I won’t disagree about the double standard, nor will I attack DWS on any her “controversies.” She is the head of your party, not mine. I have no reason what so ever to care about what she does. But the Democratic President of the United States does. He needs the party to be confident in their leadership. If the party brass isn’t comfortable with DWS
for whatever the reason, then something needs to be done.
Regardless, a wardrobe is a minor expense with little to no substantive impact on a national party that raises tends of millions of dollars. The wardrobe "issue" might be important if it was a part of a broader story of financial mismanagement that is costing Democrats because of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But as the article itself pointed out, "She has overseen the integration of key elements of the Obama campaigns, including its voter file and data programs. After being left with $25 million in bills from the Obama campaign, the DNC enters the fall with the debt cleared and over $7 million on hand. She’s started new efforts to build relationships with labor and small business leaders and prioritized the DNC’s outreach to female voters." By this accounting, Obama owes Debbie Wasserman Schultz $25 million. The article also notes, "they had originally picked her largely to help win the women’s vote and avert problems with Jewish donors, and both had indeed happened." So basically, she's raised tens of millions dollars and done politically what she was hired to do, and yet they still treat her rudely because of her wardrobe? Sounds like classic sexism to me. The woman did what you hired her for but it's still not good enough, because of some frivolous bullsh**t like who pays for her wardrobe. Therefore, treat her condescendingly, like telling her "I'm the president of the United States." As if she doesn't know that?
Again, this is not a sexism issue, even if sexism exists. This is a purely political move. As I am not a Democrat, I hold no right to comment on DWS’s leadership ability or the internal workings of the party, nor do I have any information to comment on it to begin with. All I know is that a lot of Democrats are, for
whatever reason, unhappy with her leadership. Obama is now facing another Sebelius conundrum-can Debbie and give the Democratic Party a morale defeat in the midst of an uncertain midterm election, or keep her on throughout the election and hope that some certainty can come. I suspect Obama will continue to fluff her up just like he did Sebelius, than will cut her loose ahead of 2016,
especially if the Democrats fail to maintain a majority in the Senate this year.[/quote]
Sorry but "for whatever reason" is not good enough. Obama may be the head of the Democratic party, but the Democratic party is not a dictatorship. Members are free to disagree with party leaders and question their reasons for acting how they do against other party members, especially the party chair. The fact of the matter is, by all the objective metrics presented in this article, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been successful as DNC chair, and the biggest criticism of her (wardrobe) is one which most likely would not be occurring if she were a man. So I call BS. If there is a massive legit beef against her, this article has not done a good job of explaining it.
Well, being
called "abrasive" is one of the hallmarks of the double standard that ambitious, aggressive women (like the type you are likely to find in politics) are faced with. That doesn't justify either Obama or Hillary treating her rudely. By the way, the supposed reason that Hillary doesn't like her is that, at the end of Hillary's campaign when it was clear that Hillary had already lost, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who had endorsed Hillary, reached out to the Obama camp. Oh, what a crime. Reaching out to the party's inevitable nominee. As much as I like Hillary, if this story is true, Hillary is the one being petty and stupid.
What's more insulting: assuming that the president of the United States should be informed by the chair of the DNC that the DNC has paid off its debt, or that the chair of the DNC doesn't know who the president of the United States is? The former, it is plausible that the president of the United States is slightly less aware of the DNC's finances than its own chair. The latter, even schoolchildren know that Obama is president. Obama was far more rude and condescending to Wasserman Schultz in that exchange, if true. Yet this anecdote is supposed to reflect badly on
her? Bull. sh**t.
Precisely! The very reasons why DWS was selected to chair the DNC in the first place are the reasons why she should be supported in her goals for a House leadership position, not "turned against": she has strong networks among women and Jewish voters, she is young, she is progressive, and she is from a large swing state where the state Democratic party needs to be strengthened. Yes, there are areas where she needs to improve, such as being better at media appearances, but this out of the blue article is unjustified and must be incredibly hurtful. Democrats need to get it together and stop eating our own.