Firing DWS would be a good start toward uniting the Democratic party, but Hillary is more loyal to her friends than the country, so it will never happen.
No big fan of either here, and I hope to god someone else steps into the DNC soon before we lose EVERY elected office besides the presidency, but … I would think the voters in IL and FL should be the ones to fire these two if that’s what they find best?
DWS has done little to stem the decimation of the Democratic Party infrastructure across local and state levels across the country — so she will obviously go after this year. But I don’t see what good it would do to see her fired now just to satisfy the bloodlust of conspiracy theorists who think she’s pulling the strings for Hillary just for standard party practices (like penalizing a campaign who illegally accessed the private voter data of another).
Have seen a fair number of calls for “sacking” DWS. Rahm won an election and his 'firing" is in the hands of voters in Chicago. If Bill Moyers does not believe in voting people out then he needs to explain where he finds the authority for “firing” anyone. These two were elected. One may quarrel about election politics in Chicago and in Florida. But there is no place for personal vendettas. Bill Moyers should know better.
I do not like either one of them but it is not - IMO - Clinton’s job to ask either to go away. As I understand it Obama is responsible for DWS as head of the DNC. The Party as a whole should quietly demand that she step down. As far RE is concerned the city of Chicago owns him. And while I know BS tried to make him a liability for HRC in the primary it did not go well for him. If she calls for them to step down and neither does I think it harms her more than helps. Right now Sanders’ dirty campaign is a bigger concern. Just my opinion.
CLINTON IS NOT IMMUNE TO REPUBLICAN ATTACKS
Politicians who CASH IN demonstrate what their moral values and ethical priorities are. Not only are their actions mercenary and exploitative; they serve and validate a Quid pro quo system of legislative reciprocity, unfairness and inequality.
We live in a time when legislators ignore the will of the people in order to serve the financial interests of amoral predatory sociopaths.
Lobbyists make millions of dollars because their efforts DON’T pay off?
Corporations pay politicians exorbitant fees because their CEOs are ALTRUISTIC PHILANTHROPISTS?
There are only two reasons to accept MONEY/PAYOFFS from lobbyists and/or CEOs…the willingness to accommodate and/or personal greed. BOTH are HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE characteristics for a Democratic presidential aspirant!
Others have taken money before me? It’s what they offered me? Who cares what it looks like, if they’re going to offer me money for nothing, I’m taking it?
Yes!!! What Moyers says…
I’m onboard with getting rid of Wasserman-Schultz…she’s been horrible absolutely the most ineffective chairman ever. She should go sooner rather than later.
I remember being completely baffled when Obama named Rahm Emanuel as his chief-of-staff. Emanuel is a snake who would sell his own mother to the Arabs. I still wonder what Obama could have been thinking.
No great love for DWS, either.
That he was in for a rough and tumble road and he could stay above the fray while handing Rahm the knife.
Winning the presidency will be hollow if we don’t revitalize the party. DWS is particularly troubling. She is a true failure as party chair. Supporting her continued tenure is a sign of a party establishment that has lost any connection with regular people. If Hillary wants to know what is fueling Bernie’s campaign it is the disconnect between “leadership” and membership embodied in DWS. Bernie’s campaign really is the future of the Democratic party. By supporting DWS Hillary has signaled she wants to hold on to the past.
Republicans not withstanding.
The troika of distrust: Clinton, Emmanuel and DWS. People wonder why Bernie has such a tremendous populist appeal? It’s because too many of us are tired of the party “elite” controlling the agenda. I get that’s what parties do, but they can’t do it without voters going the polls, volunteers canvassing by foot and by phone, and millions of dollars in donations and time.
Sanders and Trump are both clear reflections of voter’s being tired of the same old crap.
The Republicans could not have planted a more efficient IED in the Democratic party than DWS. She is responsible for the total and utter decimation of the party. The Chicago machine will grind Emanuel into dust soon enough…
I’m pretty shocked by this attack by Moyers, and his implied linkage between these two elected officials and Hillary Clinton as if her knowing them taints her beyond repair. What really angers me about this is the fact that these two are targets of Sanders, and Moyers is daring HRC to go along with him on this. She should resist–given that this would open her to the same charge the Sanders people lodge at her: opportunism.
I find this ugly.
DWS is terrible. She needs to go.
So Bill - you want to step up and take Debbie’s place? I don’t think anyone else wants the job - it sucks. It is a thankless job that nobody really likes.
My understanding is that Obama tried to get rid of DWS, but she threatened to throw affirmative action stink all over him and he backed down.
How do the Democrats “fire” Rahm? Number 1 - you can’t fire someone from being a Democrat. That’s a matter of choice and there aren’t any rules.
The citizens of Chicago elected him so they have to be the ones to get rid of him as mayor. But the Democrats can’t tell Rahm that he can’t be a Democrat.
If we do that, then I am putting in for firing Elliot Spitzer because he can’t keep his pants on.