. health care system.

Yes, republicans are best about gaining enough votes to win the position. Enough votes to win the position, is RW 'leaderships' main focus with all elections from local to federal.

[randr]

76. Her record of historically high Democratic loses across the Nation are reason enough for dismissal

Should have happened following the past election. You have to wonder how she has stayed on.

[PatSeg]

111. Exactly

If nothing else, she is obviously incompetent. We can not afford her as DNC Chair.

[marble falls]

77. I call on DWS to step down.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, tecelote.

[treestar]

81. Why bother - they should know they will hate the successor too

and scapegoat them.

Try convincing voters rather than this kind of side issue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. +1 ...

[jeff47]

100. Yes, you can tell by the hatred of her predecessor and his successes as chair

Oh wait....there isn't hatred for that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. I don't see how ...

“a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.”

would be a controversial statement.

Workers born into weekends, paid sick leave and the other union fought for working conditions have a complacency towards unions ... Black youth born into a world that the Civil Rights movement have a complacency towards that struggle.

[WillyT]

96. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[EndElectoral]

103. When has the DNC ever cared about what Progressives want?

[tabasco]

104. Add me to the list.

She's awful.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

108. She makes me sick to my stomach!

[blackspade]

109. DWS needs to go.

She is a toxic anchor to Democratic Party elections.

[Bernin]

110. So far

she has lost us the House and the Senate.
2 down 1 to go.

[JDPriestly]

114. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned when the 2010 election results were announced.