As expected, we are seeing the beginning of an exodus of members of the Democratic National Committee leadership associated with disgraced chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who were revealed in the email leaks as tilting the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders, rather than remaining neutral.
Three senior officials with the Democratic National Committee have resigned, the DNC said on Tuesday, amid a shake-up following a hack of thousands of emails that embarrassed the party just as it staged its national convention last week.
The resignations of DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy Dacey, Communications Director Luis Miranda and Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall were announced by interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile.
Marshall, you may recall, was the person who suggested that questions should be planted raising the issue of Sanders’s religion and I predicted that he would likely be among the first to be asked to go.
Will Clinton immediately give these people jobs in her campaign as rewards for loyal service on her behalf, like she did with Wasserman Schultz?
I strongly suspect that Clinton gave DWS a position -- in name only, as I understand it -- as a bribe, to get her to resign quietly, without kicking up a fuss that would overshadow the convention. Doubt the underlings would get the same treatment.
@1
People at the top don’t get kicked out. They get kicked upwards. I suspect that’s how we end up with the usual collection of horrible Presidential candidates.
Good morning Mano,
You asked:
My vote will be yes. I say that because I don’t think anyone in the Democratic Party organization has any doubt that Schultz, and the people working in key positions beneath her, were part of Hillary’s team. If she doesn’t bring them into her own organization she will be seen as kicking them under the bus. That perception will not work well for her with other present and future staff or the voters.
Hillary already has enough problems with loyalties, she doesn’t need more.
Do all you can to make today a better day,
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
There are less cynical ways to explain things.
I have to point out that
1) There might be other reasons for Hillary offering DWS a job, such as that she is very good at what she does, i.e. fund-raising.
2) Since the problem with these people at the DNC was that they were biased towards Hillary, the conflict of interest they displayed there is simply not a factor if they join Hillary’s campaign.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just the kind of person that leaves me shaking my head at the Democratic Party. On the other hand, I would rather vote for her than any current Congressional member of the Republican party that has endorsed Donald Trump.
On the other hand (ooops, evolution only gave us 2 hands… I this why most people see the world in 2 camps, “us vs them?” But I digress) you are wrong in saying Debbie Wasserman Schultz was given a new job. She is in an honorary position. And it is not even in the campaign itself, but in the 50 state campaign, an organization devoted to supporting Democrats in states where they traditionally lose!
From liberal outlets like Daily Kos and PoliticusUsa make this point, such places as Forbes and Daily Observer support it too. Don’t let your great passion for change let you slip into misrepresentation! With the choices we face now, the reprehensible anti vax dog whistler and foreign policy incoherent Jill Stein or the anti regulation lover of letting big business do whatever they want Gary Johnson, Trump and Hillary Clinton, I think adding to the anti Hillary camp by sloppy language is dangerous.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/25/newsflash-hillary-clinton-reward-debbie-wasserman-schultz.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/25/1551930/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-did-not-get-promoted-and-she-s-not-running-Hillary-s-campaign
http://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schultzs-shady-behavior-with-new-job/ Note: the headline does say new job but the article clearly says new role.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/24/wasserman-schultz-clinton-campaign/
Even TownHall which used the word hire, shows as proof a statement that DWS will serve as honorary chair.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/07/24/hillary-clinton-hires-debbie-wasserman-schultz-n2197269
Going from National Chair to not even a state chair position on the main campaign, but an “Honorary Chair” position is, in my opinion, not getting a promotion or kicked upstairs.
DWS and her like minded compatriots are all party functionaries. They were hired to protect, support and advance the cause of the Democratic Party. Bernie, for all his good points, has long been iffy about his party affiliation. He generally voted the way the Democrats did but he, for a long time, went out of his way to not be part of the Democratic party and he frequently made a point of saying so.
So when he relatively recently decided to join it was as a new-comer. So when it became a wrestling match between Hillary, a very long standing Democrat, and this johnny-come-lately the DNC officials could be expected to side with the loyal and consistent Democrat over the new comer. They never tried to shut Bernie down. But there was no point in making it too easy either. Making him work for it sharpened his message and brought many of his supporters around to the fact that ‘politics ain’t beanbag’ and that wanting and believing aren’t enough.
Of course, with the political rift healing a public sacrifice needed to be made to further calm the waters. This too is the job of the DNC functionaries. It is all a matter of loyalty to the Democratic party. The good soldier falls on the grenade. To protect the larger structure.
Of course, DWS will be taken care of. She performed her function steadfastly. In the face of threat and howls of outrage she did her job. Good on her.
@6 lorn
Bernie’s loyalties as an individual are irrelevant. Maintaining a fair contest (or at least the image of a fair contest) is not something you do for the benefit of Bernie, but for the benefit of his supporters. Nobody cares if you poke him in the eye. But poking his supporters in the eye is political idiocy. You piss them off to win the primary and you lose them in the election. More than 40% of democrats supported him, I don’t think you’d make the “party loyalty” argument about them.
DNC officials should be expected, at the very least, not to drive their own voters away. Nearly half of the voters were treated in a demeaning way (i.e. the BernieBros meme, calling them pipe-dreamers), putting their finger on the scales is discouraging for all the people that gave time and money to the loosing campaign (Why bother getting involved, he never had a chance). Hillary being so cozy with the person at the epicenter of this shitstorm is further salt in the wound and evidence of her hubris. Sure, a “public sacrifice” would’ve calmed the waters, but Hillary giving a new position to DWS (one the very same day she resigned the old one) negates all the effects of that sacrifice.
None of this protects, supports or advances the cause of the Democratic Party. It’s like they’re actively trying to lose.