Boston Globe

Senior state Democratic official compares DNC to ‘dictatorship’



[Vice chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Deb] Kozikowski wrote in a posting Wednesday night on Facebook that Wasserman Schultz, who has said candidates who agree to participate in any debate outside the six sanctioned by the central party would be uninvited from the other sessions, had been “too busy establishing a full-fledged dictatorship at the DNC to recognize she’d gone over the top.” [...] Growing numbers of Democrats are voicing criticism of their party’s debate plan. Two national committee vice chairs, US Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and former Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, have broken with Wasserman Schultz, taking to Facebook to push for more debates and for eliminating the penalty for candidates who stray from the rules. Under the current arrangement, they said, “more people will feel excluded from our political process, rather than included.”

NH State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark is none too happy either, saying she



"had a rather intense discussion" with the chair of the Democratic National Committee, in an effort to have more Democratic presidential debates and to schedule New Hampshire's debate sooner, but failed to persuade Debbie Wasserman Schultz. "I think we're getting the short shrift," Fuller Clark said. "I was hoping that, as the leader of the New Hampshire party, I would have some impact. I won't stop looking at other opportunities to bring the candidates to New Hampshire."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Must Go

The DNC desperately needs a chairperson who isn't completely in the tank for Hillary Clinton



Debbie Wasserman Schultz is depending on Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination to further her own political career. She has lost favor of the Obama administration since her appointment as chair of the DNC in 2011, with reports that replacements had been lined up after the 2012 presidential election. She allegedly planned to retort with accusations of anti-Semitism and sexism if the administration went through with her replacement. Her leadership led to catastrophic losses for the Democrats during the 2014 midterm elections. [In 2008 as head of the DCCC's Red to Blue program] she directly assisted in losses by refusing to support three Democrats, Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez and businesswoman Annette Taddeo, who were challenging Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, because she is friends with her Republican colleagues.

Additional debates can do more than help candidates and broaden the audience for the party’s message; they can finally give the media something to talk about other than Hillary’s ongoing woes. Far from a distraction or risk, more debates might be the only thing Democrats can do to shift attention from Clinton and her assorted problems, from email to falling poll numbers.

The majority of us believe in fair and open debates as a way of spreading Democratic ideas and solutions. When we don't limit debate and impose unprecedented exclusivity rules on candidates, we are able to strengthen our candidates. This helps them practice their skills in preparation for the difficult political struggle to come, against the GOP. Debates also allow us to see how candidates perform in person, with competition, laying out their visions for the future.

The critics are right: If the point of presidential primary debates is to give candidates a forum to make their case to the tens of millions of people who will pick their party’s nominee, the current Democratic debate calendar is wholly insufficient to the task at hand. There are too few debates, too many are on weekends or holidays when viewership is much lower, and there aren’t enough close to when the most consequential voting will take place. [...] As of today, the Republicans have ten debates scheduled before mid-March, while the Democrats have four. Of those debates, the GOP has six debates scheduled in the ten weeks closest to the actual voting, while the Democrats have just one. In 2016, the GOP will have debates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas, Florida, and twice in South Carolina – all consequential states. The only debate the Democrats have scheduled currently in 2016 is on the Sunday night of the Martin Luther King Day weekend in South Carolina.

1. Move more of the existing debates to weeknights

2. Add more debates in the key states prior to March 15

3. Remove the limit on debates in case the nominating process goes beyond March 15. The DNC should also try to get the 2015 debates in Iowa and New Hampshire moved to better days during the week, add Iowa, New Hampshire and one other debate to the early 2016 window, and lock in the proposed Florida and Wisconsin debates before March 15. If in February the election looks like it is going to go to late spring, more debates can be added. There’s no reason to have a cap, or to force candidates to agree to one.

“Three of the four scheduled debates are on weekends,” Deb Kozikowski, the northeast vice president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, tells me. “One is the weekend between Hannukah and Christmas; the other falls on Martin Luther King Day weekend. You can’t expect that we’re going to generate a whole lot of excitement and interest in these candidates.” [...] “My concern is that not enough people will see the Democrats, while on the other side of the aisle, they’re putting on the Greatest Show on Earth,” Kozikowski of the Association of State Democratic Chairs tells me. “That just wipes us off the map. It doesn’t make any sense to let the opposition own the airwaves. The majority of my colleagues don’t feel much differently. We are advocating a full and complete discussion of issues among our candidates, whom we believe are far superior to the Greatest Show on Earth.”

Slate thinks more debates may actually help Clinton. CNN makes the case that MSNBC reportsMSNBC thinks a possible solution would beThe Washington Post has weighed in, noting thatJust wait - I'll bet the one in February winds up either being on Sunday, February 7 - opposite the Super Bowl, or on Sunday, February 14 - Valentines Day. Not only will many be out celebrating with their significant others on Valentines Day, but that Sunday is also the middle day of the three-day Presidents Day holiday weekend. A nice little valentine from one friend (DWS) to another (HRC)

The media is playing the angle that DWS is doing all this because she was one of Clinton's failed campaign co-chairs in 2008 and wants to help her friend Hillary win in 2016, but I have to wonder just how friendly the two really are.

Back in November, shortly before the mid-term elections, Politico did a three-page feature article on DWS titled

Dems turn on Wasserman Schultz

On Page 3, the article reported:



Back in 2008, Wasserman Schultz was a co-chair of Clinton’s presidential run and one of the campaign’s most active surrogates. In the rough final weeks of the primaries, when the Obama campaign was looking for every pressure point to force Clinton to quit, Wasserman Schultz gave them one. Wasserman Schultz reached out to the Obama campaign to let them know she knew Clinton’s campaign was over, even though it would take a few more weeks. And she wanted them to know she was ready to be there for Obama as soon as it was. Through back channels, according to people connected to the discussions, Obama aides promptly let Clinton aides know that one of her last allies was backing away. This has not been forgotten.

Criticizing the White House’s handling of the border crisis



Comparing the tea party to wife beaters



Repeatedly trying to get the DNC to cover the costs of her wardrobe



Having DNC-paid staff focus on her personal political agenda.



Using meetings with DNC donors to solicit contributions for her own PAC and campaign committee



Traveling to uncompetitive districts to court House colleagues for her potential leadership bid



Pushing for a meeting with the president to complain that she had been blocked from hiring the daughter of a donor — who’d been on staff in her congressional office — as a junior staffer to be the DNC’s Jewish community liaison



Resisting Obama circle favorites Marlon Marshall and Buffy Wicks replacing Patrick Gaspard as executive director, and having her daughter sit in on the interview with Wicks rather than doing it herself.



Speaking at length to Politico about how she planned to leverage the donors she’d met as DNC chairwoman into fundraising to build chits for her own political future



The article raised other criticisms of DWS including:

The Politico article quotes DWS as saying



“My tenure here is not about me,” Wasserman Schultz said in an interview with POLITICO at DNC headquarters. “I like to help build this party. That’s what I love and that’s what I focused on.” She rejects the idea she is over-extended. “I have always taken on a lot. It’s what I love to do. I don’t do anything halfway,” she said, dismissing any worries that she’s overextended. “In some cases, it’s sniping; in other cases people are worried about me. I have a lot of Jewish mothers out there that I think very kindly say, ‘My god, she’s doing so much.’ It’s OK.”

Seriously, Debbie? The DNC hasn't even hired a new Communications Director since Mo Elleithee stepped aside back on June 2 . (h/t

She's doing so much . . . to destroy the Democratic party.

She's done such a good job running the DNC that many people have stopped donating.

The Boston Herald reported:



Federal Election Commission reports tell a disappointing story for the party: The DNC collected $36.5 million in the first six months of the year and had almost no money in special accounts, including one designated for its convention. It had about $7.6 million in available cash and $6.2 million in debts and loans.

Their report is backed up by the FEC analysis.

Link to comparison graphs

Just under the top graph, there's a box where you can choose DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE from the drop-down list for a more detailed summary.

The RNC has taken in more receipts, has more cash on hand, and has less debt than the DNC.

I can't believe this woman still has a job. She needs to be replaced - and not with Howard Dean, either. He's already endorsed Clinton and he spends too much time making the rounds on the cable news shows. I'd much rather see that position go to former Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak. He's already a DNC vice-chair. Give him a promotion, and find a new vice-chair. That three-page Politico article mentioned that Rybak was the one being considered to replace Wasserman Schultz back in 2012.

I think we need to keep the pressure up.