From The Delta To The DNC

Both Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley are furious at DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, accusing her of rigging the limited number of Democratic party primaries in order to give non-Clinton candidates as little national exposure as possible.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes the Democratic Party is using its limited primary debate schedule to rig the nomination process.

“I do,” Sanders reportedly responded when asked Friday whether he agrees with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s assertion that the debate system is “rigged.”

The two Democratic presidential candidates were speaking at the summer meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Minneapolis on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” O’Malley said in his speech earlier Friday.

The DNC has drawn criticism for scheduling only four debates before the early-primary states cast their votes, and six total throughout the election cycle.

DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman defended the schedule, saying it will “give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side-by-side.”

“I’m sure there will be lots of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that they will make the most out of every opportunity,” Shulman said in a statement, according to The Washington Post.

On one hand, Sanders and O'Malley have a point.  The DNC is certainly doing everything it can to hold a grand coronation for Hillary.  On the other hand, Democrats have already started tuning out politics even more (2014 turnout, anyone?) and the infighting is already tiresome even 15 months before the election.

No real good answer here, frankly.  The Democrats do need a solid debate about issues and carrying on President Obama's legacy (the overwhelmingly positive parts, not so much the lousy ones) but I don't think "more debates" is automatically the answer.

We'll see.

PS, how the hell is DWS still in charge of the DNC?

Finding Fault Of Fools

Jeff Greenfield over at WIN THE MORNING decides that this whole “President Obama kicking ass for the last year or so” thing is getting boring, and giving a black President a positive can’t possibly be right, so we’re back to everything is Obama’s fault as to how he has destroyed the Democratic party.

Under Obama, the party started strong. “When Obama was elected in 2008, Democrats were at a high water mark,” says David Axelrod, who served as one of Obama’s top strategists. “Driven by antipathy to George W. Bush and then the Obama wave, Democrats had enjoyed two banner elections in ’06 and ’08. We won dozens of improbable congressional elections in states and districts that normally would tack Republican, and that effect trickled down to other offices. You add to that the fact that we would take office in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it was apparent, from Day One, that we had nowhere to go but down.” 

The first signs of the slowly unfolding debacle that has meant the decimation of the Democratic Party nationally began early—with the special election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s empty Senate seat in Massachusetts. That early loss, even though the seat was won back eventually by Elizabeth Warren, presaged the 2010 midterms, which saw the loss of 63 House and six Senate seats. It was disaster that came as no surprise to the White House, but also proved a signal of what was to come. 

The party’s record over the past six years has made clear that when Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017 the Democratic Party will have ceded vast sections of the country to Republicans, and will be left with a weak bench of high-level elected officials. It is, in fact, so bleak a record that even if the Democrats hold the White House and retake the Senate in 2016, the party’s wounds will remain deep and enduring, threatening the enactment of anything like a “progressive” agenda across much of the nation and eliminating nearly a decade’s worth of rising stars who might help strengthen the party in elections ahead.

The really weird part is that nowhere in the entire piece do I see the words “Debbie Wasserman Schultz” who, as chair of the DNC, would ostensibly be the person in charge of the election strategies and GOTV tactics that Greenfield is complaining about, but I guess Greenfield has never met her or something.

Also, there is the small matter of the impressive number of Democrats who lost by running as far away from Barack Obama as possible in 2010, 2012, and 2014 but no, the problem is of course Obama.

That’s the Beltway wisdom, and it will be for a very, very long time.

Selling Evitability

When's the last time you can remember a party chair going out of their way to promise that a clear front runner would face not only multiple primary challengers but debates as well?

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) says she's still planning for primary debates, in expectation of a challenge to presidential contender Hillary Clinton.

“I expect the voters who believe we should have a Democratic primary will get their wish,” Wasserman Schultz told C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” during a video interview from Manchester, N.H.

Party officials were thus mapping out a “series of sanctioned debates that we expect our presidential candidates to participate in,” she added.Wasserman Schultz said she had already spoken with Clinton, the clear Democratic frontrunner, and other likely candidates about a possible primary down the road.

Clinton, who announced her run last Sunday, remains the only official Democratic candidate. A number of others though have said they are weighing a run.

The DNC chairwoman mentioned Vice President Biden, former Gov. Martin O’Malley (Md.), former Sen. Jim Webb (Va.) and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee as other likely contenders.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), she added, would be a welcome entrant provided he switched party affiliations for the primary.

Wasserman Schultz was in New Hampshire scouting the GOP’s field of 2016 candidates. Most of the likely Republican contenders are visiting the Granite State this weekend.

If I didn't know better, I'd say Wasserman Schultz was selling a fight card.

And maybe that's not such a terrible idea.

Still Terrified Of Israel

Greg Sargent notes that while Democrats overwhelmingly see Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's maneuver to join the GOP in attacking the President as unacceptable, only 23 House Democrats have signed a letter calling for a delay in Bibi's visit and big name House Dems aren't anywhere near it:

Missing from this list are House Democratic members and leaders whose voices could make a real difference here: Foreign Affairs ranking Dem Eliot Engel; Whip Steny Hoyer; DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 

All in all, the failure of more Democrats to sign this letter suggests many still fear the politics of appearing out of sync with whatever Israel wants. It’s true that a number of Democrats have said they will skip the speech. But many of those have clarified that this isn’t due to any organized boycott, and far more are attending. And, really, all the talk of a “boycott” is misdirection. It shouldn’t be all that difficult for Democrats to call for amere delay in this speech, while rebuffing efforts to portray such a move as “anti-Israel,” given how egregious the circumstances surrounding this event really are. 

To be sure, given the aforementioned Democratic skittishness, the fact that two dozen Democrats have signed this letter does suggest that a political space is opening up for Democrats to feel like it might not necessarily be suicidal to occasionally appear at odds with Israel, even if it is a small one. 

But still, Congressional Democrats face a problem here: What are they going to do now? The CNN poll I referenced above strongly suggests the Democratic base is not happy with the fact that Netanyahu will be going forward with this speech, which has been portrayed by many commentators as forcing Congressional Democrats to choose between Netanyahu and Obama. If most are not willing to call for a delay in the speech, what will they prove willing to do? If they do nothing, how do they explain that to rank and file Democratic voters?

Very, very few House Democrats, only 23 out of 188, are willing to publicly go to bat for their own President on this.  The others are sitting on their damn hands, and yes, that includes Nancy Pelosi. There should be 188 signatures on that letter, or at least 100.  But 23?  That's only 12% asking for a delay of something that according to that CNN poll, 81% of Democrats are totally against.

Sargent implies at the very least an astonishing lack of support for the President from his own party, and in the worst case this is outright cowardice from Dems in Congress.

Again.

A Mess Of Your Own Making

Jewish Republicans are suddenly alarmed that with Eric Cantor gone, there won't be any Jewish Republicans in Congress anymore.  Keep in mind there are plenty on the Democratic party side, including DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and NY Sen. Chuck Schumer, but Cantor was it.  And that's got Jewish Republicans kind of upset.

The stinging defeat last month of Eric Cantor, the House majority leader and the highest-ranking Jewish politician in American history, has created the possibility of Republicans having no Jewish representation in the House or Senate for the first time in more than a half-century.

“Sometimes, a Jewish person just wants to be able to go to Congress and speak with a Jewish person,” Beverly Goldstein, a Republican donor from Beachwood, Ohio, explained in the hotel lobby after a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

“And Chuck Schumer is not it for us,” she added, referring to the Democratic senator from New York.

Excluding the soon-to-be-retired Mr. Cantor, there are now 31 Jewish members of Congress — 30 of them Democrats and an independent senator from Vermont, Bernard Sanders, who generally votes with Democrats.

And of course, the party of right-wing Christian Dominionist theology is having trouble figuring out why there's no room for non-Christians in it.

Decades after a Reagan era that was relatively rich in Jewish representation on the Republican side of both the House and the Senate, Republican Jews are grappling with what it means for a party that casts itself as the protector of Israel to potentially not have a single one of its children in Congress. Some Democrats, of course, depict Mr. Cantor’s loss as the removal of a final fig leaf from what has become a homogeneously Christian party with little room for religious and ethnic minorities. Others said the loss of Mr. Cantor, a conservative standard-bearer deemed insufficiently conservative by voters who preferred a Tea Party challenger, revealed the Republicans’ exclusion of moderates of any stripe.

There are Jewish candidates running for Congress on the GOP side this year.  Meet Adam Kwasman, proud Tea Party Republican.

Mr. Kwasman, a product of Jewish day school in the Tucson suburbs who says he tries to make Shabbat dinners with his parents whenever possible, is the Jewish candidate most affiliated with the Tea Party, opposing gun control and any form of amnesty on immigration and talking about bringing “Kosher Tea” to Congress. He was endorsed by Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County sheriff who has been the subject of a Justice Department investigation because of his crackdowns on undocumented workers. House analysts consider Mr. Kwasman the underdog against a more moderate Republican in the August primary.

No room for moderates here, regardless of your religious creed.  Maybe that's the message.

Release The Big Dog

Big Dog comin', yo.  Big Dog!  Greg Sargent:

Former President Bill Clinton has decided to go to Wisconsin to campaign against Scott Walker in the final days of the battle over whether to recall the Wisconsin Governor, a move that could give a boost to the anti-Walker forces in a campaign that will depend heavily on who turns out to vote, a source familiar with Clinton’s plans confirms to me.

As late as yesterday afternoon, it was still not certain whether Clinton would go to Wisconsin. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a meeting with Democrats, seemed to suggest that he was trying to determine whether he would go. But neither the DNC nor Clinton’s camp would confirm whether it was going to happen, and Democrats cautioned that Clinton had not made up his mind.

But now he will go to Wisconsin, the source confirms.

Democrats badly want Clinton to campaign in Wisconsin for Tom Barrett, and had lobbied him heavily for weeks. But Clinton remained undecided until today.

That's...awful nice of you, Mr. The Dog.  Magnanimous, even.

Between DWS stepping it in over the weekend and Bill here finally deigning to drag himself up to the Fox River Valley for some A&W mini corndogs and a Culver's butterburger or two, I'm convinced that the maximum amount of voter-turning-out firepower may not have have been most judiciously applied in the case of beating the Kochsuckers on Tuesday.

Still, the ramparts are finally being manned.  I just hope it's enough.

On Wisconsin.

Crossing The Rubicon (Then Dumping Gas On It And Lighting It)

Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Debbie Wasserman Schultz by a long shot. She's a good Congresswoman and fundraiser, but her votes are borderline Blue Dog (especially on abortion) and she keeps supporting anti-choice Dems like Heath Shuler.  I have policy disagreements with her as DNC chair.

But House Republican Allen West shows why I'll defend her against a GOP slimeball like himself any day of the goddamn week.

Maybe it's the stress of the debt ceiling debate or maybe it's his well-documented short fuse, but Rep. Allen West (R-FL) appeared to cross any number of lines in an email sent to DNC chair and fellow Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Tuesday.

The message, which was obtained by Politico's Ben Smith and confirmed to TPM by a Wasserman Schultz aide, was sent to Wasserman Schultz, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and West's Chief of Staff.

West's tirade against Wasserman Schultz came after she chastised him on the House floor for supporting the Cut, Cap and Balance debt ceiling deal favored by the House GOP. Wasserman Schultz called out West -- not by name -- for supporting a plan she said would "increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries," which she said was "unbelievable from a Member from South Florida."

West took that personally enough to respond with this nonsense:

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior......which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

To her credit, her office's response was classic:

"I don't think that Congressman West is upset at the Congresswoman, but rather with the fact that she highlighted that he and other Republicans are once again trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children and the middle class. As someone who lives in Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz's Congressional district, Congressman West knows that we have hundreds of thousands of seniors in South Florida who have paid into Medicare throughout their lives and now rely on this program to keep them healthy and active. The truth hurts."

On second thought, the DNC chair doesn't need anyone defending her.  She's more than capable of cutting a blustering fool like West to pieces with the precision of a neurosurgeon.  I may not agree with her voting record or some of her choices, but I greatly respect her (unlike West).  Then again, he thinks Obama supporters are a "threat to the gene pool" anyway, so it's not like his opinion should matter.  Sadly, as a member of Congress, his vote does.

Perhaps the people of South Florida should remedy that situation.

Last Call

My faith in Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair was on shaky ground to begin with, but at this point the thin ice she's on has broken under her feet.

Democrats are ready to take responsibility for the state of the economy and they deserve credit for putting it on the right track, the party’s chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said on Wednesday.

“We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place,” Wasserman Schultz told Mike Allen at POLITICO’s ‘Playbook Breakfast.’

The economy, she said, “has turned around” since President Obama took office, with steady job growth evident even if the pace leaves something to be desired.

The economy's turned around?  Bullshit, madam.  Absolute bullshit.   We're in a housing depression, years out from being resolved.  The banks are still running the country into the ground, and the Republicans are doing everything they can to lock the fire doors and let everyone inside burn.  And you want to own this mess because you think we're on the right track?

What about the Republicans holding the country's recovery hostage?  What about that?

But Wasserman Schultz came to the defense of two potential GOP rivals, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying it is unfair for the media to portray them as pitted against each other simply because they are both women.

“Even though I don’t agree with either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann on virtually anything,” she said, to laughter from the audience, “I do think the unique scrutiny … because of their gender” and “highlighting the potential conflict between them” is a product of the media’s desire for juicy storylines. “I think it’s inappropriate.”

Arguing strongly for increasing representation of women in elected office, she said that while progress has been made, “The good ol’ boys’ system is alive and well.”

Awesome. Way to pick a side and back the President, Debbie.

Sure, Politico is picking a fight here and most likely taking her out of context.  But as media-savvy as she supposedly is, she sure is putting a lot of juicy fat fastball right over the plate for the Politico crew to swing at.

So far I am largely unimpressed with her term, to the point where I'm revisiting my assumption that Tim Kaine would have done a worse job.

Daring Debbie Delivers?

McClatchy's Lesley Clark has a profile of Florida Dem Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Congresswoman tapped to take over the DNC and lead the donks' fundraising efforts for 2012.

Now the hard-charging 44-year-old, a Democratic rising star since she was elected at age 26 to the Florida state House of Representatives, is poised for her biggest role yet: President Barack Obama's choice to head the Democratic National Committee, a crucial part of his efforts to win another term. The one-time congressional staffer will be the third woman to hold the post when the DNC meets Wednesday to ratify Obama's decision.

Democratic strategists say Wasserman Schultz relishes going toe to toe with Republicans on issues she's passionate about, a factor that attracted the White House as it preps for a campaign that promises to be a bruiser.

"The fact that she's tough and doesn't back down is a really important strength that's going to be needed," said Karen Finney, a former national spokeswoman for the DNC. "This is not going to be an easy battle."

Wasserman Schultz chalks up her selection to a "range of skills and attributes that I think will be complementary to our needs."


"Florida is a hugely important state; women are hugely important to our success," she told McClatchy in an interview. "I'm a young mom, a good fundraiser and I can put a sentence together."

Just as important are Wasserman Schultz's doggedness, her comfort with the television camera and, as a lively liberal, her ability to re-energize part of the Democratic base that's been frustrated with Obama and stayed home in 2010. 

And again, that's exactly the kind of thing the bloodless DNC under Tim Kaine needed:  somebody with a pulse.  But it's that last part there that's the problem:  energizing the firebaggers to get them back in the fold in 2012, that's going to be the hard sell.  Schultz is an outstanding fundraiser and communicator.  But her legislative record is borderline Blue Dog at best.

However, stumping for and supporting Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler is another thing entirely.  Now that she's in charge of the entire ball of wax, it would be very nice to see her support true Dems that need the help instead of pouring cash into the laps of corporate Blue Dogs like Shuler.  Somehow, I don't think it's going to happen, which is a shame.

Reading between the lines of her interview on the health care reform 18 months ago with Cenk Uygur and given where that vote went is especially informative in hindsight.  She brings strong progressive credentials and words to the table.  But her actions?  Classic Blue Dog.

Keeping an eye on her.

Last Call

I will say that having Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz lead the DNC is a major step up from Tim Kaine.  Kaine is running for Senate in 2012.  She is leaps and bounds better than Kaine and is a fighter.

The congresswoman is beloved by the Democratic rank and file for her aggressive, outspoken advocacy for liberal points of view. She’s frequently deployed as a surrogate, particularly to groups of women and Jewish voters.

“Since she was first elected to Congress in 2004, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has emerged as one of the most outspoken leaders in the Democratic Party,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said in a statement.

“A strong voice for ordinary people who didn’t cause the recession but are too often asked to pay the price, Wasserman Schultz will be a great advocate for President Obama and for Democrats across the country who are fighting to grow the economy and create jobs for middle-class families.”

Democratic consultant Karen Finney, a former DNC communications director, called Wasserman Schultz “a fantastic choice.”

Having said that, A) a mildly drunken hobo in a clown suit is a major step up from Blue Dog Kaine, and B) Schultz is still very much a member of the Evan Bayh/John Kerry corporate wing of the Dems.  She's pro-choice and pro-social issues, and has been a fairly reliable vote for Obama, but she's also made no bones about saying that a Blue Dog is better than a Republican, and that's not always true.

Still, as I said, she's a fighter.  And damn, it's good to see a woman get this post.

And I will take a fighter over that inanimate carbon rod that is Tim Kaine any day.

New tag:  Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more from her.