Done and done: Why DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz won’t speak at her own party’s convention - Vox
She should resign right now. Now! Now, now, now! 
That may bring some Bernie supporters over to Hillary, but this could be damaging enough already to the DNC.
How and why? Look, what did she do to the Bernie campaign that make you guys hate here so much?
Specifics.
I’m all Hillary all the way since last year. Not a Bernie fan so much. Point is, Hillary needs the Bernie votes. That is, if the younger voters actually show up this time. 
Sure, but again: *what did she do to the Bernie campaign that makes them hate her so much?
Specifics.
*
Not toast.
No one will be toasting her this week!
I really don’t know. I don’t get it either. Maybe it’s because they’ve been crying about it being rigged since the New Hampshire (I think) hiccup where they tied, but Bernie had more votes. That’s just them not understanding elections. Then they complained about how Bernie gets little TV time. Bogus again, but try telling them that. NOW, with DWS and her correspondence, they’re saying, “See? See!?”
No, I still don’t see what they’re saying. Maybe I’ll venture over to Mother Jones. 
If Wasserman Schultz had treated Bernie, and Bernie’s supporters, more than fair, then Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t have been forced out as DNC Chair. Forced out by her fellow yellow dog Democrats, no less. Ouch!
If DWS had left earlier, for the good of the party ;), she might have helped shepherd more/some Bernie supporters to the polls in November (and it looks like ol’ Hillary will need all of the votes she can muster). I wonder how many Bernie supporters will stay home, or vote for the other political outsider - Donald J Trump? :eek:
Since DWS waited until WikiLeaks published some 20,000 internal DNC emails before resigning/being forced out, AND her stubbornly waiting until the DNC convention is over before her forced retirement is official, many Bernie supporters have little reason to support an old fashioned, SSDD, political party that employs a DWS to fuck over their own supporters and voters.
One more time:
again: what did she do to the Bernie campaign that makes them hate her so much?
Specifics
- Set up the debate schedule in such a way as to favor The Front Runner (aka, HRC).
And exactly how did the debate schedule favor Clinton?* Specifics. *
Most were scheduled at times seemingly designed to insure poor ratings.
Not that I care, but that’s the allegation.
Wow, that’s the best they got? 
:dubious:
Look, I dont like her as she is in the pocket of the predatory Payday loan industry. She’s Ok, other than that, but I am not a fan.
But other than the fact Bernie lost, I cant see what the Bernie-bros have against DWS.
Not going to play that stupid game with you. It wasn’t an accident when the debates were scheduled. It was a standing joke, but maybe you missed that.
No game. Exactly how did the scheduling hurt Bernie?
All I heard was excuses and sore loserdom. “The system is rigged!” The election was stolen!".
*Everything *I checked showed that if anything, Bernie got the benefit.
Note: If you’ve never seen Jurassic World, this post contains a spoiler for that film.
You won’t get any reasonable answer to this because there is no reasonable answer. Wasserman Schultz has not done anything to deserve the amount and degree of animosity she’s receiving. It’s wildly disproportionate–particularly given that political parties are not institutions whose purpose is to ‘be impartial’ with respect to choosing a nominee.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the Jurassic World’s “Zara” of collective American political emotion.
Be patient with me for a moment: Zara was the assistant to the character played by Ron Howard’s daughter Bryce Dallas Howard (“Claire”). Claire was a typical Pandora character: the Chick Who Ruins Everything. 95% of the death, destruction and mayhem seen in the movie was due to this chick who made bad, greedy decisions! And worse, she wasn’t nurturing! She blew off spending time with her adorable nephews!
We, the audience, needed to see her punished.
BUT, she was the romantic interest for the studly and pure hero…so she had to come out of the movie in, well, attractive shape. No torture for Claire–that would have made her less than satisfactory as a reward for the hero.
The audience’s bloodlust had to be satisfied by seeing a different woman tortured and mutilated and killed in horrible agony over many horrifying minutes: Zara. And it worked: since millions walked out of Jurassic World emotionally satisfied, the ritual transfer of guilt from Claire to Zara was successful.
Thus it is with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Some of Sanders’ supporters are, not to be too blunt about it, less than thrilled by the prospect of a female President. (“My mother will be unbearable!!!1!!!”)
Yet these same Sanders’ supporters are well aware that a Trump Presidency is unlikely to be an outcome that will be good for them or for any Americans. It’s a hell of an emotional dilemma.
The solution: to transfer that bitch’s brew of negative emotions from one woman to another. The object of revulsion/anger/scorn/contempt/disgust is magically transmogrified from the person of the only viable alternative to Trump, to the person of this hapless congressperson (from Florida, yet–it’s perfect!).
…So that’s why you’re never going to get a coherent, sensible answer to the question “what, specifically, has DWS done to make them hate her so much?” There is no coherent or sensible answer to that, because the hatred is irrational.
Whether it’s DWS’s fault or the DNC’s fault is of little import, but if you want to pull people into your political sphere, you don’t want there to be even an air of partiality at the top. Let’s take a little trip down memory lane here, back to 2008 when DWS was the co-chair of HRC’s presidential campaign. Who in their right minds is to ever believe she could be impartial in that last primary? When you have such a bluntly biased person at the top, don’t be surprised when folks cry “foul”, and don’t expect them to have to give a laundry list of actions. Who the fuck knows what goes on behind the scenes when you have a chairperson so obviously in favor of one of the candidates.
Let’s not pretend that Bernie, who declared (D) last year, was some kind of Establishment candidate and that the party was likely to welcome him with open arms, either.
From where are you getting this idea you seem to have, that the purpose of a political party is to be impartial in choosing a nominee?
I’m not. Did you notice the word “if” in that sentence? Let’s not forget that we aren’t debating this in a vacuum. We’re debating this as it relates to Bernie supporters. If you want to pull i the Bernie supporters… If you don’t, then no biggie.
But, having said that, there is a difference between:
-
Rules that are set up to favor the front runner and that everyone can understand and work with.
-
Having the chair of the DNC being a former co-chair of one of the candidate’s presidential campaigns. In this case, the advantages the other person has is left up to your imagination. That is generally not a good thing.
I’ve already stated in other threads that the nominating process should be rigged in order to ensure a viable candidate is chosen. That is not the same as saying that any possible way to rig the nomination is a good idea. Let me be clear: Having DWS, a former Clinton campaign manager, be the DNC chair during a time when Clinton was a presidential candidate was NOT a good idea. Do you disagree?