Monday, July 25, 2016

Feel the Burn. But don't get too excited.

Hi MBRU Cowpokes! Thanks, Tengrain (for all the style quirks I stole from you for this piece)!

Really, Russian intelligence? Karla would be rolling over in his grave, were he not a fictional character.
Poor Debbie!

Turns out that while certain self-denominated progressives have been demonizing Wasserman Schultz as the personification of a rigged Democratic Party run by powerful hidden capitalist overlords, that whole party has been longing to get rid of her, at least if you trust
Several senior Democratic officials with ties to Hillary and Bill Clinton
two people with direct knowledge of the conversation
one former West Wing adviser
a senior Democrat
a DNC staffer
a source familiar with the discussion
one state party chair

Ah, Politico! "Some said, said some..." Nevertheless, I think there are solid reasons for trusting them on this one: many people who would like the news out that Wasserman Schultz's departure is a welcome development, but few who want their names out there as saying so. It really seems to have been everybody, from the president and his political staff (Jim Messina, as far back as the wake of the 2012 election), Hillary Clinton and her people, starring John Podesta and Robby Mook (since fall 2015), and her own staff: as she began to not show up for scheduled events,
It was a striking and telling shift to the DNC staffers monitoring her movements: They had just been laughing about how overexposed she’d been last week, showing up everywhere in Cleveland.
“This was the right move. She doesn’t deserve every attack that’s been thrown at her, but her faults have become too big a distraction and she hasn’t deftly managed the internal politics involved in managing a national committee,” said a DNC staffer. “The DNC should be playing a consequential role in the general election and that hasn't been possible as long as she’s been in charge.”

If the Sanders following wants to take credit for getting rid of her at last, they should be given it, since they're the people who have been willing to say it publicly, and I mean for years, long before there was a Sanders following, starting in 2006, when she was first chairing the party's Red-to-Blue program even though she refused to participate in campaigning against her Republican friends Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, though that didn't stop her from continuing to fail upward for the next decade. And it was Sanders's continual invoking of her name as a symbol of the party's corruption, I'm sure, that provoked her into the misbehavior revealed in the Wikileaks documents that have brought on her downfall.

Nevertheless, there's no need to turn it into a Democrats in Disarray story, as the Russian intelligence professionals who leaked the documents and their apparent friend Donald J. Trump would like you to do, or even to take it very seriously. (Really, Russian intelligence? Mean Girls spreading of did-you-hear-what-she-said gossip is what you do nowadays?) It's a momentary embarrassment, but it's no sign of a divided party, unless you mean divided between Debbie and everybody else.

No comments:

Post a Comment