Dems turn on DWS

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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