No one, it seems, can hold on to the position of Democratic Party Chair without making a mess of the Party or their own external career. The last person to hold the job was Howard "Ho Ho" Dean, during the transitory period that ended the W years, and thus something new had to happen. I can't credit Howard with the success of the election of Barack Obama-- though he surely played a hand in it, and I'm sure it was a good one. After Howard parted ways from the DNC, Vice Presidential hopeful Tim Kaine held the position for three years, before Donna Brazile took the seat on an interim basis. Within a few months after that, the permanent replacement-apparent had been found: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress, became Democratic National Committee chair in 2011.
The party gave Joe Biden the honor of announcing Schultz's appointment: "In selecting Debbie to lead our party," wrote Biden," President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity." Schultz may have been a good choice for the position at the time: amid the re-election of Barack Obama, Schultz had the youth, the character, and the tenacity. Biden, Kaine, and other party operatives probably had a sense of how ugly it was going to get, as the Dems would have to confront a stalwart, do-nothing, Republican-controlled Congress. The "fighting spirit" Joe Biden described didn't come into play until Hillary Clinton began actively seeking the nomination.
Maybe no one but Hillary and her staff knew how difficult Wasserman Schultz's job was going to get: by early 2016, Debbie was appearing regularly on mainstream television news, making straight-faced excuses for what appeared to be the rampant misbehavior among her party's operatives, throughout the nominating process. To the American people, the Democratic Party necessarily appeared in control-- at least to an extent that misbehavior could be identified and discussed without having to necessarily to make just any specific situation. Nothing put it more bluntly than the Nevada Primary, at which chairs were thrown and the stage was lined with law enforcement officers after the state officials declared the nomination process over. Wasserman Schultz appeared on the networks, trying to contextualize the ugly scene, and also to appear to admonish those responsible for the facilitation of the process-- while still letting the results hold fast.
As the year wore on, it became harder to tell where the Party ended and the Clinton campaign began: Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, the whole gang the country knew and loved (?), their strategic appearances increased, carefully crafting themselves as nearly separate entity from the one that was host to chair-throwing melee in Vegas. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders, the alleged front runner for the Democratic Nomination, spoke up clearly and loudly in opposition to the practices and actions of the DNC. Here's his account of what happened at the Nevada Primary:
At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:
*The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
*The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
*The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
*The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”
Wasserman Schultz took the heat, however and where ever she could, to keep the campaign going and the 'party moving forward.' Cloaked in vague language, the misdeeds of the Democratic Party leadership were generally ignored-- and I mean not only by Wasserman Schultz and Reid and Pelosi, but also by Obama and Joe Biden. I'm old enough to remember the foul taste that political corruption left in my mouth during W years, but the actions of the Democratic National Committee during the nominating process achieved a new low in American politics: it wasn't the executive branch of our government falling prey to the sweeping influence of the military-industrial-intel complex, but rather a hijacking of the very political process by which citizens may participate. The scam-- whatever and however it was, we're all still learning-- appears to have looked easier on paper than any 'hanging chad' situation or systematic voter suppression/apathy campaign. The DNC would simply raise up Hillary Clinton as their candidate, offering Sanders supporters whatever bone they were willing to throw their way. The DNC functioned under the impression that Sanders supporters would, with a shrug and a sigh, cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, after she became the inevitable, mathematical nominee. Whether this function of Clinton's nomination came true or not, we may never know: while media outlets have reiterated that the legions of former Bernie supporters are reliably in Clinton's column, wishing does not make it so. Neither does false reporting, or collusion between the media and a political party.
It was Wasserman Schultz's intention to maintain her post through the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia-- and she didn't last through the first morning. The first of many troves of Wikileaks had emerged, just as the Convention began; these characterized Debbie as a Clinton operative, willing to manipulate facts and figures in order to achieve the desired outcome. Booed at a gathering of her own state's representatives, Wasserman Schultz "stepped down"-- and was immediately given a position on Clinton's election campaign.
In stepped Donna Brazile, former interim chair turned CNN contributor. On July 25, CNN reported on Brazile's connection to the network, and explained the role she'd play going forward:
DNC Vice Chairwoman Donna Brazile will serve as interim chair through the election. She had been a CNN political commentator, but CNN and Brazile have mutually agreed to suspend their contract, effective immediately, although she will remain on air during the convention week in an unpaid capacity, CNN said. CNN will revisit the contract once Brazile concludes her role.
This arrangement would not last. Somewhere inside of the Podesta Emails, Brazile admitted to having handled and communicated questions to the Clinton campaign that would be used in one of CNN's Town Hall Debates between candidates: she was, in effect, letting Hillary know what to expect from the 'audience.' Whether or not CNN was willing to be complicit in Hillary's coronation, this revelation lifted the curtain on the production that was their "Town Hall Debates" (which surely did not achieve the ratings of the Republican Primary Debates, though they tried).
If the Democratic National Committee dumps Brazile over her alleged collaborations, it will only be because they have someone in mind to take her place: the fictional Leslie Knope would be a good choice, but-- coming full circle-- Howard "Ho Ho" Dean would be more realistic. He is a CNN contributor as well, and has been once-removed from any visible positions of power within the DNC, though I'm sure his voice still carries weight. But would he still be willing, as he was in those idle and tranquil years, between 2005 and 2009? If the DNC retains Brazile as interim chair, it is because they can find no one else to take the job, at this late hour.
Allen, M. and M. Ball. (4 Apr. 2011). "Wasserman Schultz..." Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605
The party gave Joe Biden the honor of announcing Schultz's appointment: "In selecting Debbie to lead our party," wrote Biden," President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity." Schultz may have been a good choice for the position at the time: amid the re-election of Barack Obama, Schultz had the youth, the character, and the tenacity. Biden, Kaine, and other party operatives probably had a sense of how ugly it was going to get, as the Dems would have to confront a stalwart, do-nothing, Republican-controlled Congress. The "fighting spirit" Joe Biden described didn't come into play until Hillary Clinton began actively seeking the nomination.
Maybe no one but Hillary and her staff knew how difficult Wasserman Schultz's job was going to get: by early 2016, Debbie was appearing regularly on mainstream television news, making straight-faced excuses for what appeared to be the rampant misbehavior among her party's operatives, throughout the nominating process. To the American people, the Democratic Party necessarily appeared in control-- at least to an extent that misbehavior could be identified and discussed without having to necessarily to make just any specific situation. Nothing put it more bluntly than the Nevada Primary, at which chairs were thrown and the stage was lined with law enforcement officers after the state officials declared the nomination process over. Wasserman Schultz appeared on the networks, trying to contextualize the ugly scene, and also to appear to admonish those responsible for the facilitation of the process-- while still letting the results hold fast.
As the year wore on, it became harder to tell where the Party ended and the Clinton campaign began: Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, the whole gang the country knew and loved (?), their strategic appearances increased, carefully crafting themselves as nearly separate entity from the one that was host to chair-throwing melee in Vegas. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders, the alleged front runner for the Democratic Nomination, spoke up clearly and loudly in opposition to the practices and actions of the DNC. Here's his account of what happened at the Nevada Primary:
At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:
*The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
*The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
*The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
*The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”
Wasserman Schultz took the heat, however and where ever she could, to keep the campaign going and the 'party moving forward.' Cloaked in vague language, the misdeeds of the Democratic Party leadership were generally ignored-- and I mean not only by Wasserman Schultz and Reid and Pelosi, but also by Obama and Joe Biden. I'm old enough to remember the foul taste that political corruption left in my mouth during W years, but the actions of the Democratic National Committee during the nominating process achieved a new low in American politics: it wasn't the executive branch of our government falling prey to the sweeping influence of the military-industrial-intel complex, but rather a hijacking of the very political process by which citizens may participate. The scam-- whatever and however it was, we're all still learning-- appears to have looked easier on paper than any 'hanging chad' situation or systematic voter suppression/apathy campaign. The DNC would simply raise up Hillary Clinton as their candidate, offering Sanders supporters whatever bone they were willing to throw their way. The DNC functioned under the impression that Sanders supporters would, with a shrug and a sigh, cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, after she became the inevitable, mathematical nominee. Whether this function of Clinton's nomination came true or not, we may never know: while media outlets have reiterated that the legions of former Bernie supporters are reliably in Clinton's column, wishing does not make it so. Neither does false reporting, or collusion between the media and a political party.
It was Wasserman Schultz's intention to maintain her post through the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia-- and she didn't last through the first morning. The first of many troves of Wikileaks had emerged, just as the Convention began; these characterized Debbie as a Clinton operative, willing to manipulate facts and figures in order to achieve the desired outcome. Booed at a gathering of her own state's representatives, Wasserman Schultz "stepped down"-- and was immediately given a position on Clinton's election campaign.
In stepped Donna Brazile, former interim chair turned CNN contributor. On July 25, CNN reported on Brazile's connection to the network, and explained the role she'd play going forward:
DNC Vice Chairwoman Donna Brazile will serve as interim chair through the election. She had been a CNN political commentator, but CNN and Brazile have mutually agreed to suspend their contract, effective immediately, although she will remain on air during the convention week in an unpaid capacity, CNN said. CNN will revisit the contract once Brazile concludes her role.
This arrangement would not last. Somewhere inside of the Podesta Emails, Brazile admitted to having handled and communicated questions to the Clinton campaign that would be used in one of CNN's Town Hall Debates between candidates: she was, in effect, letting Hillary know what to expect from the 'audience.' Whether or not CNN was willing to be complicit in Hillary's coronation, this revelation lifted the curtain on the production that was their "Town Hall Debates" (which surely did not achieve the ratings of the Republican Primary Debates, though they tried).
Yesterday (Monday) CNN announced that Brazile had resigned from her post there almost two weeks prior; this announcement was made amid the debate-question-fraud shitstorm, in an effort by CNN to distance itself from the charade. The network's statement reinforced Brazile's wrongdoing:
"CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate [...] We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”
If "completely uncomfortable" wasn't enough of a condemnation, CNN chief David Zucker's tirade inside of the network's editorial board meeting on Tuesday morning became a headline by lunchtime: Brazile's illicit collaboration with the Clinton campaign was not just unethical, but damaging to the entire brand. "I have no tolerance for her behavior or that kind of behavior," Zucker proclaimed.
If "completely uncomfortable" wasn't enough of a condemnation, CNN chief David Zucker's tirade inside of the network's editorial board meeting on Tuesday morning became a headline by lunchtime: Brazile's illicit collaboration with the Clinton campaign was not just unethical, but damaging to the entire brand. "I have no tolerance for her behavior or that kind of behavior," Zucker proclaimed.
If the Democratic National Committee dumps Brazile over her alleged collaborations, it will only be because they have someone in mind to take her place: the fictional Leslie Knope would be a good choice, but-- coming full circle-- Howard "Ho Ho" Dean would be more realistic. He is a CNN contributor as well, and has been once-removed from any visible positions of power within the DNC, though I'm sure his voice still carries weight. But would he still be willing, as he was in those idle and tranquil years, between 2005 and 2009? If the DNC retains Brazile as interim chair, it is because they can find no one else to take the job, at this late hour.
Allen, M. and M. Ball. (4 Apr. 2011). "Wasserman Schultz..." Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605
Calderone, M. (1 Nov. 2016). "CNN Chief..." Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-donna-brazile-jeff-zucker_us_58189c8de4b064e1b4b4ba02
TruthDig. (2016). "Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." TruthDig. Retrieved from http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_national_committee_remains_neutral_20160518?utm_source=feedburner&%3Butm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%25253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%25253A+Drilling+Beneath+the+Headlines
TruthDig. (2016). "Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." TruthDig. Retrieved from http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_national_committee_remains_neutral_20160518?utm_source=feedburner&%3Butm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%25253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%25253A+Drilling+Beneath+the+Headlines
Zeleny, J. et. al. (25 July 2016). "Dems open convention..." CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/
