Debbie Wasserman Shultz bounced on her ass...

NBC News wrote:DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stepping Aside in Wake of Scandal
by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

PHILADELPHIA — Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been ousted as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee on the eve of the party's convention. It's an abrupt end to a chairmanship marked by controversy, which came to a head this weekend following revelations from leaked internal emails.

"Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention," Wasserman Schultz said in a lengthy statement Sunday announcing her resignation, referring to her desire to unify the party.

Wasserman Schultz said she plans to step down at the end of the convention, though some Democrats are already saying she may not last that long. "As Party Chair, this week I will open and close the Convention and I will address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats, but for all Americans," Wasserman Schultz added.

Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge has been selected to serve as chair of the Democratic National Convention, which kicks off Monday. Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Donna Brazile will serve as Interim Chair through the election, a DNC spokesperson said on Twitter.

As recently as Friday, there was no sign of trouble and Wasserman Schultz was set to lead the convention, according to sources.

Wasserman Schultz spoke at two Hillary Clinton rallies in Florida Friday and Saturday, including the one where presumptive vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine appeared publicly for the first time.

But opposition to Wasserman Schultz, both public and private, had been gaining steam following the publication late last week of leaked emails which seemed to show a plot by DNC officials to damage Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary.

The revelations created doubts from various sectors of the party about how Wasserman Schultz could oversee a convention meant to showcase party unity.

By late Saturday, opposition inside the party "spread like wildfire," according to a Democratic source close to the matter. It resulted in a tense confrontation Sunday when officials told Wasserman Schultz she had to go.

Wasserman Schultz had become toxic to supporters of Sanders, who accused her of rigging the Democratic presidential nominating process in favor of Clinton.

In a statement, Sanders said that Wasserman Schultz had made "the right decision" but repeated his criticism of the party for what he describes as the DNC putting its thumb on the scale during the primary contest.

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic Party," he said. "While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race."

But starting even before that, many Democrats had privately lost confidence in her leadership.

"She's essentially a pariah in every corner of the party," said one veteran Democratic strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal politics. "This has needed to happen for a long time."

For instance in late May, after a news report that Democrats were considering ousting Wasserman Schultz, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called her to say he would not put out a statement defending her.

Wasserman Schultz also overrode the White House and the Clinton campaign in her choice of communications director for the DNC last fall. The key role went vacant for five months as the various parties tried to find a candidate acceptable to her, with some allies criticizing the process and outcome.

Even Clinton allies questioned the DNC's heavy-handed approach to dealing with the Sanders campaign during a data breach incident in December, worrying that it would undermine the credibility of a nominating process they hoped to win.

Wasserman Schultz had already effectively lost control of the DNC after Clinton's campaign inserted operative Brandon Davis to run operations on a day-to-day basis.

The Clinton campaign also recently sent a second staffer, Adam Parkhomenko, from its Brooklyn headquarters to serve in a senior role on the committee.

But internal DNC emails posted online by Wikileaks late last week became the catalyst for her official removal.

One email showed the party's finance chairman suggesting the DNC use what they assumed to be Sanders' atheism against him in Kentucky and West Virginia, religious states where it might not play well.

Others showed Wasserman Schultz criticizing Sanders for not being a member of the party and saying he would never be president.

The emails were apparently stolen by hackers working for the Russian government, and Clinton officials have said their posting is an attempt to sway the election for Donald Trump.

The emails implicate other DNC officials, including CEO Amy Dacey, a close Wasserman Schultz ally who is well respected by other Democrats, and communications department officials.

Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz is facing a surprisingly tough congressional reelection campaign back home in Florida against a primary candidate backed by Sanders.

Wasserman Schultz, who began her tenure as chair in 2011, proved herself to be a prodigious fundraiser for fellow Delegates and an effective party surrogate and attack dog.

"I want to thank my longtime friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her leadership of the Democratic National Committee over the past five years," Clinton said a statement accepting the chairwoman's resignation.

Wasserman Schultz served as a co-chair of Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and Clinton said Sunday that the Floridian will serve as "honorary chair" of her campaign's 50-state program and continue to serve as a surrogate for her campaign nationally and in Florida.

Her detractors inside the party had resigned themselves to Wasserman Schultz's leadership through November, comforted by the fact that she had been marginalized by Clinton aides.

Even some critics in the Clinton campaign and White House thought it would be better to keep Wasserman Schultz than to risk presenting an image of disunity by forcing her out.

On Sunday, critics passed around a tweet Wasserman Schultz sent last week to her counterpart at the Republican National Committee, Reince Preibus. "Hey @Reince — I'm in Cleveland if you need another chair to help keep your convention in order," she wrote.

Priebus, who faced his own challenges managing a fractured party at the GOP's convention in Cleveland last week, told reporters Sunday that Wasserman Schultz's resignation was "inevitable," adding "it shows what an uphill climb the Democrats are facing this week in unifying the party."

Wasserman Schultz, who began her tenure as chair in 2011, proved herself to be a prodigious fundraiser for fellow Delegates and an effective party surrogate and attack dog.

"I want to thank my longtime friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her leadership of the Democratic National Committee over the past five years," Clinton said a statement accepting the chairwoman's resignation.

4Eva wrote:Wasserman Schultz strikes me as such a executive type of woman ...but in all fairness to the other side of the political isle there have been as many abrasive women seated over there that just make me feel like 'nails on a chalk board' when I hear their name or read their by-line in some news printed article.

Don't you see how it creates a ready-made script for the Repugs? Now you see why Trump was sidling up to Sanders in his speeches, saying they were both victims of the 'establishment'. Wasserman Shultz is just a kid, and yet as the CEO of the Party, she looks like the ultimate insider, capitalist pig.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, but I like the 'bern' kids.  I want to incorporate them into the Democratic Party.  I, too, feel that the likes of the Clintons are too far right.

This was soo unnecessary.  And the fire it adds fuel to is not the Repug v. Dems, but the internal Democratic conflict.  Really, feeding that fire is Trump's job...the fault was Wasserman Shultz's...as well as anyone who took advantage of the DNC bias.

Original Quill wrote:The damage was done last December, over the data breach scandal.  Turned out to be the DNC fault, yet they 'arranged' to blame Sanders.  https://mic.com/articles/130779/bernie-sanders-campaign-suspended-from-dnc-voter-records-after-breach-of-clinton-data#.bA6yIXv2l

That kind of stuff is Republican.  It allows the RW argument of: See, they do it too!  It's not needed in the party of fairness.

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The damage was done last December, over the data breach scandal.  Turned out to be the DNC fault, yet they 'arranged' to blame Sanders.  https://mic.com/articles/130779/bernie-sanders-campaign-suspended-from-dnc-voter-records-after-breach-of-clinton-data#.bA6yIXv2l

That kind of stuff is Republican.  It allows the RW argument of: See, they do it too!  It's not needed in the party of fairness.

And gentleman Bernie    it off and kept his staff & his campaign moving forward; yes, I remember!
So what was he - was HRC - the DNC supposed to do now that the sluggish social media Parana started another wave of hysteria over this BS ...regardless of where it came from

Original Quill wrote:My daughter was rather high up in the DNC in Washington before she went back to Harvard for her law degree.  I can tell you from first-hand experience and conversations that they take such compromises very seriously.

Sure it's a competitive institution, but not before it is an institution with the highest integrity.  Principle and probity come first.

If things have changed as your daughter as stated, that could only be a huge improvement; I just don't know why there has to be so much money blown on such pomp-and-circumstances?

When Hillary Clinton gave Debbie Wasserman Schultz an honorary position in her 50-state program yesterday upon the news of the DNC Chair’s resignation, many quickly jumped to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton was rewarding Wasserman Schultz with “quid pro quo” for “rigging the election”.
A few things:
1) An honorary position is usually not paid. Per the definition of “honorary”: “Holding an office or title given as an honor, without payment.”
2) Quid pro quo definition: “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.”
3) While emails show Wasserman Schultz had a favorite, they do not show actual resources being used to help that favorite. What she did was unfair and not very smart, but she did not ultimately direct resources toward Clinton and away from Sanders.
What Clinton did with her announcement was what a good politician does: She was diplomatic and utilized Wasserman Schultz’s talents, while doing the equivalent of putting Wasserman Schultz in the corner. This position is not powerful. It is a huge step down from being the chair of the DNC. It’s more of a gentle landing place from the fall, while acknowledging the Chairwoman’s strengths.
It doesn’t pay to make enemies in your own party (see Ted Cruz and Donald Trump for proof of that) and any politician worth their salt knows how to utilize talent for the best outcome and they know not to burn bridges.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/25/newsflash-hillary-clinton-reward-debbie-wasserman-schultz.html

4Eva wrote:If things have changed as your daughter as stated, that could only be a huge improvement; I just don't know why there has to be so much money blown on such pomp-and-circumstances?

Original Quill wrote:

4Eva wrote:If things have changed as your daughter as stated, that could only be a huge improvement; I just don't know why there has to be so much money blown on such pomp-and-circumstances?

My daughter was there in the mid-90's.  She had her office in the DNC headquarters on Massachusetts Avenue, in Washington DC. just up from Dupont Circle.  I visited there often, and made personal contacts with the people themselves.

I met a lot of hard working people, not particularly associated with an election.  I saw none of the hard partying that you are talking about.

but they'd have no reason to lie or fabricate their stories just to impress 'me' ...not when the 2016 news was covering the parties/escapades that were drawing the drinking crowds outside the RNC venue that the wayward Senators and other MIA officials were being filmed in those raging party clubs!

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
My daughter was there in the mid-90's.  She had her office in the DNC headquarters on Massachusetts Avenue, in Washington DC. just up from Dupont Circle.  I visited there often, and made personal contacts with the people themselves.

I met a lot of hard working people, not particularly associated with an election.  I saw none of the hard partying that you are talking about.

I couldn't even tell you what hotel they all stayed in either.
but they'd have no reason to lie or fabricate their stories just to impress 'me' ...not when the 2016 news was covering the parties/escapades that were drawing the drinking crowds outside the RNC venue that the wayward Senators and other MIA officials were being filmed in those raging party clubs!

Original Quill wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
I couldn't even tell you what hotel they all stayed in either.
but they'd have no reason to lie or fabricate their stories just to impress 'me' ...not when the 2016 news was covering the parties/escapades that were drawing the drinking crowds outside the RNC venue that the wayward Senators and other MIA officials were being filmed in those raging party clubs!

Hotel?  As far as I know they went to their homes after work, to their families and neighbors.  They lived in the suburbs of Washiington DC, and commuted to work with bagels and coffee in hand.  They were simply working people, doing a job...everyday from 9 to 5, conducting studies, writing reports, and attending meetings having to do with the everyday life of the DNC.

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hotel?  As far as I know they went to their homes after work, to their families and neighbors.  They lived in the suburbs of Washiington DC, and commuted to work with bagels and coffee in hand.  They were simply working people, doing a job...everyday from 9 to 5, conducting studies, writing reports, and attending meetings having to do with the everyday life of the DNC.

you seem to forget that I'm not talking about the support staff that attendeded these DNC conventions...I'm only talking about the elected Democratic campaign officials for Johnson County, Kansas and all state senators & congressional rep. that went. The 18 Member group that went from Jo. Co. Ks. were gone for 5 days ...where do you think that all those people you see standing inside that auditorium chanting and screaming stay during the convention?  Then you'd not know about the 'hard partying/drinking' that goes on at the conventions

Original Quill wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
you seem to forget that I'm not talking about the support staff that attended these DNC conventions...I'm only talking about the elected Democratic campaign officials for Johnson County, Kansas and all state senators & congressional rep. that went. The 18 Member group that went from Jo. Co. Ks. were gone for 5 days ...where do you think that all those people you see standing inside that auditorium chanting and screaming stay during the convention?  Then you'd not know about the 'hard partying/drinking' that goes on at the conventions

No, I was talking about the rest of the year, when there are no elections and everyone quietly goes about their business.  My daughter was on their 'Russian studies' staff, a permanent appointment.

Now if only those upper crust Brit's could manage the same method for discussion! 

Well, to be fair ...there are about 3 - 4 that do, the rest just provide those amazingly/grunted/foul/obscene    because they can't manage any real adult discussion skills!

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there a link to the OP, and does it have that thread title?

Highlight the name "Debbie Wasserman Shultz" and paste it in Google.  Hit search.

It will lead you directly to numerous articles on her.  For example:

Democratic National Convention opens without Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's controversial tenure - CNNPolitics.com

Dems open convention without Wasserman Schultz - CNNPolitics.com

Alternatively, if you want a specific article, highlight a sentence or more of the article and Google search if.  No two articles are so much alike that you won't find it searching with ample language.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there a link to the OP, and does it have that thread title?

Give someone a fish, s/he'll eat for a day; teach her to fish, s/he'll eat for a lifetime:

Highlight the name "Debbie Wasserman Shultz" and paste it in Google.  Hit search.

It will lead you directly to numerous articles on her.  For example:

Democratic National Convention opens without Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's controversial tenure - CNNPolitics.com

Dems open convention without Wasserman Schultz - CNNPolitics.com

Alternatively, if you want a specific article, highlight a sentence or more of the article and Google search if.  No two articles are so much alike that you won't find it searching with ample language.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Give someone a fish, s/he'll eat for a day; teach her to fish, s/he'll eat for a lifetime:

Highlight the name "Debbie Wasserman Shultz" and paste it in Google.  Hit search.

It will lead you directly to numerous articles on her.  For example:

Democratic National Convention opens without Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's controversial tenure - CNNPolitics.com

Dems open convention without Wasserman Schultz - CNNPolitics.com

Alternatively, if you want a specific article, highlight a sentence or more of the article and Google search if.  No two articles are so much alike that you won't find it searching with ample language.

Or you could have just included a link yourself ...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Or you could have just included a link yourself ...

I am an educator.  You are in need of learning, obviously.  We are here to help you.

A small piece from the article will suffice along with the link to the article (a must!) and your own comment, if you wish.

NBC News wrote:DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stepping Aside in Wake of Scandal

Original Quill wrote:

NBC News wrote:DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stepping Aside in Wake of Scandal

When you quote the title of the article and provide the source—right there before your weak lil eyes, in 24-point type—then quote the whole article, you are providing the link.

Now, do you want to learn how to chew gum and ride a bicycle at the same time?

Original Quill wrote:

NBC News wrote:DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stepping Aside in Wake of Scandal

When you quote the title of the article and provide the source—right there before your weak lil eyes, in 24-point type—then quote the whole article, you are providing the link.

Now, do you want to learn how to chew gum and ride a bicycle at the same time?

It's always obvious when Ragg-poo's own forum of bent intentions & hellish  POV's has gone stagnant, yet again    She trolls over here and begins to attempt a forum crashing method of throwing her weight around and destructing the policy that 'she now deems important' ...not that she ever follows her own directives! 

Nothing to contribute about any topics, just 'buzzard droppings' from her brilliant mental dribbles and then flies away to another topic to disrupt yet another thread.    

When those that can't contribute can only manage to disrupt/dictate/spread the wealth of discontent and bilge water! 

Raggamuffin wrote:All he had to do was provide a link, and now snakeface has jumped in to disrupt the thread, and to chuck a few insults around.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:All he had to do was provide a link, and now snakeface has jumped in to disrupt the thread, and to chuck a few insults around.

I think you deserved a little ribbing.  You were being absurd...or, you are in serious need of a refresher course in Komputers for Kids.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:All he had to do was provide a link, and now snakeface has jumped in to disrupt the thread, and to chuck a few insults around.

I think you deserved a little ribbing.  You were being absurd...or, you are in serious need of a refresher course in Komputers for Kids.

See, therein lays the entire problem with Raggy-poo; she just can't grasp what a good conversation consists of/reads like/or how she should be a good member and participate instead of    Or she'd have been able to read all of the previous discussions {or have had someone read those posts} we've had about THE TOPIC!

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you deserved a little ribbing.  You were being absurd...or, you are in serious need of a refresher course in Komputers for Kids.

See, therein lays the entire problem with Raggy-poo; she just can't grasp what a good conversation consists of/reads like/or how she should be a good member and participate instead of    Or she'd have been able to read all of the previous discussions {or have had someone read those posts} we've had about THE TOPIC! 

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
See, therein lays the entire problem with Raggy-poo; she just can't grasp what a good conversation consists of/reads like/or how she should be a good member and participate instead of    Or she'd have been able to read all of the previous discussions {or have had someone read those posts} we've had about THE TOPIC! 

I see you're embarking on a tag-teaming session with your favourite fake lawyer.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're embarking on a tag-teaming session with your favourite fake lawyer.

Raggs, I'm so surprised at you.  We've known each other for so long.  None of us need to tag-team, as you put it.  We each talk what is right and wrong.

Now, I posted an article...the full article, with title, source and even used 24-font, bold type in the title.  You claim this is not enough to provide you with entrée into the subject.  You claim you require a "link"...when you've already got the entire goddam article!

Forgive me your majesty, but you'll get what you deserve.   A link is a key to the lockbox, when you've already received the contents of the lockbox!  I think it is clear that you don't want a link, you don't want to research the matter, nor even to discuss the topic; I daresay, you don't even care about the topic.  You want an issue with which to make trouble.  Keep it going so you can deliver more insults.

You want argument for the sake of antagonism, irrespective of content...that just is not what this forum is all about.  Hopefully, the forum is a source of facts, perspectives and logical interpretation.  To come in just for the purpose of antagonism--to fulfill your personal need for drama in your life- is an imposition on everyone else's time.  That's not what we are here for.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there a link to the OP, and does it have that thread title? = Wednesday

Give someone a fish, s/he'll eat for a day; teach her to fish, s/he'll eat for a lifetime:

Highlight the name "Debbie Wasserman Shultz" and paste it in Google.  Hit search.

It will lead you directly to numerous articles on her.  For example:

Democratic National Convention opens without Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's controversial tenure - CNNPolitics.com

Dems open convention without Wasserman Schultz - CNNPolitics.com

Alternatively, if you want a specific article, highlight a sentence or more of the article and Google search if.  No two articles are so much alike that you won't find it searching with ample language.

Is it that BORING at your own little hovel of a community that your whole reason for being here is just to destroy decent topics  ...seems that's what you achieve - zero contributions - zero topic starts - just attack - derail - retreat - disappear!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggs, I'm so surprised at you.  We've known each other for so long.  None of us need to tag-team, as you put it.  We each talk what is right and wrong.

Now, I posted an article...the full article, with title, source and even used 24-font, bold type in the title.  You claim this is not enough to provide you with entrée into the subject.  You claim you require a "link"...when you've already got the entire goddam article!

Forgive me your majesty, but you'll get what you deserve.   A link is a key to the lockbox, when you've already received the contents of the lockbox!  I think it is clear that you don't want a link, you don't want to research the matter, nor even to discuss the topic; I daresay, you don't even care about the topic.  You want an issue with which to make trouble.  Keep it going so you can deliver more insults.

You want argument for the sake of antagonism, irrespective of content...that just is not what this forum is all about.  Hopefully, the forum is a source of facts, perspectives and logical interpretation.  To come in just for the purpose of antagonism--to fulfill your personal need for drama in your life- is an imposition on everyone else's time.  That's not what we are here for.

Quill, 4ever was clearly tag-teaming with you, so stop denying it.

You should provided a link, otherwise you could have changed the text secretly. I'm surprised at you ...

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, 4ever was clearly tag-teaming with you, so stop denying it.

You should provided a link, otherwise you could have changed the text secretly. I'm surprised at you ...

You are wasting your time Rags.

I just got singled out again and here its only boring.

I am taking this up with Ben, where I can be discriminated on my gender and have sexist comments thrown at me, its now become a farce. I am afraid people are going to leave and this will end up like a previous site just with lefties on here.