Some people don’t know how to let sleeping dogs lie; Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn’t know how not to let dead dogs, long buried, decomposed, and turned to fertilizer, remain six feet underground.
If you were to speak to progressives about who they felt was most responsible for the decline of the Democratic party, while you may think they would say “Hillary Clinton,” you would more likely hear a lesser-known Democratic woman instead: Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Even after being forced to resign as DNC chair ahead of the 2016 election, causing widespread scandal that would color the Democratic party and contribute, in part, to Clinton’s November loss, Wasserman Schultz continues to speak for the Democratic party and reject the changes being proposed by the progressive left.
Acting as if she has had her fingers in her ears all these long months, Wasserman Schultz spoke out this week not against Donald Trump or corruption in both parties, but against Senator Bernie Sanders, reviving the old wounds.
Wasserman Schultz hit back on Sanders’ frequent criticisms of the Democratic party. Sanders naturally rejects the party’s establishment character and need to survive off of major donors and corporate sponsors. Rather than acknowledging that of course the Democratic party is fighting for its soul, the former DNC Chair instead declared that the Democratic party is already “grassroots.”
Speaking to Greta Van Sustren on MSNBC, Wasserman Schultz unironically declared,
“Respectfully to Sen. Sanders, we are already a grassroots party.”
Now, I don’t claim to be an expert, and I am sure that Wasserman Schultz’s extensive experience in politics means that she understands quite a bit, but how could the disgraced DNC chair pretend that the Democratic party is “grassroots” in any way? Is it “grassroots” to accept donations from massive corporations, shaping public policy and buying votes? Is it “grassroots” to use political SuperPACS to try (and fail) to elect your candidate? Is it “grassroots” to consistently demean and ignore a large portion of your voting population and decide, long before the primary, who your nominee will be?
In case Ms. Wasserman Schultz is still confused, no, it is not.
The Democratic party couldn’t even tackle the subject of their massive donor list and dependence on corporate sponsors during the extensive debates over a new chair. Even with more left chair Perez, the same loose rules Wasserman Schultz repealed remain detached. The DNC couldn’t even give the most “grassroots” DNC chair candidate the position, even as progressives everywhere begged for his selection.
The former chair could had praised the Democratic party in other ways, highlighting its dedication to social issues, or cheered the party’s rejection of the Republican Obamacare replacement. Instead, she relitigated the primary and went after her same old foe.
Senator Sanders continues to criticize the Democratic party because that’s what it needs. Though the former chair cannot see it, the liberal party is struggling to survive in a sea of Republican domination. The one thing this identity crisis doesn’t need is ignorance and denial.
But instead of facing those challenges head on, Wasserman Schultz continues to do what she did as chair – focus on left-leaning “enemies” while ignoring the dragon on the right. It’s why she is no longer our chair, and why Tom Perez must do a much, much better job.