TPM Reader DR provides his own take on Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s tenure running the DNC and efforts to oust here (embedded links are in the original email) …
I wholeheartedly agree with your post about Debbie Wasserman Schulz (DWS). But there’s an angle to this story that isn’t being covered, which is that long before Bernie Sanders ever showed up, most “establishment” Democrats — including a fair number of Clintonites — wanted DWS gone. Not only was this was reported repeatedly over a span of several years (use the google, there’s plenty more where that came from), hostility to her is something I observed firsthand.
I’m friends with a number of high ranking Hill staffers and Democratic consultants, and for much of 2014 and the first half of 2015, pretty much the ONLY topic of conversation was how much everybody hated DWS. Having heard essentially the same complaints from several unrelated and reliable sources, I came away with the strong impression that these feelings were widespread on Capitol Hill, verging on unanimous. Perhaps not. But Bernie’s grievances — whether you believe they have merit or not — are just the latest chapter in a long saga of animosity towards DWS.
From a strategic standpoint, Bernie’s grievances have given the national Democratic Party a legitimate justification to oust DWS. As you noted, party unity is and should be the overwhelming priority, especially in the face of an opponent like Trump. That’s why it’s so concerning, but also quite revealing, to see so many so many Democratic politicians suddenly coming out of the wood works to defend her (see the bottom half of that article). Even if DWS’ defenders don’t share the views of her detractors, they are unquestionably aware that DWS has been a continuing source of intra-party strife and controversy. Bernie has taken a lot of flack lately for dividing the party, but the evidence shows that DWS has been dividing the party for years. Is there any reason to think that is going to change?
I strongly suspect that, after years of relative silence, the reason DWS’ supporters are speaking out now is because they perceive the threat to her as serious. They are likely correct. But in defending her, these Democrats are putting personal loyalty to DWS ahead of party unity. It’s a reminder that Democrats remain their own worst enemies.
I have not followed DWS’s tenure at the DNC closely enough to give my own judgment on her time there. But the sense that there have been gripes for a long time does jibe with my recollections.
The more relevant point is that personal loyalty to her, whether ousting her would be fair, or whether she’s really done anything wrong are all frankly beside the point. If bringing in a more unifying figure or simply another person – who by being a different person could be more unifying – would provide a bridge to greater unity, there’s no reason not to do it. It’s not about anyone’s feelings. Perhaps if there was some very compelling argument that a change in leadership at a key moment like this would stymie the DNC in some way, maybe that would change the calculus. But I really doubt that’s the case. Preventing Trump from being the 45th president is truly all that matters. Anything that stands in the way of that is a selfish indulgence.
