Hillary wanted DWS gone last year.

[runaway hero]

PHILADELPHIA — Hillary Clinton and her team aren’t thrilled that the head of the Democratic National Committee was forced out on the eve of the nominee’s coronation — but they aren’t exactly distraught to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz booted from the tent.
Several senior Democratic officials with ties to Hillary and Bill Clinton told POLITICO that campaign higher-ups have been trying to replace the oft-off-message Florida congresswoman from the start of Clinton’s campaign late last year.
Story Continued Below

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman — and a former top adviser to Barack Obama — broached the idea of replacing Wasserman Schultz as early as last fall, only to be rebuffed by the president’s team, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation.
“It came down to the fact that the president didn’t want the hassle of getting rid of Debbie,” said a former top Obama adviser. “It’s been a huge problem for the Clintons, but the president just didn’t want the headache of Debbie bad-mouthing him. ... It was a huge pain in the ass.”
The Obama team — especially 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina — long viewed Wasserman Schultz as a major campaign liability, questioning her fundraising prowess and her tendency to appoint personal aides to positions of authority, prioritizing loyalty over competence and effectiveness as a spokesperson for Democrats. At the time, senior campaign officials leaked details of an internal survey, conducted by pollster David Binder, showing Wasserman Schultz was the least-liked Obama surrogate; she later dismissed the report as “National Enquirer” dross.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BONUS: Still, Obama didn’t get involved at all as Wasserman Schultz was at the brink. Whenever the topic of replacing her came up, despite the fact that the president had lost patience with her years ago and generally avoided having to talk to her, he’d always felt that forcing her out wasn't worth the trouble it would bring.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100#ixzz4FR9XzxRG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


There you go.

[geek tragedy]

1. the knives are out nt

[runaway hero]

2. yup...

[Avalux]

3. So we are to believe that Obama wouldn't let DWS go, because he didn't want her criticizing him?

Ok then.....

[mylye2222]

8. Plus last year was already one of Presidents last term!

It would not have really harmed him if he was bad-mouthed. Obama wasnt up for reelection
I dont believe it in a second.
HRC feels insecure right ahead of convention, so she tries to find excuses.

[yeoman6987]

30. I don't believe this either

Hillary never would have given her the honorary position had she felt that way.

[LanternWaste]

64. It can be tough to believe anything that doesn't gently stroke one's bias.

It can be tough to believe anything that doesn't gently stroke one's bias.

[karynnj]

31. Not mentioned in article was she was a co chair of HRC's 2008 campaign

She got the position in May 2011 -- and it would not have been until the 2012 election that she had demonstrated her abilities. Could it have been that DWS, a HUGE ally with HRC, even then the presumptive 2016 nominee, might have had a very powerful ally -- HRC.

This is just an attempt to blame Obama.

[LoverOfLiberty]

37. Come on

Obama appointed her and only he can fire her.

Looks like this issue is bringing the Clinton haters back out of the shadows.

[karynnj]

47. But the Clinton people want it both ways

1) DWS is given a position in her campaign and is effusively praised.

2) Behind her back, Clinton campaign people are saying she was terrible.

Either position is fine, both are not -- and it is likely not wise to have gratuitous attacks on the more popular President Obama.

[LoverOfLiberty]

54. I personally don't think it is wise to throw her to the lions

Its been clear for sometime that DWS has been a distraction. I suspect she will quietly fade away if we will let her.

[karynnj]

57. I agree and thought that was the position the Clinton team had taken by giving her the position they

did. It would not give her the power or authority of heading the DNC, but it did show genuine support for her for the work that she has done. I was impressed that HRC would do this in the face of all the attacks, many well deserved, that focused on DWS. It showed loyalty, while not demanding someone stay in her position who had done a poor job and who had become a distraction.

[runaway hero]

58. I agree

I think this is the Podesta crowd trying to run from someone unpopular.

[NurseJackie]

4. Interesting read.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. DU wanted her gone long before that.

[Orsino]

6. Gone as in to work on the Clinton campaign?

If this isn't just revisionist history, I would be very curious as to why DWS is still on board.

[Matt_in_STL]

7. My thoughts exactly. If this is true, why does she have any position in the campaign?

This seems like an attempt to distance Hillary from the situation and let the President take the heat

[mylye2222]

9. Agree here

Its old play.

[PatSeg]

12. Maybe Hillary is trying to appear grateful

and civil. Or maybe Debbie could cause a lot of problems for the campaign in some way we aren't privy to. It is after all politics, a different world from what most people are used to.

[Orsino]

16. Perhaps the appearance of rancor was judged more harmful...

...than the appearnce of cronyism. I can't say ehich might be more true.

[PatSeg]

21. That makes sense too

I am sure there were a lot of things taken into consideration in the decision. Just imagine the political cartoons alone if Hillary had cut her loose entirely.

From what I've read about Wasserman Schultz, she does not let go easily or exit quietly.

[runaway hero]

22. I bet she knows a lot of things

That could damage the party...

[PatSeg]

29. Yes

That was kind of what I was thinking. She could know a lot of things about a lot of people that she could use if she felt she had been treated unfairly.

[runaway hero]

38. Yup

more info then the russian hackers thats for sure.

[PatSeg]

43. Most definitely

A lot more!

[karynnj]

34. However, if she uses anything that way ... it destroys her future more than anyone else's. nt

[PatSeg]

46. For some strange reason

that doesn't stop some people. Meanwhile, her political career could already be damaged beyond repair, so she'd have nothing to lose.

[runaway hero]

56. If she loses the primary

then she has the incentive.

[Bad Thoughts]

23. To allow her to move to something that might still be considered dignified

If what is written is true, she could be a general liability if he became frustrated being only a congressman from Florida.

[jalan48]

10. This is entertaining.

[runaway hero]

11. Some Bonus

Still, Obama didn’t get involved at all as Wasserman Schultz was at the brink. Whenever the topic of replacing her came up, despite the fact that the president had lost patience with her years ago and generally avoided having to talk to her, he’d always felt that forcing her out wasn't worth the trouble it would bring.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100#ixzz4FRDaN4Bw
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[PatSeg]

17. That is pretty much

what I had read in an article from two years ago. Evidently she was a real pain in the neck for a lot of people.

From 2014:

<Meanwhile, the Obama team was so serious about replacing her after 2012 that they found a replacement candidate to back before deciding against it, according to people familiar with those discussions.

Obama and Wasserman Schultz have rarely even talked since 2011. They don’t meet about strategy or messaging. They don’t talk much on the phone.

snip

The White House is staring at two years of life under a GOP-controlled House and Senate. The DNC chair, however, isn’t involved in the strategy talks with the president. They don’t want her there.

For even the occasional Obama briefing by the heads of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, she is not invited. That includes a key session on July 31, the last day the House was in town before the August recess, when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), DCCC Chair Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC executive director Kelly Ward sat on the couches in the Oval Office running through the political landscape for the president.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077#ixzz4FREs8HLh
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook>

[runaway hero]

18. Brutal

We lost the 2014 midterms because of this.


Why didn't she just go?

[PatSeg]

25. I know

She's like a dog with a bone and seems incapable of letting go.

[runaway hero]

26. Obama could have got something for her

No she has to go to K street if she loses her primary.

[PatSeg]

36. I'll bet Pay Day Loans

could use an insider lobbyist.

[runaway hero]

40. Or healthcare company chairman

Anything for more money

[PatSeg]

49. Or maybe Reince Priebus

will resign.

[runaway hero]

53. Not bad

And the pay day companies will definitely love a republican more.

[HerbChestnut]

13. LOL okay...

Then why give her a position on the campaign? Must have been rough having one of Hillary's ex campaign co-chairs running the DNC during the primary

[runaway hero]

19. Hillary wants peace.

Strategic thinking.

[HerbChestnut]

24. Then I would love to play her in a game of chess

Because people are outraged that DWS was hired by her campaign and see right through the BS.

[runaway hero]

27. Of course

But if she got nothing...this would become way worse.

[HerbChestnut]

41. How could it possibly be worse?

Tell DWS to take a hike. Here's some strategic advice: When someone is forced to resign from their position because they get caught with their finger on the scale in your favor, don't immediately hire them to your campaign. Why? It sends the message that DWS is getting "paid off" for her work during the primary. It feeds into the narrative that Clinton is a corrupt politician who rigged the primary process.

[runaway hero]

52. I agree with you

I would just hope she would not blab to the media.

[jham123]

33. I'm totally confused...

...by the hiring of DWS as well. If the Article has any merit, why would Hillary hire DWS the very next minute after she resigned?

[LoverOfLiberty]

39. Repeat after me

She wasn't "hired". She was given a volunteer position, probably as a way to ease her out of the DNC.

Why are so many people intent on seeing DWS, and apparently by extension, Hillary Clinton humiliated?

I think I know why but I'll hold off calling it out.

[jham123]

45. No....

DWS has messed up this time and she messed up in the midterms. This has nothing to do with trying to humiliate Mrs Clinton yet at the same time asking "why".....Why bring the criticism, this election is crucial. Scrape off the barnacles and beat Trump.

[Hiraeth]

48. peace as a strategy, interesting concept.

[runaway hero]

59. I think so

Debbie is a blabber. That's can be a problem.

[liberalmuse]

14. I'll bet HRC had to promise her

A few things in order to get her to step down.

[Hiraeth]

44. like, maybe ... a job ...

[Tatiana]

15. About the only thing I believe in this piece is that part of the problem lies with the Obama team.

She never should have been Kaine's replacement, and after her dismal performance, she should have been sacked. But, Obama traditionally worked outside of the official Democratic party apparatus with OFA. He was never as invested as he should have been in building up the party's national infrastructure.

This allowed a vacuum in which DWS could use the DNC to raise her own stature and shill for her own corporate sponsors like the Payday Loan Industry. Medical marijuana, Iran, an open and free Internet... she's a walking disaster.

Our leaders need to start choosing Democrats who are not running for elective office to head the DNC.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/204913-dnc-chief-is-backer-of-online-piracy-bill

[tallahasseedem]

32. She has been one for a while...

I thought she should have been replaced when she went for the pay day loan industry. That and she was really bad at her job, which was disappointing since I thought she was going to do a good job.

[Tatiana]

60. What's astonishing is that she took positions completely opposite President Obama's...

As head of the DNC! It's truly unheard of and a sign of her arrogance and loyalty to herself.

The President was right to stop the payday loan industry from preying upon poor people. It is unconscionable that DWS would advocate against this common sense position.

[PatSeg]

35. Oh absolutely

DNC chair should be a full time job. I cannot imagine why she was ever chosen while serving in the House or why she was kept on for so long after the dismal mid-terms.

[karynnj]

20. Wow, interesting to see who is blaming whom

I had always thought that DWS replacing Tim Kaine (with a brief interim stint by Donna Brazile) was to prepare to lead the DNC preparing (even that early) for Hillary 2016. She had been a co chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign -- something most people quoted seem to want to ignore.

Podesta, in particular, appears to be a snake in his comments. I wonder why he is saying this after Hillary Clinton's glowing statement on DWS and her appointment to an honorary position in the Clinton campaign ... managed by Podesta. This back biting - against both Obama and DWS is really not a good thing to put out in public. This does not speak well of our party.

I think many of us will greatly miss no drama Obama.

[runaway hero]

51. Podesta is a nasty guy

And he has the final say on the campaign, so I believe this. Obama should have pushed her out though.

[tallahasseedem]

28. The trouble?

He's the President! What would have DWS done that would have been so bad? I just don't get it...

[Hiraeth]

42. yeah, right.

sure thing.

[lillypaddle]

50. Kick n/t

[Third Doctor]

55. DWS has become a liability.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

61. I believe the old Clinton favorite --

"That dog won't hunt" is appropriate here.

[kestrel91316]

62. Maybe with Hillary at this point it's a case of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer,

by having DWS in some vague position on her campaign staff where she can have her stuff envelopes or something rather than harming the party further.

[choie]

63. That is absolute bullshit

John Podesta catapulting the propaganda - no way did Clinton want DWS gone.