Hillary should not have immediately offered the disgraced DNC chair a job.

[Whateverist]

Mia culpa.  

It finally occurred to me why people are upset with Hillary over what the DNC had done.  It at least looks as though she approved of D.W.S.'s actions.  It was tone deaf.  No wonder Sanders looked so miserable throughout the convention.

, Clinton praised Wasserman Schultz without mentioning the email scandal, commending her “hard work and leadership.”

usuncut.com/news/clinton-hires-wasserman-schultz/

I agree it is appalling that she offered no apology to Sanders for the unfair tactic which led to Wasserman Shultz stepping down.  In fact, every prominent politician in the party gets a black eye for how this was handled based on how they responded to the news.

President Obama and Vice President Biden also released glowing statements about Wasserman Schultz following her resignation, neither of which mentioned the DNC emails. The first sentence of both of these statements talk about how Wasserman Schultz has “had my back.” An odd choice of words, given the reason for her resignation.

Bernie Sanders had every reason to be mad as hell about this and showed clearly that his first concern is for the well being of the country when he was quoted in the article as having said:

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision [by stepping down] for the future of the Democratic Party. 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.”

[My bolding.]

Of course it is still important to get Hillary elected given the alternative, but I hope we get someone better in four years.  This action on Hillary's part definitely does affect how I feel about her.  I don't approve of her handling of this.  It is insensitive and was clumsy as hell.  No wonder Sander's supporters were so angry.

[vorlon13]

Am I to conclude the Hillary campaign needs an atheist baiter ?

[dyresand]

I agree with you on the fact that Debbie Wasserman shouldn't have been hired on the spot after stepping down as the DNC chairwoman.

[Divinity]

Yeah, bad move on her part.

But if she shows willingness to work with Bernie and adopts part of his platform (and it appears she has), I think it'll go a long way toward mending fences. More so than apologizing ever could. (Who gives a fuck about apologies. I want shit to get done). I think Sanders knows this (he also knows that going against Hillary Clinton would only open the door for President ElStupido). She can't just expect them to turn around and say "Yeah, support me now" just because she's not Trump. But Apologizing isn't going to make everything better. Actually an apology would be pretty fucking meaningless. Maybe some people want it. I'm not one of them. I don't care for meaningless platitudes.

[Tiberius]

@Whateverist the White, I'm glad you finally realised why so many of us were angry, and I appreciate you making this thread; not enough people can admit when they were wrong or misinformed.

As I've said before, the main anger I have is at the DNC for the way they treated Sanders behind the scenes. I have no evidence that Clinton encouraged them to do it, or was involved in any way, so I'm not angry at her for what the DNC did. However I agree with your analysis of the situation; Clinton hiring DWS (especially as it happened immediately after her resigning) looks to the casual observer that Clinton approved of what DWS did, which isn't good.

But Apologizing isn't going to make everything better. Actually an apology would be pretty fucking meaningless. Maybe some people want it. I'm not one of them. I don't care for meaningless platitudes.

I don't think an apology would go anywhere either, but I think distancing herself from DWS, removing her from the campaign, and assuring people that she won't get a job in her administration would go a very long way for a lot of Sanders supporters. It would at least show them that she's not approving of the way the DNC acted, and she is not going to reward the main person behind the DNC's colluding.

[vorlon13]

There's no shortage of qualified, untainted talent available for Hillary's campaign.

Wasserman Shultz's appointment is sending a clear message.

Still, for a candidate that seems is addicted to high negatives in the polls, this choice isn't much of a surprise.


I wonder if Hillary was in a bidding war with Trump for her services . . . .

[Jackalope]

I agree with you on the fact that Debbie Wasserman shouldn't have been hired on the spot after stepping down as the DNC chairwoman.

This is a such a "No shit, Sherlock" moment that frankly I'm surprised that someone as politically savvy as Clinton would do it.

The only explanation I can come up with that makes sense is that she thought it would get spun negatively by the GOP no matter what.

I don't (and she doesn't I'm sure) give a fuck what people who are never going to vote for her think but there are a lot of the people in the middle who aren't yet cynical enough to ignore it.

[Tiberius]

Since this thread is about anger with the DNC, I thought this would be a good place to share this Salon article, which I think sums up a number of issues people have with the DNC right now: http://www.salon.com/2016/07/29/10_reaso...ot_enough/

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, the hiring gives the impression of approval.

[ReptilianPeon]

I appreciate the post Whateverist the White. Sanders wasn't that great in my opinion but he was still way better than Hilary. If he can keep Hilary sensible for long enough perhaps she won't be (almost) as bad as Donald Trump.