One of the key things about working for one of the party organizations like the RNC or the DNC is one is not supposed to show any favoritism to one candidate or another. The job of the party is to fundraise and to provide structure, but not to select candidates (the establishment who pushes one candidate over the other is not the party organization it’s the party moneymen.
According to David Martosko, US Political Editor For Dailymail.com the females at top of the Democratic National Committee is in the tank for Hillary Clinton, in fact they are clearing the path for her to the nomination. Why you ask? She has lady part. Or as Martkoso explains, its “a female cabal dead set on putting a woman in the White House,”according to that DNC committeewoman.
David spoke to a DNC committee woman in Las Vegas after Tuesday night’s debate.
Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.’
The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary’s rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party.
Clinton aims to be the first female to occupy the Oval Office, and ‘the party’s female leaders really want to make a woman the next president,’ the committeewoman said, rattling off a list of the women who she said are the ‘real power’ in the organization.
‘I haven’t heard anyone say we should make Hillary undergo a trial by fire,’ she added. ‘To the contrary, the women in charge seem eager, more and more, to have her skate into the general [election].’
‘I have nothing against women in politics,’ she underscored. ‘But it’s not healthy for the party if we get behind a woman because she’s a woman, and risk having her implode after she’s nominated because she isn’t tested enough now.’
Besides Bernie Sanders would be the first Jew nominated by one of the major parties on the presidential line.
Now before you say that David Martosko is crazy (which he might be but it has nothing to do with the veracity of the story) consider this from Bloomberg.
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii had been planning to be in Las Vegas for her party’s first presidential debate. Gabbard is one of five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee; of course she would be there. But instead of talking up her party’s prospects on the Strip earlier this week, Gabbard was in Honolulu. Her presence in Sin City was strictly virtual, and anything but boosterish: She spent debate day giving cable-news interviews via satellite, claiming that, as retribution for loudly calling for more Democratic debates than the DNC currently envisions, she was deemed unwelcome in Vegas by the committee’s chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz—who Gabbard suggested is an enemy of free speech, as well as a liar.
Those who want more debates believe the present schedule was made to accommodate Clinton, so she wouldn’t have to risk a debate gaffe. Later on in the same article John Heilemann makes a similar charge as did Martosko
Of two dozen Democratic insiders with whom I spoke this week, including several DNC vice chairs, not one defended Wasserman Schultz’s treatment of Gabbard. Most called it ridiculous, outrageous, or worse. Many argued, further, that the debate plan enacted by the chairwoman is badly flawed—an assessment shared by many party activists, left-bent supporters of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and those candidates themselves, all of whom see it as a naked effort to aid and comfort Hillary Clinton. And they maintained that the plan was a clear reflection of Wasserman Schultz’s management style, which many of them see as endangering Democratic prospects in 2016 and beyond.
On Thursday more dissent emerged as the NY Times reported:
R.T. Rybak, the former mayor of Minneapolis and a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on Thursday accused the party’s leader, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, of making “flat-out not true” statements about another top party officer, questioned her political skills and said he had “serious questions” about her suitability for the job.
While the Times report doesn’t mention the claims of being in the tank for Clinton, it does demonstrate that for some reason people are not happy with Ms Wasserman Schultz and its tied to the number of debates.
DNC national press secretary Holly Shulman told Daily Mail Online flatly: ‘The DNC runs an impartial primary process, period.’
In 2007 and 2008 the Democratic Party’s presidential primary candidates endured a grueling schedule of 27 debates. Hillary Clinton was the only candidate to participate in all of them, and lost the nomination to then-Illinois senator Barack Obama.
This time around, the DNC has sanctioned just six such events. Offering more might have the effect of giving an indecisive Vice President Joe Biden a broader opportunity to jump into the race, saddling Clinton with a formidable challenger.
Shulman pointed out that in addition to the six sanctioned Democratic presidential debates, there will be four ‘outside’ forums where the entire field is expected to deliver remarks – individually, as opposed to head-to-head.
Er, Holly those are called stump speeches, candidates make five or six of those a day–they are very safe for Ms. Clinton.
Gee, doesn’t it seem strange that the Democratic Party would try to fix its own nomination, this is the party of Truman, of Kennedy, of ACORN…oh never mind.