Hillary Clinton has effectively pushed aside sitting Democratic party head and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This is one of the first moves undertaken by the Clinton campaign after she assumed the title of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
As CNN reports:
‘Hillary Clinton’s campaign is taking the reins of the Democratic National Committee, installing a new top official on Thursday to oversee the party’s day-to-day operations through the general election.’
The new man in charge is a young African American man named Brandon Davis. CNN goes on to say:
‘Brandon Davis, national political director for the Service Employees International Union, will become the general election chief of staff for the Democratic Party. His selection formalizes the coordination of the Clinton campaign and the committee, a stark contrast to Donald Trump who is currently at odds with his party.’
Wasserman Schultz has been the target of nearly continuous criticism that she has tipped the scales in Clinton’s favor while the primary season was still active. Some of the allegations were conspiratorial and far fetched.
However, other allegations lobbed at the congresswoman were factual, such as the truth that she set the debate days at the most inopportune times for the exposure of the lesser-known candidates, a category which eventually only included Bernie Sanders.
Supporters of Senator Sanders, who now faces the decision as to how he will continue in the aftermath of Clinton being declared the presumptive nominee, have also used the Congresswoman as a scapegoat for some issues that are factual but have nothing to do with her.
One of the main points of contention has been superdelegates, those party leaders who are voting delegates at the nominating convention but are free to vote for whomever they please. Superdelegates remove a hefty portion of democracy from the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate nominating process.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has nothing to do with this, though. The usage of superdelegates has existed for decades. They were employed to help protect the interests of the Party from outside, grassroots influences.
Is that a good thing? No. But by definition, the Democratic Party is a private club, just like every other political party in every other country on the face of the earth. No, private clubs shouldn’t have such leverage over who is the leader of the United States of America. But that’s the problem, not simple protection of self interest. It is perfectly reasonable for the Democratic Party to want to protect its organizational interest.
The same line of reasoning applies to the closed primaries, which are employed by the Democratic Party and have been almost as large of a point of contention between Sanders supporters and Schultz as the superdelegates. Schultz has said that she would prefer no independents vote in any Democratic primaries.
Is that unreasonable? No. It’s the Democratic Party, not the everybody party.
Working with the system is the most effective way to change it. Sanders supporters who are fighting an impotent enemy, aka the DNC, are not going to get anywhere.
And that’s not an opinion; it’s by definition. The DNC is the DNC; fighting what the DNC does external to itself is the only effective way to go.