Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just doing her job.

[JohnnyRingo]

After reading several posts that accuse the head of the DNC of not being impartial, or of outright manipulation of the primary process, I feel compelled to point out the obvious. The DNC is not designed to stay clear of party politics.

The sole mission of the DNC is to allocate party resources with the goal of getting Democrats into office, and that's it. The DNC uses internal and public polling data to determine which candidate would be most electable and throws it's support behind that person. That support includes allocating finances and influence of the Super Delegates, whose power equals about 100,000 votes each in the primary process. There is no pretense of impartiality.

Certainly one can debate the data, but the DNC's job is absolutely to apply a thumb to the scale through various means to win the office, and without hard data to back up claims that the DNC is acting out of some sort of malice is a matter of opinion. If the Dems lose seats under Schultz's leadership, well, she already resides in an ideal retirement state.

I understand why Bernie supporters want the DNC to back their candidate, but the organization doesn't make decisions based on who looks best in pant suits or because of some vague political IOUs. My congressman, Democrat Tim Ryan, never sees a penny of party finances here in his safe NE Ohio seat. If finances were to be distributed equally, the entire DNC could be replaced by a clerk with a pocket calculator and a checkbook, wasting party money on the un-electable as well as overspending on the shoe-ins.

In a case of Deja Vu I recall that back in 2004 supporters of Dennis Kucinich here demanded the resignation of Howard Dean for the same reason. They argued that America was finally ready for a true liberal and Dennis was destined to win the White House. Instead, the DNC channeled their resources elsewhere. Were the Kucinich people right? I don't know, but it's an election process that both parties employ and predates the 20th century. For better or worse.

[saltpoint]

1. I'd like to see her step down and

a more vigorous and fair replacement installed.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Not until congress is 100% GOP

[cantbeserious]

2. The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way Establishment Is Apoplectic About A Bernie Presidency

DWS is carrying water for the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks that own and control the Democratic party.

She will do all she can to enable the anointed candidate of the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks - HRC.

[dlwickham]

29. no we're not

but thanks for playing

[cali]

3. Her performance has been plain awful by every imaginable metric

[madfloridian]

4. Guess who called Dean unfair and griped about all his rules in 2008. DWS that's who. Video

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. She mishandled this and should resign

[madfloridian]

5. No, she's handpicked our candidate for us.

[libdem4life]

6. What a crock.

On Edit: The biggest part of her job is to see that the Democratic Party does not look the fool...she failed there big time.

[highprincipleswork]

7. They can channel all the resources they want, after the nomination. This is dangerous.

They can channel all the resources they want, after the nomination. This is dangerous.

They are alienating a very large part of their potential base. How large? I know that folks on the Clinton side seem to be unconcerned whether or not these folks are part of the process or part of the vote, but I assure you, this is not a small number nor an electorate that necessarily votes against their principles and their feelings.

All that is asked for right now is an impartial, fair nomination process. Is that too much to ask?

Frankly, because Hillary can be agreed by pretty much everybody to be doing just fine in the debates, the best thing she could do for her future electability is to join the call for more debates, taking away the largest argument for favoritism that exists right now.

What do you think about that?

[Kentonio]

8. The point you seem to be missing..

Is that if what you say is true and its completely acceptable for the DNC to basically choose whatever candidate they want to run for office, then the entire point of having a primary is gone, and the Democratic party no longer has anything to do with democracy.

The job of the DNC during a primary is to act as a neutral organizer to facilitate Democrats having a fair and democratic internal election to decide who those tens of millions of people want to see running for President. If the members of the party choose to back Clinton, then the job of the DNC is to do everything it can to help her get elected, but trying to ensure that she is the eventual nominee before the party members have even had a chance to cast a single vote is absolutely unacceptable. That kind of subversion of democracy is exactly why so many people now count themselves as independents rather than Democrats.

You might also want to ask exactly why Debbie Wasserman Schultz supported Republican candidates over Democrats in the past.

[mmonk]

9. I consider her my opposition.

How would I get that idea? I've been a Democrat for 41 years.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. Friday and Saturday debates? When GOP gets Prime-Time Weekdays, and MORE of them?

.


The debates are the best way to express the liberal message, having less debates, and on low viewership days is the antithesis of promoting the Democratic vision. I want a Democrat in the White House--that's my primary desire.


DWS's actions are not conducive of this goal.


The GOP is running roughshod over the DNC messaging. Why can they get select hours and more debates?


.

[Gregorian]

11. This notion flashed through my head during the debate last night.

I've heard a number of progressives discussing the ways in which we treat public education like a business. Just run it like a business, and everything will work. And it is exactly this process by which the people end up without a voice, or as much of a voice as is needed in order to provide feedback. Who is running the show, is the question I ask. I know it's not binary, but is it a business, or is it a democracy? It's not like she didn't know we wanted more debates, etc. It's more like no one is listening. This all coincides with what you posted. It's true. And it shouldn't be. We SHOULD have had more debates. Maybe we could have found out more about O'Malley, or the evil secret Tourettes that Bernie gets when he can't rebut false claims.

[Punkingal]

12. Yeah...

[Gore1FL]

14. She's not good at her job.

She wasn't good at her job on Clinton's campaign in 2008.

She's a loyal idiot. She needs to be replaced.

[Broward]

15. Doing her job as she sees it. Get Hillary elected.

[BuelahWitch]

16. Howard didn't become head of the DNC till early 2005 n/t

[libdem4life]

17. Only if her job is to be an Oligarch of the Democratic Party.

Everyone makes their own decision on this, but this is what I've come to after researching the concept of government that Bernie is opposing, well what do you know? Here it is in a microcosm.

"Does it ever feel like just a few people have all the power? If it's a government that's run like this, it's an oligarchy. A country that has this form of government is an oligarchy too.
The political term, oligarchy, comes to English from the Greek with its meaning intact - a form of government run by a small number of people such as wealthy landowners, royalty or powerful military figures. If you say that you can't fight the oligarchy, you mean the leaders of such a place. Sometimes the word refers to the few powerful people in charge of a large company or system. A financial oligarchy might try to block reform.'

And what is even more sad, is that even though it is a Greek word, the term has a Russian connotation. That's why so many are leaving or not participating...it's an Oligarchy and they know it is likely futile.

This includes the Union Bosses that did not poll their workers for an endorsement.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/oligarchy Edit for Link:

Just to be clear...this has nothing to do with DU or anyone here. JMHO. If it's hidden, oh well. But I've posted this many times in regards to the party and it just hit me...None of us felt like we could do much of anything about the situation. One Candidate. Not anti-Hillary either...it's in my sig line...but this has to be stopped.

[Jarqui]

18. BS

CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
(I don't know if this is the latest copy but it will do)
http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/POLITICALMACHINES/DemocraticPartyRules.html#Anchor-Democratic-11481

Article Five
National Chairperson
...
Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and even-handedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns.The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

In October, the Sanders campaign reported a security breach to the DNC and that their data had been compromised.

"We're actually very confident that some of our data was lost to one of the other campaigns"
(I note he isn't the only one to have made this claim. Sanders did last night as did Josh, the fired IT data director)

Clearly, the chairperson did not handle that concern with the same "impartiality and even-handedness" that she handled the recent breach. Night and day difference between the two very similar events (except I suspect the Sanders compromise of their data was worse). No auditor called. No leak to the media by DWS. No suspension of the guilty campaign's access to the voter database.

It's utterly beyond any rational or conceivable debate that the handling of the two situations by DWS were remotely similar.

DWS is in violation of the duties expected of her under the "CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES" and she should be dismissed promptly.

[99th_Monkey]

21. Thank you for this, showing clearly that DWS is NOT "doing her job", or doing it very poorly

[Gregorian]

22. Good.

That's how it should be. She's running it her way, not our way.

Thanks for doing what I should have done. Now we know.

[Jarqui]

34. Found the current charter and bylaws as of August 28, 2015

link
http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf

The clause I quoted on the National Chairperson is unchanged.

[99th_Monkey]

19. You do know this is called the "Nuremberg Defense", do you not?

The Nazis were "just doing their job" too, but that didn't absolve them of wrong-doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

on edit: DWS is actually not even 'doing her job', far from it... as Jarqui points out in post #18.

[JohnnyRingo]

23. And if she threw full support of the DNC to...

...Bernie Sanders, you and others would be lauding her sage decisions and offer a hero's welcome akin to Doolittle's ticker tape parade of 1943. Nice play of the Godwin card.

You can argue the decision to back HRC in the primaries, but not the ability to do so. Only time will be the ultimate judge of whether that was wise.

[99th_Monkey]

32. I hope you saw the "on edit" part of my post.

Which says: "DWS is actually not even 'doing her job', far from it... as Jarqui points out in post #18" ... Debbie's
job description is act impartially to all primary candidates, so your claim that DWS is "just doing her job" is way off the mark.

[Matariki]

20. "... with the goal of getting Democrats into office"

And how is she doing on that account? Having lost both the House and the Senate majorities I'd say she is doing a shit job and needs to be replaced with someone competent.

[JohnnyRingo]

24. You can indeed argue that point.

The gist of my post isn't really to debate who should get the support of the DNC, only to state it's ability to administrate resources.

I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, HRC supporters would be calling for her head while Sanders' people would call her the greatest political mind of a generation.

[Matariki]

26. Saying 'if the shoe were on the other foot' doesn't validate the holes in your argument

That's weak sauce.

[treestar]

25. Agree using her as scapegoat

Because Bernie can't get more voters is horrid

[madville]

27. I wonder what her job will be in the Clinton Administration?

Secretary of State? She will certainly be pro-Israel enough to get enough support in the Senate confirmation process.

[Old Codger]

30. How about

Running mate?

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Okay. Assuming arguendo, How's that going for us?

If she's doing her job, then who the fuck is she working for?

[ljm2002]

31. The only thing we Sanders supporters want...

...is for the DNC to follow their own damned contract. Oh, and maybe next time handle an internal problem internally, rather than advertise to the entire world how incompetent you and your vendor are at keeping data secure.

Had they done that in the first place, there would not be the animosity there is now.

[williesgirl]

33. I won't donate one penny to the DNC until DWS is gone.

I will donate direct to candidates instead. We could well lose the general due to her awful scheduling and lack of enough debates. She's been Repuke's dream so far.

[Vinca]

35. This is only the last of many things she's botched.

Take the Kentucky governor's race. It was almost completely ignored by the DNC and now residents of Kentucky have their health insurance on the line. The debate schedule is ludicrous - too few and at unreasonable times. She hasn't been doing a good job and she really needs to be replaced if we want to get Democrats elected around the country.