HRC essentially picks the DNC chair...here are some qualities she should look for among applicants:

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:28 PM - Edit history (1)

1) An appreciation of the fact that the party is NOT just the Beltway and big donors, but must also be workers, the poor, those oppressed socially AND economically, and the activists who stand with all of those groups;

2) A lack of ties with corporate power or special interest groups;

3) An absolute commitment to personal and political transparency;

4) A commitment not to support retrograde policies(such as the drug war, the preservation of the payday loan industry, private prisons, polluting industries, and the defense of bad governments in other countries);

5) An understanding that midterm elections are as important as presidential elections, and an willingness to work hard, no matter what, to fire up our core supporters and get out the vote in those midterms(this is crucial, because history proves we can ONLY win midterms when we fire up the vote and the national party works hard and invests heavily in GOTV);

6) An understanding of social media and how to use it to elect Democratic candidates.

To me, this is a bare minimum set of expectations.

Add any others you might have below.

[JI7]

1. lol

[Ken Burch]

2. OK...are you laughing because you think that list is unrealistic...

...or do you actually disagree with anything on it?...

[Scuba]

3. K&R

[annavictorious]

4. Here's my expectation.

That people will treat the woman at the head of the party with the same respect they treat a man at the head of the party.

People aren't entitled to dictate terms, even if they're only doing it to help the little lady out.

I trust Hillary's judgment. I'm with her, not with you.

[Ken Burch]

6. I'm offering advice. There is nothing disrespectful in that.

And it's only on the right who opposed HRC because of her gender.

Everyone who voted for other candidates in OUR primary would have treated HRC in exactly the same way if her name had been Henry.

It was the policies, not the sex organs.

[annavictorious]

7. It kinda sounded like you were listing expectations.

Especially because you used the word "expectations".

Offering advice is a good thing, and I actually agree with some of your points.

That said, I've been shaking my head in disbelief over the degree of entitlement that I've been witnessing the last few weeks.

And today I heard the leader of a group of Sanders supporters say that they're going to challenge the VP nomination from the floor. When was the last time that a group of delegates felt entitled to deny the nominee her VP choice? Never, What's different this time?

Let me think.....

[Ken Burch]

9. 1972, actually.

A lot of delegates at the DNC in Miami voted for Frances "Sissy" Farenthold, instead of McGovern's own selection, Thomas Eagleton(the issue was that Eagleton was a hard-core anti-choice Dem). Farenthold took 405 votes(Eagleton got 1,742 and, for some reason, first-term Alaska U.S. Senator Mike Gravel took 228.

As it turned out, we'd have done far better in that race if Sissy Farenthold had beaten Eagleton.

[annavictorious]

11. The issue was that Eagleton had undergone shock therapy after a nervous breakdown.

And McGovern got his choice, disastrous as it was.

[Ken Burch]

13. Nobody knew about the shock therapy when Eagleton was nominated.

(what we also didn't know was that it was Eagleton who had been anonymously quoted calling McGovern the candidate of "acid, amnesty and abortion" in a Robert Novak column, a description that basically cost McGovern the Catholic vote. If the McGovern campaign had known of that, they would not have chosen Eagleton, and would not have been forced to remove Eagleton from the ticket when the shock therapy story broke).

[annavictorious]

15. Yes, I know.

That's why he stepped down, but McGovern did get his pick.

So let me recap. As you so helpfully pointed out, if we go back to 1972, we can find an exception to the general rule that a nominee's choice is not challenged from the floor. Of course, those were the days when conventions were really conventions rather than four day long infomercials for political parties.

And I'm sure that if the floor fight over the VP pick happens this year, all the anchors and all the pundits will reassure all the viewers that this happens all the time, if you define "all the time" as "once every 45 years".

I feel so much better now that I know that the media won't spin this into a story about party disunity.

[Ken Burch]

16. I don't advocate a floor fight over the VP slot.

Just pointing out that it has happened.

We also had roll call votes for the position in 1944 and 1956.

[onecaliberal]

5. Good list.

[Chathamization]

8. Clinton doesn't pick the DNC Chair, the DNC Chair is voted on by DNC committemembers

To be one of the candidates I believe you need to be a member of the DNC and collect a certain number of signatures from committeemembers.

[JI7]

10. when there is a Dem President , the President pretty much can decide who will be DNC Chair

[Chathamization]

12. Only if the committeemembers decide to blindly follow them

Just because most committeemembers do a terrible job doesn't mean they have to, or that we should accept that. I'm not sure why anyone would support committeemembers who act as rubber stamps (or vote for such a person, for the committemembers that are voted in by the base).

[zenabby]

14. I'm sure...

Mrs. Clinton, soon to be Madame President does not have time to read every single expectation. She will consult with her advisors, and use her executive judgement to figure out who she wants to replace DWS. She will also nominate and preside in her role based on her talents. We can provide our "expectations" by voting - that's all we get to do - 1 vote. Use it wisely.