Dems turn on DWS
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:29:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Dems turn on DWS
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Dems turn on DWS  (Read 2021 times)
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:03:40 PM »

From Politico. WH, congressional Dems & Clintons are among those pissed.
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,094
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2014, 05:23:13 PM »

Good. Albeit for the wrong reasons (like the fact that she voted to allow federal medicinal raids, even in states where it's legal), but very good.

We need someone like Dean at the helm.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2014, 05:31:28 PM »


Oh, I think many congressional Dems are 'pissed'...but not in the way that the article suggests. Tongue
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2014, 05:42:07 PM »

Hopefully our gubernatorial nominee in 2018 if Crist loses. And before someone says she can't win, this would only be after the moderate hero (Crist) lost.

As for the article- a little long, no? It smells like someone had it out for her and just wanted to air all the dirty laundry and petty little arguments. It leaves a bad taste.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2014, 05:52:55 PM »

I don't buy it.  If anything, Republicans should be turning on Priebus, because he's gotta go.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2014, 06:07:50 PM »

Another one from Buzzfeed.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2014, 08:36:50 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who knew Obama could be so sassy?

Anyway, I always take these "anonymous sources" Politicrap stories with a pillar of salt, but I'm sure there's a grain of truth in most of them.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2014, 10:01:28 PM »

Hopefully our gubernatorial nominee in 2018 if Crist loses. And before someone says she can't win, this would only be after the moderate hero (Crist) lost.

Assuming a Crist loss, my bet would be on someone like Bob Buckhorn or Buddy Dyer, or even Alvin Brown. I'm skeptical of DWS's ability to win statewide.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2014, 10:14:55 PM »

It's pretty obvious she's been a terrible DNC chair.
Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,928


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2014, 01:39:49 AM »

Finally.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2014, 10:09:30 AM »

Good. She is awful.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2014, 11:44:06 AM »

Hopefully our gubernatorial nominee in 2018 if Crist loses. And before someone says she can't win, this would only be after the moderate hero (Crist) lost.

Assuming a Crist loss, my bet would be on someone like Bob Buckhorn or Buddy Dyer, or even Alvin Brown. I'm skeptical of DWS's ability to win statewide.

Bob Buckhorn won during a GOP surge,  is a solid progressive and a safe choice. He's from the middle of the state and seems fairly competent.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2014, 05:26:29 PM »

Not really sure what the point of this stupid article was, as the WH has denied it:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/white-house-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111104.html?hp=l4_b1

Asked whether the president has “complete confidence” in Wasserman Schultz, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that, “based on the strong record of leadership at the DNC, the president has strong confidence in her ability to lead that organization.”
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2014, 08:57:29 PM »

Not really sure what the point of this stupid article was, as the WH has denied it:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/white-house-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111104.html?hp=l4_b1

Asked whether the president has “complete confidence” in Wasserman Schultz, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that, “based on the strong record of leadership at the DNC, the president has strong confidence in her ability to lead that organization.”
You think Earnest will just come out and say "we don't have confidence in her ability to lead the party" ahead of a crucial election season?!?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2014, 10:23:14 PM »

I respect their words when they heap praise on her and say she should stay in through 2017 in an official capacity, over some anonymous sources in a gossipy Politico article, yes.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2014, 10:24:01 PM »

I respect their words when they heap praise on her and say she should stay in through 2017 in an official capacity, over some anonymous sources in a gossipy Politico article, yes.

Wait, they actually want another 2 years of her?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2014, 08:12:27 AM »

Am I the only person who thinks it's inappropriate that the DNC always has a sitting elected official serving as its chair?

DWS should be representing her constituents in Congress, not managing her party's operations. Why can't they do what the Republicans do and pick a retired politician or a "career" party operative to head their organization?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2014, 10:29:37 AM »

Am I the only person who thinks it's inappropriate that the DNC always has a sitting elected official serving as its chair?

DWS should be representing her constituents in Congress, not managing her party's operations. Why can't they do what the Republicans do and pick a retired politician or a "career" party operative to head their organization?
like Howard Dean?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,701
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2014, 10:48:53 AM »

Terry McAuliffe wasn't holding office at his term either. And Tim Kaine was only Governor for a year as DNC chair. The last office holder to be DNC chair previously was Chris Dodd over a decade before Kaine.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2014, 11:26:23 AM »

Terry McAuliffe wasn't holding office at his term either. And Tim Kaine was only Governor for a year as DNC chair. The last office holder to be DNC chair previously was Chris Dodd over a decade before Kaine.

Dodd is irrelevant. From 1995-2001, the "general chair" was an elected official, but the chair was someone else.

But yeah, DWS has too many competing obligations. DNC chair, her Congressional career, and her dress fund.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2014, 12:03:31 PM »

The Democrats' War on Women continues.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2014, 12:11:19 PM »

I respect their words when they heap praise on her and say she should stay in through 2017 in an official capacity, over some anonymous sources in a gossipy Politico article, yes.
Again, do you really think they would do anything other than heap praise on her? When you run into a person you haven't seen in a while and make informal plans to go out to lunch with them, you usually never go to lunch.

Do you not remember Obama having "full confidence" in Sebelius only a week before she "voluntarily" resigned?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2014, 02:31:12 PM »
« Edited: September 20, 2014, 02:33:41 PM by Beet »

I respect their words when they heap praise on her and say she should stay in through 2017 in an official capacity, over some anonymous sources in a gossipy Politico article, yes.
Again, do you really think they would do anything other than heap praise on her?

Do you not remember Obama having "full confidence" in Sebelius only a week before she "voluntarily" resigned?

"Voluntarily"... yes, she "voluntarily" resigned, as HHS Secretary, which must have been a brutal firing, because HHS Secretaries always serve out the full 8 eights years. Because one president having more than one HHS Secretary is so unusual. Because leaving the post after the end of the sign-up deadline for Obamacare was such an unnatural ending point. Because Obama was chomping at the bit to remind people of his HHS Secretary's failures at a time when his signature health care law was finishing strong, with a surge of enrollments. So he stood by her fiercely in October and November, when the world seemed to be crashing down on Obamacare, but abruptly sacked her in April after the picture had brightened significantly. That's why the administration's claim that she approached Obama and offered to resign on her own must be a lie, right?

But let's say she did "voluntarily" resign, because Obama had lost confidence in her and he wanted to turn the page. Would anyone in the world not know why? The September 2014 ACA rollout debacle single handedly turned around Obama's political fortunes from being on top of the political world (after Ted Cruz's disastrous government shutdown exposed a fractured GOP caucus) to being an unpopular president with a signature achievement in crisis. Even to this day his poll numbers have not recovered. Politically, it was the most significant turning point in his second term, thus far. He had very good reasons to want her out and we have very good reasons to treat his statement of confidence in her as pro forma.

Compare that with this hit piece on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. What are the actual criticisms of her in here? First of all, that she tried to get the DNC to pay for her wardrobe. As this Politico article by Jennifer Epstein points out, women are held to a higher standard than men when it comes to dress in the political world. Men can wear the same tuxedo over and over again, while women generally have to rent or buy a new outfit for every occasion. And some of the events that Wasserman Schultz asked the DNC to pay for were for official events where her normal wardrobe wouldn't work. Arguably, it's an occupational expense. Almost certainly, we wouldn't be having this conversation if Debbie Wasserman Schultz was David Wasserman Schultz. Those who wonder why women aren't as well represented as men in politics need only to look at stories like this.

Regardless, a wardrobe is a minor expense with little to no substantive impact on a national party that raises tends of millions of dollars. The wardrobe "issue" might be important if it was a part of a broader story of financial mismanagement that is costing Democrats because of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But as the article itself pointed out, "She has overseen the integration of key elements of the Obama campaigns, including its voter file and data programs. After being left with $25 million in bills from the Obama campaign, the DNC enters the fall with the debt cleared and over $7 million on hand. She’s started new efforts to build relationships with labor and small business leaders and prioritized the DNC’s outreach to female voters." By this accounting, Obama owes Debbie Wasserman Schultz $25 million. The article also notes, "they had originally picked her largely to help win the women’s vote and avert problems with Jewish donors, and both had indeed happened." So basically, she's raised tens of millions dollars and done politically what she was hired to do, and yet they still treat her rudely because of her wardrobe? Sounds like classic sexism to me. The woman did what you hired her for but it's still not good enough, because of some frivolous bullsh**t like who pays for her wardrobe. Therefore, treat her condescendingly, like telling her "I'm the president of the United States." As if she doesn't know that?

The rest of the article essentially comes down the fact that they dislike her because she hired the daughter of a staffer, instead of who the Obama people wanted, she used her position to get favors (like convention seats) for political allies, that she visits safe House seats, and that she has her own PAC which she also pitches for. All of which boils down to that she's using her position to advance her own political ambitions. But is this really unusual in politics? Is anyone surprised that the head of the party does favors for political allies and builds up their own political strength? As the article points out, her predecessors all used their positions to build themselves up in some way. Without a clear explanation of political culture and a delineation of what has been traditionally done by the DNC chair and why, it's hard to see this as a terribly damning indictment. Otherwise, how do we know that this is not the traditional sexist culture that judges women more harshly for being ambitious than men at play? And again, it might be if her objective metrics were bad, but all the objective metrics mentioned in the article were good.

The starting point that one must have for the evaluation of any job is an objective metric of success, and the criteria ought to be an objective measurement against that criteria. I'm extremely skeptical if not downright hostile to subjective, amorphous condemnations built on anecdote because I think they're heavily subject to a male-dominated political culture full of double standards.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2014, 02:45:21 PM »

I respect their words when they heap praise on her and say she should stay in through 2017 in an official capacity, over some anonymous sources in a gossipy Politico article, yes.
Again, do you really think they would do anything other than heap praise on her?

Do you not remember Obama having "full confidence" in Sebelius only a week before she "voluntarily" resigned?

"Voluntarily"... yes, she "voluntarily" resigned, as HHS Secretary, which must have been a brutal firing, because HHS Secretaries always serve out the full 8 eights years. Because one president having more than one HHS Secretary is so unusual. Because leaving the post after the end of the sign-up deadline for Obamacare was such an unnatural ending point. Because Obama was chomping at the bit to remind people of his HHS Secretary's failures at a time when his signature health care law was finishing strong, with a surge of enrollments. So he stood by her fiercely in October and November, when the world seemed to be crashing down on Obamacare, but abruptly sacked her in April after the picture had brightened significantly. That's why the administration's claim that she approached Obama and offered to resign on her own must be a lie, right?

But let's say she did "voluntarily" resign, because Obama had lost confidence in her and he wanted to turn the page. Would anyone in the world not know why? The September 2014 ACA rollout debacle single handedly turned around Obama's political fortunes from being on top of the political world (after Ted Cruz's disastrous government shutdown exposed a fractured GOP caucus) to being an unpopular president with a signature achievement in crisis. Even to this day his poll numbers have not recovered. Politically, it was the most significant turning point in his second term, thus far. He had very good reasons to want her out and we have very good reasons to treat his statement of confidence in her as pro forma.

Compare that with this hit piece on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. What are the actual criticisms of her in here? First of all, that she tried to get the DNC to pay for her wardrobe. As this Politico article by Jennifer Epstein points out, women are held to a higher standard than men when it comes to dress in the political world. Men can wear the same tuxedo over and over again, while women generally have to rent or buy a new outfit for every occasion. And some of the events that Wasserman Schultz asked the DNC to pay for were for official events where her normal wardrobe wouldn't work. Arguably, it's an occupational expense. Almost certainly, we wouldn't be having this conversation if Debbie Wasserman Schultz was David Wasserman Schultz. Those who wonder why women aren't as well represented as men in politics need only to look at stories like this.

Regardless, a wardrobe is a minor expense with little to no substantive impact on a national party that raises tends of millions of dollars. The wardrobe "issue" might be important if it was a part of a broader story of financial mismanagement that is costing Democrats because of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But as the article itself pointed out, "She has overseen the integration of key elements of the Obama campaigns, including its voter file and data programs. After being left with $25 million in bills from the Obama campaign, the DNC enters the fall with the debt cleared and over $7 million on hand. She’s started new efforts to build relationships with labor and small business leaders and prioritized the DNC’s outreach to female voters." By this accounting, Obama owes Debbie Wasserman Schultz $25 million. The article also notes, "they had originally picked her largely to help win the women’s vote and avert problems with Jewish donors, and both had indeed happened." So basically, she's raised tens of millions dollars and done politically what she was hired to do, and yet they still treat her rudely because of her wardrobe? Sounds like classic sexism to me. The woman did what you hired her for but it's still not good enough, because of some frivolous bullsh**t like who pays for her wardrobe. Therefore, treat her condescendingly, like telling her "I'm the president of the United States." As if she doesn't know that?

The rest of the article essentially comes down the fact that they dislike her because she hired the daughter of a staffer, instead of who the Obama people wanted, she used her position to get favors (like convention seats) for political allies, that she visits safe House seats, and that she has her own PAC which she also pitches for. All of which boils down to that she's using her position to advance her own political ambitions. But is this really unusual in politics? Is anyone surprised that the head of the party does favors for political allies and builds up their own political strength? As the article points out, her predecessors all used their positions to build themselves up in some way. Without a clear explanation of political culture and a delineation of what has been traditionally done by the DNC chair and why, it's hard to see this as a terribly damning indictment. Otherwise, how do we know that this is not the traditional sexist culture that judges women more harshly for being ambitious than men at play? And again, it might be if her objective metrics were bad, but all the objective metrics mentioned in the article were good.

The starting point that one must have for the evaluation of any job is an objective metric of success, and the criteria ought to be an objective measurement against that criteria. I'm extremely skeptical if not downright hostile to subjective, amorphous condemnations built on anecdote because I think they're heavily subject to a male-dominated political culture full of double standards.

k
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2014, 03:26:56 PM »

I respect their words when they heap praise on her and say she should stay in through 2017 in an official capacity, over some anonymous sources in a gossipy Politico article, yes.
Again, do you really think they would do anything other than heap praise on her?

Do you not remember Obama having "full confidence" in Sebelius only a week before she "voluntarily" resigned?

"Voluntarily"... yes, she "voluntarily" resigned, as HHS Secretary, which must have been a brutal firing, because HHS Secretaries always serve out the full eight years. Because one president having more than one HHS Secretary is so unusual. Because leaving the post after the end of the sign-up deadline for Obamacare was such an unnatural ending point. Because Obama was chomping at the bit to remind people of his HHS Secretary's failures at a time when his signature health care law was finishing strong, with a surge of enrollments. So he stood by her fiercely in October and November, when the world seemed to be crashing down on Obamacare, but abruptly sacked her in April after the picture had brightened significantly. That's why the administration's claim that she approached Obama and offered to resign on her own must be a lie, right?

Sebelius was a liability. Her face was permanently tied to the failure of Obamacare’s exchanges to be up in time. This article from the New York Times explains the situation better. Of course Obama didn’t tell her to pack her bags and go, but she was certainly forced out in a graceful and quiet manner. Public purges don’t just happen.

But let's say she did "voluntarily" resign, because Obama had lost confidence in her and he wanted to turn the page. Would anyone in the world not know why? The September 2014 ACA rollout debacle single handedly turned around Obama's political fortunes from being on top of the political world (after Ted Cruz's disastrous government shutdown exposed a fractured GOP caucus) to being an unpopular president with a signature achievement in crisis. Even to this day his poll numbers have not recovered. Politically, it was the most significant turning point in his second term, thus far. He had very good reasons to want her out and we have very good reasons to treat his statement of confidence in her as pro forma.
If she left in the middle of the Obamacare rollout, it would have been a PR disaster and would erode confidence in the administration. That’s why the cabinet shakeup occurred months later. Not only was Sebelius out, but Burwell went to HHS, Shaun Donovan to OMB, and Julian Castro to HUD. The Burwell and Castro nominations would be hard to execute in the midst of the all the outrage against the ACA.

Compare that with this hit piece on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. What are the actual criticisms of her in here? First of all, that she tried to get the DNC to pay for her wardrobe. As this Politico article by Jennifer Epstein points out, women are held to a higher standard than men when it comes to dress in the political world. Men can wear the same tuxedo over and over again, while women generally have to rent or buy a new outfit for every occasion. And some of the events that Wasserman Schultz asked the DNC to pay for were for official events where her normal wardrobe wouldn't work. Arguably, it's an occupational expense. Almost certainly, we wouldn't be having this conversation if Debbie Wasserman Schultz was David Wasserman Schultz. Those who wonder why women aren't as well represented as men in politics need only to look at stories like this.
I won’t disagree about the double standard, nor will I attack DWS on any her “controversies.” She is the head of your party, not mine. I have no reason what so ever to care about what she does. But the Democratic President of the United States does. He needs the party to be confident in their leadership. If the party brass isn’t comfortable with DWS for whatever the reason, then something needs to be done.

Regardless, a wardrobe is a minor expense with little to no substantive impact on a national party that raises tends of millions of dollars. The wardrobe "issue" might be important if it was a part of a broader story of financial mismanagement that is costing Democrats because of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But as the article itself pointed out, "She has overseen the integration of key elements of the Obama campaigns, including its voter file and data programs. After being left with $25 million in bills from the Obama campaign, the DNC enters the fall with the debt cleared and over $7 million on hand. She’s started new efforts to build relationships with labor and small business leaders and prioritized the DNC’s outreach to female voters." By this accounting, Obama owes Debbie Wasserman Schultz $25 million. The article also notes, "they had originally picked her largely to help win the women’s vote and avert problems with Jewish donors, and both had indeed happened." So basically, she's raised tens of millions dollars and done politically what she was hired to do, and yet they still treat her rudely because of her wardrobe? Sounds like classic sexism to me. The woman did what you hired her for but it's still not good enough, because of some frivolous bullsh**t like who pays for her wardrobe. Therefore, treat her condescendingly, like telling her "I'm the president of the United States." As if she doesn't know that?
Again, this is not a sexism issue, even if sexism exists. This is a purely political move. As I am not a Democrat, I hold no right to comment on DWS’s leadership ability or the internal workings of the party, nor do I have any information to comment on it to begin with. All I know is that a lot of Democrats are, for whatever reason, unhappy with her leadership. Obama is now facing another Sebelius conundrum-can Debbie and give the Democratic Party a morale defeat in the midst of an uncertain midterm election, or keep her on throughout the election and hope that some certainty can come. I suspect Obama will continue to fluff her up just like he did Sebelius, than will cut her loose ahead of 2016, especially if the Democrats fail to maintain a majority in the Senate this year.

As for Obama’s “condescension”, all I can is that DWS is a very, very abrasive person. I don’t think he particularly likes her anymore than Hillary Clinton likes her. President Obama is the top dog in the Democratic Party, not the chairwoman.  If I were President of the United States, I’d be rather insulted to be told that.

The rest of the article essentially comes down the fact that they dislike her because she hired the daughter of a staffer, instead of who the Obama people wanted, she used her position to get favors (like convention seats) for political allies, that she visits safe House seats, and that she has her own PAC which she also pitches for. All of which boils down to that she's using her position to advance her own political ambitions. But is this really unusual in politics? Is anyone surprised that the head of the party does favors for political allies and builds up their own political strength? As the article points out, her predecessors all used their positions to build themselves up in some way. Without a clear explanation of political culture and a delineation of what has been traditionally done by the DNC chair and why, it's hard to see this as a terribly damning indictment. Otherwise, how do we know that this is not the traditional sexist culture that judges women more harshly for being ambitious than men at play? And again, it might be if her objective metrics were bad, but all the objective metrics mentioned in the article were good.
I won’t disagree with you at all on any of the controversies. DWS is a politician, and she practices politics. Of course she is going to be rewarding other people in exchange for favors, and it very well be sexism at play.

The starting point that one must have for the evaluation of any job is an objective metric of success, and the criteria ought to be an objective measurement against that criteria. I'm extremely skeptical if not downright hostile to subjective, amorphous condemnations built on anecdote because I think they're heavily subject to a male-dominated political culture full of double standards.
I can’t blame you for being skeptical, but I’d be just as skeptical of DWS’s side of the story. Politics is a blood sport. Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, the people at the top are going to be the (if I may borrow my favorite Bushism) “deciders.” Just because the President says he likes a person, or voices confidence in their leadership, doesn’t mean it is actually true.

Obama heaped a lot of praise on Robert Gibbs too. Where has he gone since then? He got purged. He didn't work well with Michelle Obama and some of the better connected insiders, and as a result, he is now out.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.