Myth Busted: Hillary Clinton Didn’t Reward Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[SFnomad]

Myth Busted: Hillary Clinton Didn’t Reward Debbie Wasserman Schultz

When Hillary Clinton gave Debbie Wasserman Schultz an honorary position in her 50-state program yesterday upon the news of the DNC Chair’s resignation, many quickly jumped to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton was rewarding Wasserman Schultz with “quid pro quo” for “rigging the election”.

A few things:

1) An honorary position is usually not paid. Per the definition of “honorary”: “Holding an office or title given as an honor, without payment.”

2) Quid pro quo definition: “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.”

3) While emails show Wasserman Schultz had a favorite, they do not show actual resources being used to help that favorite. What she did was unfair and not very smart, but she did not ultimately direct resources toward Clinton and away from Sanders.

[riversedge]

1. Was DWS's name on any of those emails??

[Dawgs]

2. Yes. nt

[uponit7771]

3. Was her name on any of the emails that intimated any bias? If so do we have any of them to see? tia

[riversedge]

7. You asked the question better than I did.. Thank you.

[Dawgs]

10. Yes. I hope I am wrong about Hillary losing in the GE?

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9999

Saying "he isn't going to be president" before the primary is over absolutely shows bias. Her job is to be impartial and this clearly shows that she isn't.

[uponit7771]

11. I 100% disagree with that sentiment seeing by May Clinton locked up the nomination numerically...

... Sanders camp can argue that everything wasn't over ... but her assessment was accurate by any other standard

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. "Was her name on any of the emails that intimated any bias? If so do we have any of them to see? tia

[Dawgs]

4. The article says she did it to utilize DWS's strengths.

Well, what the hell would those be? She was the worst DNC chair in my lifetime that has been terrible at getting anyone not named Obama elected.

So, what are these talents?

[riversedge]

8. ENOUGH with the cutting down of a good Democrat.

[Dawgs]

9. So, you can't come up with anything? nt

[uponit7771]

12. There are already list of her progressive bonafides and its always been a nefarious tactic to intima

... that these people had no good progressive qualities.

[Dawgs]

13. I'm talking about her accomplishments as DNC chair.

Not whether she is a progressive or not..which she really isn't that much.

[abetterkid]

14. Money and Important Florida Connections

She was a prominent fundraiser who holds MANY deep ties in Florida...that swing state we need to win.

[Dawgs]

15. LOL. That's a pretty pathetic "list". nt

[Amishman]

16. she wasn't a good Democrat or good at her job

A good Democrat would have pursued an inclusive party, DWS absolutely served the old guard / party elites above all else. If this scandal clears out the DNC of her messes, it might be one of the better things to happen to us in a while (assuming it doesn't cost us the white house, but I just can't imagine Trump winning no matter what happens)

Under her watch, the pubs gained a massive advantage overall at the state and local level. I'm glad to see her leave, she did enough damage.

[uponit7771]

17. The DNC is inclusive, its more diverse than under Obama... regards

[fun n serious]

5. That's a stretch.

Every DEM was angry at Bernie. The math for him has been out of reach since April and his continuing to RAIL against DEMOCRATS made DEMS not like him. Simple as that.