Do you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a HORRIBLE DNC Chair person ?

[bigdarryl]

My opinion is she's a good Congress woman but as Chair person for the DNC she isn't good.That's my opinion anyway

[monmouth3]

1. She doesn't impress me at all. Her scolding of Alan Grayson was BS..n/t

[gtar100]

2. Unfortunately, yes.

In the past I heard some really good interviews with her. She seemed like a real fighter for progressive causes. But since she's been DNC Chair, she seems to be fighting more against us than with us. Maybe I never really knew her in the first place.

[Dawgs]

3. And way beyond. n/t

[FarPoint]

4. Yes...

Thought all along as being a terrible choice.

[greatlaurel]

5. Yes

She needs to go, but she has a lot of big sugar money behind her. She is not on our side.

[IdaBriggs]

8. Talk about a "straw man" argument.

First you imply that her criticism of Alan Grayson was because he wasn't being an "adult" despite his record as one of the most EFFECTIVE people in congress.

Then you imply that people who don't like her style of criticizing the people she is supposed to be supporting/not criticizing the opposition, and blatant refusal to run Democrats against Republicans she "likes" are misogynistic.

Her JOB is to ELECT AND SUPPORT DEMOCRATS. If she can't do that because she "likes" Republicans too much to support candidates who oppose them or address the "elephant in the room" about the racism, etc. then she needs to go, and we need to get someone in the job who can DO IT.

My opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[beerandjesus]

11. Not just "your opinion"

It's one thing to say DWS is hunky-dory. It's another thing to accuse those who disagree of sexism


But just for the record, I, too, actually adults in the room!

[IdaBriggs]

7. Yes. When she publicly criticized Alan Grayson, she lost me.

She needs to be criticizing THE OPPOSITION, not the people on her own team.

[JNelson6563]

42. Sounds a lot like DU.

I have often wondered if DU isn't an asset to the opposition sometimes...

Julie

[beerandjesus]

9. Completely agree.

I loved seeing her on the talking head shows when she was "just" a Congressman... now that she's DNC Chair, she bores me on a good day.

[Chan790]

12. I think she's bad...but not much worse than her predecessors.

She's bad at her job, but so were Kaine, McAuliffe and Rendell; arguably she's not as bad as Rendell but worse than Kaine and McAuliffe which is impressive because I generally have no use for the current crop of prominent fiscally-conservative VA Democrats. {McAuliffe, Kaine, Warner} Dean was much better than DWS, but Dean's unarguably the best DNC chair in several decades and a great DNC chair...the last one before Dean I'd even rate better than average is Dodd or perhaps Romer.

To answer more briefly, I think DWS sucks but not much more than other recent DNC chairs. Her crappiness at the job in light of the crappy performance of others in the same job is not a reason to accept crappiness at the job though. She should be replaced.

[bemildred]

13. Sensitive people should stay out of politics. nt

[randr]

14. Until I see her each and every day

firing with both barrels at the Republican idiocy I will remain unimpressed.

[former9thward]

15. I think the DNC Chair should be a full time person.

You can't be a full time Congress person and DNC head at the same time.

[tavalon]

17. You can until if your party has the Presidency,

until about 2 years out, then you need a full timer. If you want to win, you grab a Howard Dean sort, if you wanna lose, you make Debbie full time.

[tavalon]

16. Well, yeah, but our side has the Presidency, so she has the relevency of a toad

a very small toad.

That Penis guy is supposed to be out there and up front but he's not so much. It's weird.

It is getting to be time to pull in a better hitter for the next Presidential battle.

[polichick]

18. Typical third way corporate Dem - yep, that's "a horrible DNC Chair person."

[LibGranny]

19. Yes, I think she is horrible!

[bigwillq]

20. Yes (nt)

[Ikonoklast]

21. Never was a fan of DLC Debbie, ever.

Now even less so.

[ancianita]

22. Not horrible. But not impressive. I see her leadership as status quo patriarchal and rule bound.

Perhaps she's the female face of the party for voters. So far, she appears to want male acceptance and to keep it, she will not rock the party's established DLC or other groups. I saw her nastily discourage progressive or liberal candidates in Florida in the runup to the 2012 cycle. She seems to treat progressive/liberal agendas with benign neglect. Beyond that, I don't see any strategy from her to enfold more voters from independent, immigrant or disenchanted Republican voters. I don't see her lead any fights against Democratic voter purging. She speaks well about congressional dramas on TV but that just doesn't do it for me. I wish Grayson or Dean would take over.

[Downtown Hound]

23. Let's just say I miss Howard Dean.

With him, we were practically unstoppable.

[truebluegreen]

24. Yes.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. An out-of-the-box high level strategist (like Dean) she IS NOT. Obama sure

does seem not very good at some of his female choices - like Schultz and Sebelius. IMHO, only. I can't stand women in power who seem indecisive and lack confidence and gravitas. Patty Murray comes to mind as well. I am sure they are all WONDERFUL loyal people...but for a women you have to have gravitas in politics.

[DFW]

38. The Party Chair has a different role when they control the White House

As fate would have it, I was chatting with Howard on a train from Washington to New York when the news of Wasserman-Schultz was announced. Howard was OK with it. I asked about her ability to fill his shoes. Howard said it wasn't a relevant question. He said that when a party controlled the White House, the head of the Party was the President. Only in opposition did the Party chair hold such prominence, which is why he had such a high profile from 2004 to 2008.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. That is very interesting DFW. How cool to be able to talk to him like you did. But

I really can't see her being different, say with a Romney administration, can you?

[DFW]

43. She wouldn't be there under a Romney adminstration

I've known Howard since before he was a presidential candidate. We speak on a regular basis, and get together when we can when our schedules permit, which, considering our two schedules, is almost never, maybe once a year.

DWS wouldn't be different, but the DNC would require a wartime (to borrow from Godfather I) chairperson if the Republicans held the White House. Howard filled that role perfectly during the second Cheneybush term, and I'm sure he would have stayed on if Obama had lost in 2008, or come back if he had lost in 2012. DWS is not the person to lead a fight to take back the White House, although I don't know her, so I'm speculating there. Howard faced some stiff opposition for the post in 2004, but as we all now know, he was exactly what was needed. Judy didn't see him a lot in those days, although he tried his level best to vanish from the radar on weekends to be back with her. At the New Year's things I go to where he sometimes shows up, he always vanishes before noon on the 31st to be back in Burlington to ring in the New Year. For all the Republicans' chest thumping over "family values," Howard is one of the most dedicated family men I have ever met.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. I wonder, if in retrospect, if HD is like an old boyfriend

You wonder what could have been - and you make them out to be better than they really are? Hope we find out one day - he should run for Prez again !!

It is interesting what you say about a need for a different type of party chair depending on if we are in power or not. Strikes me that we always need to be on our toes, and planning strategically for the future. Otherwise in four or eight years you end up flat footed. I dare to say that it's hard to imagine Obama, or any president for that matter, really concentrating at all on the future of the party, except when it relates to passing legislation within his (soon to be her) term. Understandably so.

[DFW]

48. I didn 't say that. Howard did.

And Howard is one of the few people who can truthfully say he's been there and done that.

It is not a question of vigilance so much as avoiding a conflict. If our party holds the White House, it does us no good to have a DNC chair in a position of equal status, in case there should be a disagreement somewhere. The president must set the party tone for his party (or, in the case of W, the vice-president, but that was an exception, not the rule). For the opposition, it's the party head. Howard was a brilliant party chair, and we did great in 2006 and 2008. Michael Steele lucked out when so many Democrats were caught sleeping in 2010, but he was soon recognized for the non-belligerent he was, and when Priebus took over as RNC chair, their fortunes headed deservedly southward. Where Steele was merely uninspiring, Priebus is outright disgusting, and only a minority of Republicans are inspired by him. Since about 99% of Democrats were inspired by Howard, we answered his call, and the results still speak for themselves.

It's a rare president indeed that spends a lot of time working on laying the ground for his successor. This is understandable to a certain degree if you examine the last 18 months of presidents in the last 50 years. Kennedy never got the chance to complete his first term. LBJ was tired and dejected over Vietnam. Nixon never thought he'd have to leave in Disgrace. Ford never had the time. Carter thought up until the end he was going to get a second term. Reagan was non compos mentis. Bush senior, like Carter, thought up until the end he was going to get a second term. Clinton came close, but was caught up in his impeachment (in my opinion, instigated for that very reason). Bush Lite couldn't care less, and Obama isn't there yet. I think Obama could end up being the first president in over a century (!!!!) that will actually have the opportunity, the time and the energy to arrange for a smooth transition to another president of his own party.

[Polly Hennessey]

27. Debbie W-S

Yes. Whenever she is on I hit the mute button or fast-forward.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

28. In a word?

Not in this fucking world.

Okay, three.

[Blue Owl]

29. Puts the "ish" in establishment

n/t

[Jamaal510]

30. I can't really say because

I don't know too much else about her, but I do agree with some other posters that it was foolish of her to condemn Grayson. All he did was bring spotlight on what many people have already assumed about the Tea Party. His remarks weren't nearly as offensive to them as how they affectionately portray Obama as a monkey or as Hitler.

[fredamae]

31. Shes a "New Dem/Third Way Coalition" member

http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership

Or as I consider them "GOP Lite"-their votes support that theory, imo. These folks seem to be the supporters of SNAP/SocSec/Medicare cuts etc...
Again, just my observation.
She seems a nice person, but I will Not agree with their positions.
Dems of late seem pretty Pro on Social Issues and pretty Deadly toward our Earned Benefits/Social Services.

[atreides1]

32. She wasn't the best choice!

Mainly because of this:

Controversy arose in March 2008 when she announced that she would be unable to campaign against South Florida Republican representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen because of her good friendship with them.


There can be no friends with the opposite party during an election...not saying that it would have made a diffrence but we'll never know..will we?

[ChiciB1]

33. YES, YES, AND YES...

And I said so when she became the Chairman!

[brush]

34. She sure pulled off a terrific 2012 Dem National Convention

It totally outshone the train wreck repug convention and helped tremendously in getting the President re-elected.

Criticizing Grayson was not wise though. She could have agreed with him without the strong language which would have still come off as a needed critique by the DLC of the racists in the repug party.

Too bad she didn't think to do that.

[Beaverhausen]

35. BRING BACK HOWARD DEAN

and the 50 state strategy!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. I love Dr. Dean, too, but just be sure you know what you're asking...

The 50 State Strategy will give us liberal, moderate and CONSERVATIVE Democrats. Many liberals here on DU and elsewhere cannot accept that reality. I don't have a problem wih it myself because I still believe that the Democratic Party should be a big tent.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. I think she has been shitty. The DNC has not gotten behind Barbara Buono

who has been left to fight a losing battle not of her own making. It really sucks!

Instead, cowardly Democrats support Christie. It is absolutely disgusting!!

DNC gets no money from me. I will give to individual candidates but NEVER to the DNC, not while she heads it.

I like Steve Israel. I think he's done the best he can with the tools he has available to him.

[Rowdyboy]

39. In 2008 she refused to campaign against Florida Republican Reps Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana

Ros-Lehtinen because they were her "friends". If she wants the job she should do it, regardless of her "friends". Otherwise resign and let someone who has a better class of friends take the job.

Yes, I think she is an extremely bad choice for the job.

[ancianita]

40. She's Jon Stewart's guest on the Daily Show tonight, if anyone wants to see mutual soft peddling.

[hollowdweller]

44. She's OK

She's more like the Clinton era Dem where we are supposed to defend against the republicans attacks and act moderate.

I think she's a step down from Dean.

Dean would be cool again, but so would a very charismatic more liberal tech savvy younger dem.

[Coyotl]

46. NO

[petson]

47. politics

I want to tell you that I hate politics from youth time because the person who is elected until the election time they follow after that, you have followed them for lifetime.