Why are Democrats not Throwing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to the Wolves?


"It is ok because everyone does it" is basically the battle cry of the 2016 DNC.

Caught using private email to skirt the public's right to know what the government is doing? "It's ok, Colin Powell and Bush did it too!"

Caught tipping the scales for one candidate when you are supposed to be neutral? "It's ok, that is just politics, everyone does it!"

The democratic party seriously needs to look at itself and its candidate in the mirror if the best argument is that it is ok to do things they vilified others for because those people did it first.

What a shitshow.
I can't quit you...If you keep using Star Trek references.
She is resigning over the fact that the DNC didn't want someone who'd spent 25 years thumbing his nose at them to be their presidential nominee?
Because wolves don't like junk food?
Sounds like Debbie is gonna be "committing suicide" real soon.
democrats deserve this so much. enjoy 8 years of trump
@1 is the DNC supposed to be neutral? They're a private organization, not a governmental entity.
@ 8, Surprisingly, yes:

Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter mandates the following:

“The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
Given how disjointed and crazytown the RNC event was last week, this was probably an attempt at setting the tone for party early into the chaos. I think they saw what happened when Cruz shot his future political ambitions in the face last week in addition to all the total monkeyfuckery happening and tried to tack in the opposite direction.

It would have worked *if* the Clinton campaign had made its incredulous disappointment at the dirty deeds of DWS and pushed to have her graciously step away from any sort of visibility at the convention. They probably didn't though because pushing back too hard was likely thought to be too divisive at the start of the convention. They really should have pushed back a lot harder.

Idk, I think in the end this won't come to very much. I'm not sure what at this point could take the Clinton campaign down because nothing else seems to have worked.
@8: So you think that during an unsettled primary, the DNC secretly chooses a candidate to support over all the others before the voted have been tallied? Why exactly do you think what happened to Schultz happened?

I'll give you a hint: it is because they are not supposed to do that. Do you understand what the primary election is and why it happens?

Were today's posts written before she resigned and stepped away from all of her convention responsibilities?
^ My reading comprehension and attention to detail are in fine form this afternoon.
She's a non-entity. Seriously, calm down.

I'll bet if you asked anyone on the streets who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is, easily half will think she played Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Only political wonks care; the average American isn't paying that much attention. To Clinton and Trump? Sure. Schultz? Eh, not so much. And by November, the only people who will remember her are the folks who are either deeply entrenched in politics or the people who are paid to care. And the occasional rabid ferret.

Chill out. She's not the make-or-break of this campaign, not by a long shot.
Gee, long time party workers and regulars were hostile to a candidate who only just joined the party a couple of years ago in order to run for president. I can't imagine why there would be any ill will there.
Under DWS republicans control 31 governorships, have gained over 900 state legislative seats, control of federal congress and senate chambers. Why wasn't she fired sooner? She sucks.
Assuming the question isn't purely rhetorical, one possible answer would be: what would be the point? She's already throwing herself on her own sword, as it were, and even IF the Democratic Party did as you suggest, what could possibly be the positive outcome for them? It won't bring disaffected Sanders supporters on the far Left back into the fold, and up until this leak (which has been known now for more than a month), she was considered an effective Chair for the DNC, having successfully shepherded President Obama's second election victory. She hasn't been without controversy, but she's been a solid, loyal member of the Democratic Party and presumably will continue to be so, assuming she wins her own re-election bid in the FL 23rd this November.

So, maybe it's just a sign that some people don't think it's a good idea to throw friends under the bus, even when they fuck up...
From DailyKos: "Honorary chair does not mean that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is “in charge of” Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It doesn’t mean anything. That is, unless you think President Obama’s 2012 campaign was run by actress Eva Longoria; or former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee; or high school guidance counselor Loretta Harper—all of whom were among 24 people who served as honorary co-chairs of Obama’s 2012 campaign.

Being an honorary chair is not a job. It’s a courtesy. It’s the associate producer of politics. It’s an empty title handed out to help ease Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of her chair and make it slightly more palatable for her to leave a job she’d done (badly) for five years without putting up a fuss.

It’s a face-saving sop."
She delivered the nomination to Clinton, just like the party insiders wanted. So, she is being rewarded with a sinecure as the "honorary" (paid without having to work) national chair of the Clinton campaign. And few mainstream Democrats are complaining because their chosen candidate won and that is all that matters. At this point, who needs actual progressives? Clinton seems to be doing just fine attracting Republicans who don't like Trump.
Why is Schultz still making appearances? You said it yourself, "For now, the worst that anyone's been able to find in the emails are a few staffers expressing a general dislike of Bernie."

A few staffers made some disparaging remarks about Sanders. Wow. What didn't the e-mails show? Evidence that the DNC chose a debate schedule in order to disadvantage Bernie Sanders, as his campaign repeatedly alleged. Nor have any e-mails been produced that show the DNC actively conspiring with the Clinton campaign against Sanders. In contrast, the e-mail indicate that Schultz actually put a stop to certain staffers suggestions to effect the outcome of the nominating process.

If Wikileaks had something actually damning in these e-mail they would have released those documents already. You don't hold back your best cards when it comes to building your case.
@17, Yyyyyeaaaaaahhhhhh, but. It just doesn't look good. She should be nowhere near the DNC, Clinton, or her campaign until the election is over.
@16, if you consider what @15 said, it's highly questionable that DWS was an effective leader of the DNC. I would attribute Obama's re-election to his own organization and Romney looking too obviously like a candidate who only gave a damn about the 1%. On the other hand, Howard Dean, with a solid 50 state strategy for electing democrats to congress, was a very effective DNC head and if the DNC can get their heads out of their neo-liberal buttcracks, maybe they'll find a new leader who will potentially be as effective as Dean was in recruiting and electing good populist democrats.

If you make it into a high profile leadership position, aren't you virtually by definition someone who is a "solid, loyal member" of the Democratic Party? But getting back to her effectiveness, DWS refused to support Democratic challengers running against several vulnerable Republicans because she is friends with them.
I never remotely understood the alleged allure of Schultz. And don't personally know any one else who liked her. Plus her politics were fairly shifty. Good Riddance. And please Hill, wash your hands of her.
Throw her to the wolves? What wolves? Why? Why not express our disappointment in the way she behaved -- a lot of Dems wanted her out because she was clearly not being impartial -- and let her go? Why do we have to pay any more attention to her once the convention is over?

Does throw her to the wolves mean we have to talk shit about her from here to eternity? Talk like Trump?

The scandal goes far beyond just the emails. There is evidence to show that the vote was rigged. Enough for Sanders to file a lawsuit. From anyone who knows him, this is not how he operates unless he's got something serious. He'd rather haggle and make a deal.

There was widespread evidence of vote fraud (*not* "voter" fraud as the Rs would have you believe, but fraud in the counting) back in '04, and certainly in '00. When Obama took office, acted all high & mighty, to get rid of corruption in DC, he attempted a lot. Why didn't he go after the voting machines? Not a word. Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

Because instead of getting rid of it, the Dems wanted to use it. It sucks, but there it is. In at least three major states, the exit polls varied widely from the end results. You loyal liberals can try to dismiss the clown-car that was the CA primary, but all your showing is extreme party loyalty before the good of the country. You know, the same exact thing that the Rs have been doing for two decades now. You know, the same exact thing that we have criticized them endlessly over.
Some Old Nobody has been reading crank diaries on Daily Kos

Has there ever been a longer campaign cycle??

@17, Hey Jude, Thank you. It did sort of remind me of an honorary degree.
kind of fun watching Hillary fry in her own fat...
Like Bernie Sanders himself, I keep trying to sell Hillary to my fellow Sanders supporters, only to watch her fuck it up. SHE is fucking it up. Not Kshama Sawant. Not Bernie Sanders. Not Jill Stein. HILLARY CLINTON is currently fucking up on her own, and the path of not-fucking-up is before us, a trail of bread crumbs and sunlight upon it. Everyone is shouting "GO DOWN THAT PATH!" and she's not.

I am glad someone at the Stranger has the lack of denial to say Hillary needs to do something, not everyone-not-Hillary.
It's funny Bernie was on my ballot in Illinois (I know because I voted for him) and Debbie Whatsertits and the DNC had zero input on who I chose.
My side lost and now I'm voting for Hillary. Which is basically voting for 4 more years of Obama which I'm pretty okay with.
That's without even mentioning the narcissistic sociopath the other party is running.
@15 Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be familiar to people in the "real" Washington. She's a middling party hack that found herself in over her head. Washington has had a string of governors for decades that fit this description. There's little surprise that she stunk at the job.
Why are people "Shocked"? This kind of thing has happened before, during, and after every convention since the republicans and democrats have been having them. A high school government class teaches us that.

And it's not the fact that anyone "got caught". Because no one did anything wrong. If you think so, then you are politically naive. Deb will move on to a multi-mil job at a high powered law or lobbying firm. As she would have anyways. When a new president is elected they put their people in charge of their respective political party. So lighten up and enjoy the show.