www.facebook.com/…
Sharing a post by someone I follow and this is the only way I knew how to do it. By David Arnovitz. Someone who’s words have often shared what I feel or believe but not all, but a sane factual individual not often given to hyperbole to make a point.
Hope you enjoy it.
“This post actually started out as a comment on Melody's post. But FB wouldn't let me put it up. I kept getting error messages. I think because it was too long. So there you have it -- I am so long-winded I actually broke Facebook. Not exactly the legacy I was hoping for, but there it is. So I am reposting the whole thing here because I can't figure out any other way to do this.
First, here was Melody's initial question to me:
Hey Michael Arnovitz, I'm all ready to vote for Hillary and then she hires Wasserman Schultz and plans to campaign with her in Florida. Hillary is hiring her friend, yes, but she's also hiring the woman who helped her cheat us Sanders supporters and it seems like collusion to me. I've tried not to do any more than plan to vote for Hillary and ignore the Democratic Party; I was angry about the voting issues and the Nevada caucus and I was angry about Wasserman Schultz not stepping down when she clearly had a conflict of interest, and I've been furious that Clinton tied up so many of the Superdelegates before Sanders even starting campaigning and that the media clearly showed bias by reporting the Superdelegate votes as if they were in stone on a regular basis. But to have Hillary condone her conduct? Talk about a kick in the gut. I love my country and I hate all this crap. I'm thoroughly disgusted with Clinton once again. Thinking about voting for her makes me want to throw up.
You got any words of wisdom or are you equally fed up with the whole thing? Food writing has its merits. Praying for a peaceful heart.
Here's my response:
Melody – I had hoped to respond sooner, but this has been one of those days, and then FB was fighting me. In any case here’s my take on all of this:
First things first. Let’s acknowledge and maintain the proper perspective. This is not a normal election. I wish it were, but it’s not and we cannot pretend it is. So the first, most important thing I can say to you (or anyone else) is vote for Hillary Clinton. If you have to do it holding your nose, hold your nose. If you feel like you might vomit, take a bottle of Pepto with you into the booth. If you need to take a shower afterwards, then lather up. If it helps, print out a picture of DWS and spend the next few months throwing darts at it. Do whatever you need to do, but vote for Hillary. Because far more than the usual policy disagreements are at stake this time.
If Mitt Romney had won the presidency I would have been unhappy. But I would not have been overtly fearful. Romney would have been an entirely sane, competent president. He would have, in my opinion, implemented many of the wrong policies. But he would have functioned within the normal boundaries of the presidency. I think the same could be said for McCain, Kasich and any number of other Republicans.
Donald Trump is not like that. He represents a new and unique danger to our republic. Let’s be clear on that point. I have respect for Bernie Sanders, but what we are now dealing with is significantly beyond either him or how he might have been slighted by DWS. Trump has made it clear that he has no respect for the normal parameters of presidential behavior. And this, along with the proto-fascist approach of his campaign, simply negates most of the secondary issues that we would usually have the luxury of considering. I cannot stress this enough.
That having been said, here’s my general take on the Bernie/DWS issue. First, I’m not going to insist that Bernie is not really a Democrat. He joined the party, and he said as far back as last April that he is going to remain in the party. So Bernie is now a Democrat. That matters. But what also matters is that Bernie was NOT a Democrat until he decided to run for president. What also matters is that the Democratic Party tried to get Bernie Sanders to join them for years and he always refused. What also matters is that Bernie freighthopped the DNC for his own ends, and everyone knows it.
Another thing that matters is that during all those years when Bernie was refusing to join the party, Hillary was deeply involved with the party. She served the party. She held office. She raised millions of dollars for down-ticket candidates. She built up a vast network of relationships throughout the party. Many people are so blinded by the cartoon characterizations of Hillary Clinton that they don’t realize that she is actually a giant in the Democratic Party, and has been for some time. This is why everyone, even Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, stepped aside for her. Look at your history of presidential elections - do you see that happening a lot? This alone should tell you something.
Melody, if you get yourself a copy of the DNC delegate selection rules, you’ll find a very clear statement by the party about presidential candidates. It states (Rule 12, K, 1b) that, “…all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair…”
Let’s recap that:
1) “shall have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party”
2) “as determined by the National Chair” (That was DWS by the way)
Let’s be clear - in no way does this apply to Bernie Sanders. And we all know it. As such, the DNC would have been well within their rights to refuse to even allow Bernie Sanders to run for president as a Democrat. And by the way, more than a few influential democrats wanted to do exactly that. But the DNC allowed him to join the party and run as a Democrat even though everyone knew he was only doing so because he had no chance as an independent. So if you’re going to ding DWS for any slights against Bernie, you should also be fair and give her this credit as well. Her position in the party gave her the authority to shut him down right from the start, but she didn’t do it.
Also, this idea that the DNC must remain completely neutral among all candidates regardless of the situation is belied by the existence of the superdelegates, which were explicitly created to help party elites put their finger on the scale if needed. In my view, and I know that many may disagree with me on this point, it’s not neutrality that must be maintained by the DNC, but fairness.
DWS did not “cheat” anyone. Did she personally prefer HRC? Yes, I think she clearly did. But quite frankly so did most people in the party. We all know that, right? Also, and I think this is important, I’ve yet to see anyone clearly indicate something DWS did that might have impacted the primary in any material way. (The only possible exception being the scheduling of the debates in the early days of the primary.)
Bernie got the votes he got. The DNC does not control state primary voting, and the idea that HRC personally rigged elections across the country is ridiculous. Ironically, the DNC have significantly more control over the caucus states, and those generally went to Sanders. Also, HRC did not wrap up so many superdelegates before the primary started because of DWS; she wrapped them up because of her decades in the party.
As for the media, both DWS and the DNC asked the media on multiple occasions NOT to count the superdelegates when they reported delegate totals. But contrary to what many people want to believe, the media does not take their marching orders from the DNC. The media counted the superdelegates because they knew that those delegates counted. And they did not present them as carved in stone, they just gave the counts as they had them. When they changed, the media reported that. But they didn’t change much, and quite frankly they were never going to.
And even if DWS had stepped down earlier by the way, who exactly do you think would have replaced her that would not also have been similarly inclined toward Hillary Clinton? Did I mention “giant in the party"? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is what we used to call a “party man”. She is an unapologetic Democrat, and she has spent years fighting for her party. That’s her job. And the next person who takes the job is going to do the same thing, or they have no business in that job.
Now was DWS any good as the chair of the DNC? Honestly, I’m not sure. There’s no question that she rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Yet others do seem to have liked her, or at least appreciated her efforts. But frankly, this is a level of inside baseball that is a bit much even for me. And I have serious doubts about how much this matters vis-à-vis the Sanders situation.
As for Hillary Clinton continuing to work with her, and as others I think have already pointed out, this is an honorary position. It’s a show of respect; a professional courtesy. It is not a real job. I actually have no idea what Hillary thinks of DWS. I will say that there is reason to believe that Clinton and DWS are not nearly as cozy as some people think, given that Politico reported that her campaign manager John Podesta supposedly attempted to have DWS replaced last year. And from what I read the only reason it didn’t happen was because President Obama wouldn’t sign off on it.
Finally, I get the sense that the anger currently being vented in DWS’ direction is mostly due to a continuing conviction among many of Sanders’ supporters that he was cheated by the powers that be. I have previously been clear about my views on conspiracy theories, so I’ll leave that alone. All I can suggest in this regard is that you listen to your own candidate. Bernie Sanders has been clear that he lost the primary fair and square. Also, one of his top aides, Symone Sanders (no relation) recently tweeted, “NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It’s a hard reality for some.” So aside from the fact that I don’t think anyone has shown any specific acts by DWS that hurt Sanders, there is the not unimportant reality that not even Bernie or his team believe that they were cheated.
My advice, for what it’s worth - aim that anger and energy where it belongs, at Donald Trump. As influential as she is, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a secondary player in this drama. We are at a genuinely dangerous moment in our country’s history. We need to keep our eye on the ball, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not the ball. At best, she is a distraction. At worst, she is a tool used by those with their own agenda in order to make sure that we don’t look at the real man behind the curtain. And we can’t afford to fall for that this time. The stakes are simply too high.”
