By By Andrew Moran Sep 22, 2015 in Politics Washington - Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be the worst chair of the Democratic National Committee in recent history. Everything from ignorance of the current White House record to her denial of more debates, Schultz may be in over her head as head of the DNC. The instance just highlighted her uncouth behavior, her ignorance and her lack of knowledge of current events. Indeed, as chairwoman of one of the biggest parties in the U.S., your ear should be to the ground of every facet of politics. Her comments prior to that incident in 2012 have been even more astounding. In 2011, during a couple of media appearances, Schultz accused Republicans of "The Republicans have a plan to end Medicare as we know it. What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, 'You know what? You're on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health-care insurance market. We're going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We're going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out'" Later on, Schultz said the GOP would "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally—and very transparently—block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." Both remarks were found to be untrue by non-partisan fact checkers. So why exactly bring up something that happened a few years ago? Because her record of leading the DNC has come to the forefront of media coverage once again. This time it's her refusal to hold more than just six Democratic debates, even though a large number of Democratic voters want them. Also, it's far less than usual. During a New Hampshire Democratic Party convention this past weekend, Schultz was "My friends," Schultz arrogantly pleaded, "what's more important, drawing a contrast with Republicans or arguing about debates?" She added: "Enough is enough, we have a job to do, let's focus on the task at hand. We have a presidential candidate that did not the other night tell a supporter in the audience that Barack Obama was not a Muslim." The crowd obviously wasn't pleased. Perhaps because it's apparent that Schultz doesn't want Sanders or Martin O'Malley to showcase Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy, poor record and elitist nature. Perhaps it's because she doesn't want anyone impeding Clinton's (guaranteed) path to the White House. It's this type of behavior that is unwelcomed in a supposed democracy. Although Clinton is the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, shouldn't lesser known candidates have the opportunity to speak to the general public and tell them what they have to offer if they face off against Donald Trump, Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina in 2016? Sanders may be the most dangerous man in this election, but he has the right to be heard and have a fair shot at the presidency. He shouldn't be silenced because he offers a (terrible) alternative to Clinton. The Democrats want Clinton, and they will quash any sort of dissent, even if it means limiting democracy. Schultz may be the worst Chair of the DNC in recent history. And yes, that includes Chris Dodd! The name Debbie Wasserman Schultz first came to my mind when she was asked about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and President Barack Obama's secret "kill list." She was unaware that these existed. Schultz even had the temerity to inform the reporter at the time that she would only be taking "serious questions" and walked away from the interview.The instance just highlighted her uncouth behavior, her ignorance and her lack of knowledge of current events. Indeed, as chairwoman of one of the biggest parties in the U.S., your ear should be to the ground of every facet of politics.Her comments prior to that incident in 2012 have been even more astounding.In 2011, during a couple of media appearances, Schultz accused Republicans of wanting to abolish Medicare Later on, Schultz said the GOP would bring back Jim Crow laws to block Democratic voters.Both remarks were found to be untrue by non-partisan fact checkers.So why exactly bring up something that happened a few years ago? Because her record of leading the DNC has come to the forefront of media coverage once again. This time it's her refusal to hold more than just six Democratic debates, even though a large number of Democratic voters want them. Also, it's far less than usual.During a New Hampshire Democratic Party convention this past weekend, Schultz was heckled by a crowd of Bernie Sanders supporters . They started shouting down Schultz with "we want debates." As supporters were demanding more debates, Schultz was playing the partisanship game by trying to peddle the two-party system rhetoric."My friends," Schultz arrogantly pleaded, "what's more important, drawing a contrast with Republicans or arguing about debates?"She added: "Enough is enough, we have a job to do, let's focus on the task at hand. We have a presidential candidate that did not the other night tell a supporter in the audience that Barack Obama was not a Muslim."The crowd obviously wasn't pleased. Perhaps because it's apparent that Schultz doesn't want Sanders or Martin O'Malley to showcase Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy, poor record and elitist nature. Perhaps it's because she doesn't want anyone impeding Clinton's (guaranteed) path to the White House.It's this type of behavior that is unwelcomed in a supposed democracy. Although Clinton is the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, shouldn't lesser known candidates have the opportunity to speak to the general public and tell them what they have to offer if they face off against Donald Trump, Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina in 2016?Sanders may be the most dangerous man in this election, but he has the right to be heard and have a fair shot at the presidency. He shouldn't be silenced because he offers a (terrible) alternative to Clinton.The Democrats want Clinton, and they will quash any sort of dissent, even if it means limiting democracy.Schultz may be the worst Chair of the DNC in recent history. And yes, that includes Chris Dodd! This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com More about 2016 presidential election, Democratic national committee, debbie wasserman schultz, Hillary clinton More news from 2016 presidential el... Democratic national ... debbie wasserman sch... Hillary clinton