Holy wow. I have to say I love this move on so many levels but first and foremost because it outrages the Berners who hate her.
"If there’s one thing that supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton agree on, it’s this: When it comes to her work as chair of the Democratic National Committee, a position she’s held since 2011, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is bad and should feel bad. Consensus holds that she’s either in the tank for Clinton, incompetent — or both."
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/debbie_wasserman_schultz_is_loathed_by_democrats_yet_just_got_a_head_scratching_endorsement_by_obama_here_are_some_guesses_why/
I disagree. Most Democrats don't hate Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Just the conspiratorial Berners who interpret everything in terms of being a corporate shill in the tank for Hillary. Anyone who says anything a Berner doesn't like is a corporate shill for Hillary.
But for a Berner like Elias Isquith this point is lost. He thinks most Democrats feel as he does. How does he know, did he take a poll? A lot of the Bernie folks have just inferred that the reason there were Saturday night debates was to hide them from the world so everyone wouldn't run out and vote for Bernie Sanders.
What was interesting is that when the GOP started having Saturday night debates no one went into wild eyed conspiracy theories then. In fact, the Saturday night debates were nothing to do with trying to hide them but a function of the fact that networks prefer not to have weekday debates.
"And when it comes to her work as a member of Congress, where she’s lately distinguished herself as a strong defender of the generally odious payday loan industry, her record is even worse. She’s against pot decriminalization, against an “open” Internet, against Edward Snowden, against refusing donations from corporate lobbyists, and skeptical (at the least) of President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran."
You know what this tells me then? Obama is not an ideologue like the Berners. He doesn't engage in litmus tests. Not everything is a test of who the True Progressive is.
We can as liberal Democrats have differences on certain policies. We don't have to agree 100 percent of the time, just much of the time. It's how a healthy party works-unlike the GOP where Tea Party ideologues have destroyed the party.
If Obama can get past her not supporting the Iran deal that is so important for his legacy, all the more power to him. That's totally good on Obama as I see it. As for Wasserman-Schutlz she is Jewish and a number of Jewish Democrats feel very strongly about Israel's security.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with Obama here. I think the Iran Deal-that Hillary and the President worked very hard on-is a great accomplishment. But this doesn't in my mind drum DWS and other Jewish Democrats out of the party. Not that all Jewish Dems opposed the deal to be sure.
This is the way a functioning party works. The GOP always called itself a big tent which was ironic as they are the party of purism and Holy Wars. But the Dems have always been liberal but pragmatic.
If you want what to see what a pragmatic Dem looks like in action, I'd recommend starting with former Massachusetts Congressman, Barney Frank.
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Politics-Society-Same-Sex-Marriage/dp/0374280304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459359611&sr=8-1&keywords=barney+frank
Frank voted against the Iraq War but this was never a litmus test which means that he couldn't endorse Hillary in 2016 because she was mistaken on that issue in 2002. Unfortunately she believed W's lies. But she has apologized. While Obama was critical of her vote in 2008 he still afterwards trusted her judgement enough to have her as his Secretary of State.
Frank also supported John Kerry in 2004 despite the fact that Kerry was against gay marriage in the campaign. Frank even looking back doesn't castigate him but actually says that 'He was right to take that position then as the time wasn't ripe for it yet.'
I'm just saying this is how a functional party works, not as some purist Church where people are always been drummed out over various apostasies.
So Squith is besides himself trying to figure out why Obama would endorse the Devil Woman. Here is what he comes up with:
"So, there are a few possible explanations, here. They’re not mutually exclusive. (And, since this is high-level politics we’re talking about, they’re all rather grubby.)"
"If there’s one thing that supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton agree on, it’s this: When it comes to her work as chair of the Democratic National Committee, a position she’s held since 2011, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is bad and should feel bad. Consensus holds that she’s either in the tank for Clinton, incompetent — or both."
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/debbie_wasserman_schultz_is_loathed_by_democrats_yet_just_got_a_head_scratching_endorsement_by_obama_here_are_some_guesses_why/
I disagree. Most Democrats don't hate Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Just the conspiratorial Berners who interpret everything in terms of being a corporate shill in the tank for Hillary. Anyone who says anything a Berner doesn't like is a corporate shill for Hillary.
But for a Berner like Elias Isquith this point is lost. He thinks most Democrats feel as he does. How does he know, did he take a poll? A lot of the Bernie folks have just inferred that the reason there were Saturday night debates was to hide them from the world so everyone wouldn't run out and vote for Bernie Sanders.
What was interesting is that when the GOP started having Saturday night debates no one went into wild eyed conspiracy theories then. In fact, the Saturday night debates were nothing to do with trying to hide them but a function of the fact that networks prefer not to have weekday debates.
"And when it comes to her work as a member of Congress, where she’s lately distinguished herself as a strong defender of the generally odious payday loan industry, her record is even worse. She’s against pot decriminalization, against an “open” Internet, against Edward Snowden, against refusing donations from corporate lobbyists, and skeptical (at the least) of President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran."
You know what this tells me then? Obama is not an ideologue like the Berners. He doesn't engage in litmus tests. Not everything is a test of who the True Progressive is.
We can as liberal Democrats have differences on certain policies. We don't have to agree 100 percent of the time, just much of the time. It's how a healthy party works-unlike the GOP where Tea Party ideologues have destroyed the party.
If Obama can get past her not supporting the Iran deal that is so important for his legacy, all the more power to him. That's totally good on Obama as I see it. As for Wasserman-Schutlz she is Jewish and a number of Jewish Democrats feel very strongly about Israel's security.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with Obama here. I think the Iran Deal-that Hillary and the President worked very hard on-is a great accomplishment. But this doesn't in my mind drum DWS and other Jewish Democrats out of the party. Not that all Jewish Dems opposed the deal to be sure.
This is the way a functioning party works. The GOP always called itself a big tent which was ironic as they are the party of purism and Holy Wars. But the Dems have always been liberal but pragmatic.
If you want what to see what a pragmatic Dem looks like in action, I'd recommend starting with former Massachusetts Congressman, Barney Frank.
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Politics-Society-Same-Sex-Marriage/dp/0374280304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459359611&sr=8-1&keywords=barney+frank
Frank voted against the Iraq War but this was never a litmus test which means that he couldn't endorse Hillary in 2016 because she was mistaken on that issue in 2002. Unfortunately she believed W's lies. But she has apologized. While Obama was critical of her vote in 2008 he still afterwards trusted her judgement enough to have her as his Secretary of State.
Frank also supported John Kerry in 2004 despite the fact that Kerry was against gay marriage in the campaign. Frank even looking back doesn't castigate him but actually says that 'He was right to take that position then as the time wasn't ripe for it yet.'
I'm just saying this is how a functional party works, not as some purist Church where people are always been drummed out over various apostasies.
So Squith is besides himself trying to figure out why Obama would endorse the Devil Woman. Here is what he comes up with:
"So, there are a few possible explanations, here. They’re not mutually exclusive. (And, since this is high-level politics we’re talking about, they’re all rather grubby.)"
"One explanation is that the president did not feel like he could not endorse Wasserman Schultz without, implicitly, admitting that when he was wrong to appoint her as DNC chair in the first place. It would be an admission of error, which people are generally loath to do; but in the eyes of many politicos, it would also be a sign of disloyalty. All politicians are fair-weather friends, of course. But most try not to be so obvious."
"Another, somewhat related explanation: Obama knows that Wasserman Schultz is a superstar when it comes to fundraising — indeed, this has much to do with why she’s earned herself a left-wing challenger — and, with 2016 in mind, he wants to keep her, and her financial resources, in the game. Obama’s made clear that he sees a Democratic victory in 2016 as essential to his legacy; he may be doing whatever it takes to win."
"Yet one more answer? Obama is, at heart, a crypto-conservative plutocratic stooge, and he decided to endorse Wasserman Schultz simply because he agrees with her on the issues and thinks she’s good at her job. To put it lightly, this would not be my favored explanation. But I suspect some of this article’s commenters will beg to differ."
So Schutlz is a bad person for raising money for the Democratic party in order to ensure victory while Bernie is a Saint for not raising a cent for the party. He says he's leading a revolution and yet is not interested in even getting a Democratic majority in Congress if that means sullying himself with raising money for the party.
The biggest laugh at all is that Bernie thinks that he can get the superdelegates to support him when she has more pledged delegates. Why would any actual Democrat want this man anywhere close to leading our party?
"Another, somewhat related explanation: Obama knows that Wasserman Schultz is a superstar when it comes to fundraising — indeed, this has much to do with why she’s earned herself a left-wing challenger — and, with 2016 in mind, he wants to keep her, and her financial resources, in the game. Obama’s made clear that he sees a Democratic victory in 2016 as essential to his legacy; he may be doing whatever it takes to win."
"Yet one more answer? Obama is, at heart, a crypto-conservative plutocratic stooge, and he decided to endorse Wasserman Schultz simply because he agrees with her on the issues and thinks she’s good at her job. To put it lightly, this would not be my favored explanation. But I suspect some of this article’s commenters will beg to differ."
So Schutlz is a bad person for raising money for the Democratic party in order to ensure victory while Bernie is a Saint for not raising a cent for the party. He says he's leading a revolution and yet is not interested in even getting a Democratic majority in Congress if that means sullying himself with raising money for the party.
The biggest laugh at all is that Bernie thinks that he can get the superdelegates to support him when she has more pledged delegates. Why would any actual Democrat want this man anywhere close to leading our party?
No comments:
Post a Comment