Photo supplied by Brandon Davis to DailyKos.Over 100,000 people signed petitions calling for DWS to be replaced as chair of the Democratic National Committee. And Bernie Sanders made her removal one of his major requests of Hillary Clinton in their discussions about ending his campaign.
Why? Many people, including me, felt that everything about the primary conditions (from scheduling of debates to superdelegates) favored Clinton and put a challenger at a disadvantage. Others felt that she has not been effective as a party leader. Others cite her close ties to big money interests, especially the disgraceful pay-day lending industry. She may have been good for a Clinton coronation; but that's not what transpired in the campaign.
Wasserman-Schultz definitely does not -- and cannot -- represent the more progressive party that Bernie Sanders' has brought about. Just consider for a moment that she has taken big campaign contributions from pay-day lenders, then opposed the bill that woukl have imposed rather mild restrictions on that type of loan, which sometimes add up to 300% interest rates and trap people into ever-increasing loans to pay off prior loans. [Last week, after it became a hot issue in her re-election campaign to keep her seat in the House, she reversed her stand and said she opposed that bill. Too little, too late, Debbi.]
So what does it mean that she retains the title but is removed from running the show? Actually, this is the usual protocol once the nominee has been chosen. Howard Dean explains that it's exactly what occurred when he was DNC chair and Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee. Dean retained the title but turned over the reins of day to day operations to someone chosen by the Obama campaign. As explained by "kos" of DailyKos: "It wasn't an antagonistic move. It simply meant that the presidential campaign and the DNC had to be in sync, and the best way to manage that is to have people from the same team in charge."
As to retaining the title, DNC Chair is an elected position, voted on by the DNC after the election. If the nominee becomes president, their choice is usually ratified. If not, it's up to the members. So what has happened with DWS, on the surface, is standard procedure in the nominee picking a chief of staff to run the general election campaign for both the candidate and the party.
On the other hand, by most accounts, Wasserman-Schultz has not been an effective chair, and she has antagonized large numbers of Democrats, not just the Sanders supporters. As to choosing who leads the campaign, it was Clinton's choice -- just as it was Obama's choice in 2008 -- and she could have asked DWS to do it. She didn't. Further, Clinton's choice of a labor union political director is a nod to the more progressive tenor of the campaign. So, if DWS's being sidelined also allows people who wanted her out to feel vindicated, so be it.
Beyond all that, Brandon Davis, 38, seems to be an excellent choice. He is the national political director for one of the largest unions, the Service Employees International Union. He has also been political director for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). He is considered to be a talented, rising star within the party, with particular understanding, because of his own background, of urban poverty and racial issues. Described by "kos," who has known him and his work for years, he is "fantastic . . . smart, energetic, passionate, and [amazingly] competent."
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment