General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes anyone else think Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go?
I'm nervous as heck signing onto this new form of the forum. I was about to wade into GD for the first time, leaving it at saying a switch-up seemed necessary. So I don't know if I'll get hit with "you're a concern troll" posts in this new land.
Here is my feeling - she is just (imo) not the face the party needs to present to country.
To my eyes and ears, she is unappealing, unsympathetic (despite her actual backstory - this is about how she *appears*), ineloquent, comes across as a hacky dispenser of canned rebuttals, and I think accidentally suggested that New Hampshire was of no importance the other night.
Whoever is getting the DNC talking head appearances cannot be someone who many sections of the American public will instinctively find "unlikeable." I'm of no opinion on her actual chair-ship - perhaps she could be eased to the side in terms of who takes the public appearances?
Does anyone else feel this way? Being a New York Jew, I hope my feeling that her accent is not pleasing to the average American ear is taken as a purely pragmatic feeling.
But I was dubious about her fit for the job initially, and so far, anticipating a close election, I am growing more and more concerned that she will not buoy our prospects. Interested in others' thoughts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I say keep her.
And ... who do you plan to replace her with ... Hillary? Dennis? Who?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2012, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)Or it was.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)now it makes much more sense.
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)Similar to my own, and many a woman would kill to have natural curls!
countingbluecars
(4,766 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...on C-Span during GWB's administration and she was a pitbull on the issues. Really smart and determined. I think she is doing a fantastic job!
What's with all this stuff about her HAIR??? Geesh...
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Getting the Democrats out to these media outlets to tout the successes of this administration. I know that Nancy Pelosi has been everywhere, and Steny Hoyer makes the rounds sometimes. Harry Reid isn't a great spokesman, but there are plenty of Democratic party surrogates that need to be out and front, and they aren't.
The president has no Democratic friends in the media like Clinton had. There are no Paul Begalas and James Carvilles on Obama's side, unfortunately.
That means that Debbie needs to be out there more and hitting home. (To be fair, she has been trying and does do well against these Repuke shills.)
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)And articulate and personable. I don't see it the way you do at all.
Do you want her replaced with some conserva-dem or something? Name someone you would like to replace her. Not sure where you are coming from in this.
monmouth
(21,078 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)But really, who would you propose take her place?
She's no worse than Michael Steele or the dork that took his place.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I wasn't pissed at WHAT he did so much that I was pissed that he thought he would actually get away with it. His sex life is his business and his wife's business. I don't care about that stuff. But what I do care about is when someone I thought better of does something so blatantly, self destructive in the political sense.
He did something that any responsible Congress critter should have enough common sense to know now to do because of what the consequences would be when it came out. He did something that any responsible Democrat should have known had a high chance of becoming a party embarassment. Anyone in her position should have been rightfully pissed. Anthony Weiner not only caused a lot of embarassment and put party leaders in an unnecessarily defensive spot, but he also robbed the rest of us of his voice and his fighting spirit as a consequence of his actions. And thats the part that pissed me off the most.
If I did something as stupid as what Anthony Weiner did, I would not expect anyone to jump to my defense. He should have known better.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)But Pelosi and W-S both threw him under the bus in an extremely public fashion before the whole sordid affair even became public.
This is where we could learn something from the republicans. They generally don't deal with these type situations in front of god and everybody. IMO the leadership should have quietly gone to Weiner and told him he needed to resign, not hang him before a trial took place.
The way it was handled made them look panicky, like they were scared that the press was going to blame them personally if they took no action. It was definitely a low point in Wasserman Schultz's tenure as DNC chair.
That having been said, I have no other beef with W-S as DNC chair.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)and either he lied to them, as he did to the public, so they did not know it was all true. We also do not know if they advised him to resign and he opted not to. The fact is that he was not making really good decisions then - from sending it out in the first place - to saying "he didn't know" if it was him etc.
Weiner unfortunately gave Breitbart a story which the left called a lie - that proved to be true. Given that every other Breitbart story was proven to have been distorted, this is a real break for him.
JerseygirlCT
(17,384 posts)This isn't DWS's problem. He screwed up, big time. And shouldn't have been supported in spite of it. Accountability is a good thing.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)so I say she stays.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)I wish she would get those teeth straightened
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)The only people who hear snippets from DWS are the politially engaged people watching cable news, who've already made up their minds. The average person has no idea what she looks like (or for that matter what Reis Priebus look like). Her job is to help raise money among other politically engaged people and to deal with internal Party organizational issues.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)the DNC needs. As far as her voice I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't know what her back story is. She is still a congresswoman from FL. I just think its you. Maybe because your a New Yorker I don't know. But I have been to NY and love it but you have to admit some of the accents there are pretty different. Give her a chance. She is a Jewish lady from FL since you mentioned Jewish.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)born in Queens and raised in Queens/Long Island.
I don't think the rest of the country is crazy about Northeasterners, in general, and New Yorkers or people who retain our accent, more specifically.
I'm speaking to my fears here, but I don't think the accent of the New York boroughs is particularly welcome outside of my home town.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)of the country. I love the NY accent. I love accents from all over the states. I'm from Maryland and now I live in TN talk about sounding different. I tease them and they tease me. I don't take offense to it and neither do they. My little granddaughter has a heavy accent living in the south. When she talks with my family they love to hear her. I have one sister that says to her to say "Life is a box of choclates" she does and we all laugh. We laugh out of love and not hate. She'll ask me to say it and I put the southern accent on it and she laughs.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)he was a disaster, imo.
I enjoy your perspective, but while we up North often find the Southern accent charming, I'm not so confident that the New York accents play quite the same way to foreign ears. And it is the rest of the country I'm always worried about, for the same reason that I will never, ever in my lifetime have someone drive me to my polling place (never a hot contest).
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)attitude? NYers are go getters. I am telling I have lived across the united states there is no place like NY. It is truly a melting pot of america. I have lived in MT,VA, NC and Tn and PA and settled in Maryland where I call home. Then moved to TN. I have been to many more states across this country. People are people. Lets put it this way people in NY know how to survive. That is saying something. I also think people in NY get a very bad rap. They are wonderful people who when they see someone is lost they are willing to help. Yes that is a NYer.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)us "real" New Yorkers are like.
But believe me, ten years of people doing a whole bunch of crap waving OUR bloody flag (I get that September 11th happened to the country, but it damn sure happened in a different way to my city) all the while deriding us as elitist crapweasels, it gets to you.
So, we're a symbol to rally behind/over, but you dislike us and try to pretend that we're everything that's wrong with the country (not that our predatory class down on Wall Street hasn't helped advance one part of this notion).
I've been known to tear someone up something fierce who sneeringly claims to be patriotic and then doesn't know a damn thing about our history, like, say the Revolutionary War. Sometimes I feel like it's a shock to people when I tell them, yes, we learned about America in middle school and high school, no, we weren't being taught a curriculum that focused exclusively on the fashion houses, France, and Eskimo culture.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)what makes this country great. Never forget that. Hey by the way when I watch GMA or the Today show you always see many people from around the country and yes even the world visiting NY. When my Italian family comes to the united states the first place they want to see is NY. They want to see the Rockettes and the Empire State Bldg, the Statue of Liberty. Those are the facts. Big cities all over the world have good and bad. NY is no different.
BE PROUD NYER. Good luck.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)but there are people who love to visit and then, "gasp, couldn't imagine living amongst such heathens!"
Thank you for the kind words, though - although I will confess there is a shameful chapter or two in New York's history, like the flirtation with secession to stay out of the Civil War (because we had such a thriving business with the Cotton South).
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)didn't realize that part in Civil War history with the south over cotton. I just never remember reading that. I find that very interesting. Thanks for sharing that nugget of history.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)History major, I have a leg up in knowing about this country's history. But red, red, red, 'murricans who don't know 1/1000th of what I know about the Revolutionary War or the Civil War absolutely infuriate me when they claim to be more of a patriot than I am just because in some unbelievably fucked up form of politicization, global warming is a freaking political issue for them.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)school did she like history and she responded yes. I told her I did also. I asked her what part did she like. I was think the Renaissance period or the Edwardian period or Revolutionary war. No none of that she said Civil War. I looked at her I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Heck even the medival period was interesting. She said they didn't study those period. I found that very very sad. How do young people learn from mistake that have taken place in history? You don't know where your going unless you know where you came from, if you know what I mean. America seems to repeat the same mistakes like fighting wars in VN and Iraq without a really good exit. This country will be in bad trouble if we elect a republican president.
alp227
(31,962 posts)that's an empty argument right there saying that a new york accent turns off other americans.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)you really think this proves any sort of point?
Michael Savage provides meat for the meat eaters. They don't care where he's from. You don't think it's possible for them to believe there's Michael Savage (hasn't been here for years) and then the NYC of their imagination, where everyone takes their limos down to Zuccotti Park to talk about how much they hate America?
Savage has proven his hate-laden bona fides to an audience that wants to hear all that. It wouldn't even be surprising if his audience had learned to separate "Good New York" and "Godless Lefty Wacko Elite Liberal New York," in the same way Palin separated "Real America" from the rest of us with college educations and a IQ above 80.
And as these things go, as sad as it to say, his regular listeners constitute one portion of the informed and already decided electorate, at least in terms of being informed exactly as much as they want to be or are willing to be.
His audience does not represent the independent or even wavering democrat living far from New York City who has *the inclination* to not respond warmly to our accent. Your post is full of "logical" fallacy. Just because they've warmed to him (*now*) and love that he tells them exactly what they want to hear, who are you to say what their initial reaction was to his accent/persona???
I think you've got the empty argument here. Anyway, this thread was dying and people seem to have thoroughly voiced their opinions about Debbie. Not sure why you felt the need to poke a non-existent hole; it was informative to read all the people's thoughts who really like her, and to read the thoughts of people who find her less than ideal. Your attempt to find some inherent flaw in the premise, though, doesn't really amount to any kind of salient point or add anything but a false equivalence to the conversation. Imo, of course.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)she appeals to more people than just progressives and I think that's good. I don't find her unlikeable at all and I like her spunk, she doesn't take a beating from anyone, that's for sure.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)If she's going to be the go-to for the Democratic response after those morons are done holding their ridiculous "what is the first thing you would do on the moon if you were an astronaut" debates.
Many of you seem to like her, which is a fine response to a question I was posing.
I mentioned the concern troll thing because I'm not a fucking concern troll and find that line of troll hunting to be stupid and counterproductive.
I can't recall exactly what she said (it was around a week ago), but she was trying to downplay anything good that happened for Romney, and said something like, "Romney's going to win in New Hampshire, but he was always expected to, so New Hampshire's not important."
I can try to find the direct quote. The point was that it wasn't the first time that she has come across as petty and - more importantly - canned to my ear. Maybe I've caught her less personable appearances. It was an appearance that because of its timing/set up seemed likely to have a lot of eyeballs on it.
Attack dog stuff is fine. But attack dog stuff that I feel is also appearing on campaign literature, I can't stand. That is not the stuff of personable public speaking - imo - and runs the risk of the point being swallowed by the appearance of insincerity.
Anyway, I was just asking a question. So responses of "No" are certainly within the realm of what I'm looking for. I just wonder if people feel confident that they have feedback as to how she reads on an audience not composed entirely of members of DU.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)have on Mitt, thanks to his Republican rivals and his own flip-flops and record, I think it is clear strategy for her to accept Mitt as the Republican nominee.
I don't see what the problem here is.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I'm starting to think it might be a pretty good thing.
I've been wondering for some time now if Huntsman is really the only one to fear.
I do think that having his party-mates bash him for a few more months, though, can't be a bad thing. That, and it will give him the opportunity to say a bunch of things that he will transparently tack back on once he has the nomination.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)The Presidential campaign is up and running in downtown Chicago and I'll bet Plouffe, Axelrod and others are loving how these rushpublicans are eating themselves. As the old saying goes, "when your enemies are beating up on each other, enjoy the show". These campaigns are doing the oppo research that we're sure to see come raining down next September and October. Mittens remains the best financed candidate and that's what wins nominations. Thus the focus has long been on him...just right now is not the time for Democrats to unload on him...let the rushpublicans do it instead.
As far as DWS, retaking the House is a priority if we're to move forward to really hand the rushpublicans a repudiating loss. Many of the teabaggers won by small margins and a combination of rushpublican apathy (especially if Mittens is the candidate) and a more energized Democratic base could reserve many of the losses of 2010. What she says matters little as opposed to what she does in finding candidates, making sure their campaigns are properly funded and the Democrats make big gains next November. That's what I judge her on...
Cheers...
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I'll surely like her - seems like a tall order.
I will say, though, that if this party gets the trifecta again and doesn't do a damn thing for the environment and for this country's animals, I will probably be done for good.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)If you look at Nancy Pelosi's record as Speaker, it was both very impressive and very progressive but much of the legislation never made it to the Senate for a vote and whatever did got watered down (healthcare).
The root of the problem was agreements Harry Reid made with McConnell that enabled him to fillibuster everything and anything. Reid's been a weak leader and things don't look very promising. There are 23 Democratic seats up for grabs in November and several are in deep red states. The prospects of losing control of the Senate are very big and thus retaking the House and holding onto the Executive is very important.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I don't know enough to know for sure that one is harder to control, but isn't the Senate harder to control? Doesn't the Senate tend to have the arcane and momentum-obliterating procedures available to stall-sports? Or do they both have ample repertoires?
It has been my impression that Nancy was much better at knuckling up and getting people to ultimately knuckle under.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...or so was the intention. Where the House represented the "common folk" (remember only those with property were allowed to vote) like the British House of Commons, the Senate was to represent the "landed"...similar to the House of Lords. Bicameral but each with different constituents and agendas. This was especially the case when Senators were appointed rather than elected (a practice many rushpublican "strict constructionists" want to return to). Thus the checks and balance in the legislative were supposed to prevent the House from getting too powerful...and as we've seen with the teabaggers in charge that's not such a bad thing.
The problem in the Senate was Reid agreeing to 60 votes on almost every bill. He could pull the "nuclear option" and eliminate the fillibuster but the fear is they may need that weapon in their pocket in the future...and he and/or the Democrats may just need to. With that 60 vote threshold it makes almost any legislation impossible to move without "bipartisan" agreement...which the rushpublicans have leveraged to tie Reid's inept hands and control the agenda. Many bills passed in the House never saw the light of day as Reid knew there weren't the votes.
History will show Speaker Pelosi among the best...especially in light of the loser whose in that position now who can't even get his own caucus on the same page most days.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)as an American History major, I'm aware of a lot of what you're covering, but I really should know more of the ins and outs of all of the arcane Senate procedures and move-counter-move-counter-move games that can be played.
I do know that I was all for going nuclear.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)Her appearance on tv is secondary and pretty pointless in the large scheme of things. Politics is done mostly behind the scenes. The idea that anything of substance is occurring by people bickering on tv is sophomoric.
For what it is worth, I think she's doing a great job. Aside from Howard Dean, I think she's the best choice for the job.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)as to which aspect of her job I was referring to.
That bickering may produce no substance, but that is kind of my point - it's what the people are "seeing" and "perceiving" that I think is pretty damn important. They may not remember what the two talking heads said, but they may well remember which one they liked better.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)Most people watch sitcoms, amateur signing/dancing shows, and forensic dramas. Most voters don't have a clue who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)but we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think plenty of people tune into CNN; I take it you don't think that.
Please do recall, though, that nowhere in anything I have said here do I suggest that it is important that people remember her name.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Personally, I think she is too conservative/ but does she need to go? She hasn't done anything that sticks in my mind as a reason for leaving either position.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I liker her. YMMV.
"someone who many sections of the American public will instinctively find "unlikeable.""
It is probably best to leave that up to polling and market research, rather than gut feeling.
I'm sure some find her disagreeable, but that's true of anyone. I have no idea what "many sections of the American public" think about much.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I think she's great.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you had that inkling, why did you post an OP which sounds exactly like that about the DNC chair with little to no substance to back up your dislike of her?
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)blogslut
(37,955 posts)She's feisty and clever. Tim Kaine was a huge, boring yawn with no gumption and no imagination.
I'm Team Debbie all the way. Bobble heads, HO!
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)She's great as far as I'm concerned. Who would you suggest could do a better job?
blogslut
(37,955 posts)Cause I dig Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.
dawg
(10,610 posts)She's a fighter. She's quick-witted.
I like her accent.
wiggs
(7,788 posts)DNC majority, some of which may not exactly be her own...so she sometimes might be more cautious than if she were a free agent.
I don't find her unappealing either.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)polmaven
(9,463 posts)cally
(21,589 posts)She's smart, quick, and a fighter. I think she's much better on TV than many of the other Dems.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)I LOVE hardheaded, smart, quickwitted women.
She don't suffer fools, and we need that, 'specially in the Meeedia.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I pretty much can't believe you wrote this. You think she has to go because she has an unlikeable appearance and unpleasing accent?
I personally love articulate (yes, that is what she is), ballsy, Jewish women.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)yes, I think the fact that you love ballsy Jewish women will sail us straight through to victory in November.
It's just ca-razy to think that if someone has an unlikeable appearance and an unpleasing accent, particularly one that might reinforce the stereotype of our party as being dominated by Northeastern eggheads (yes, this worked spectacularly in 2008) - that if that person is presenting our most public response to the Republican period of dominating the news cycle it might hurt our chances in the election.
Yes, that would be totally crazy.
What planet do YOU live on?
If those things above were true, it damn well would hurt in November. Fortunately, this view of mine seems not to be widely-held (to put it mildly).
But to question the connection between the appearance/likability of the people we put in front of the public and how the broader public might respond to the party? That seems nuts.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)why do you find her appearance and/or accent so unlikeable? Most Democrats don't. If you are truly a New York Jew, is it self-hatred or what? And she's hardly a Northeastern egghead: she's lived in Florida since going to the University of Florida at Gainesville (hardly an Ivy) in the mid-1980s.
Look, I think the woman is the opposite of what you have portrayed: intelligent, effective, well-spoken, and hard-working as anyone I've ever seen in this position. Howard Dean looked like a chubby chipmunk and wasn't the world's most articulate speaker, but he was effective and people didn't complain about his looks or Northeast egghead background (son of a wealthy stockbroker, prep school and Yale education). There's something else going on here, and it makes me, frankly, uncomfortable.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)"oh, the vapors, this all makes me uncomfortable!"
I think maybe you need to get over frank discussions of what plays and what doesn't play and stop searching for freaking boogeymen.
Howard Dean rolled up his sleeves and came across as likable and authentic - all the way up to his famous scream. I can only hope that this is how we will state Wasserman-Schultz performed looking back at the election.
"there's something else going on here..." "ooooh" "dangerous subtext..."
They've got dogwhistling, but heck, the stuff you're getting all mysterious about should practically be called cat-whistling. And I say that as the damn proudest caretaker of one cat, so if you start in with some self-hating cat-owner bullshit know that you are pushing closer into fighting words territory.
ecstatic
(32,567 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)and see my response elsewhere in this thread on this.
Look, it's not a one = one equation here.
It's not like one Northeasterner can be pegged and typed and destroyed by that process while another one can't.
John Kerry (yes, this happened) =/= Howard Dean (this was not happening until he did himself in as a candidate, and as a chair, I did think he brought a laudable *authenticity* to the position that was a freaking dream compared to the transparently weaselly, grasping, and disingenuous McAuliffe).
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)but dag namnit do they make it hard to find anything. What an awful website.
She was on Piers Morgan, which I think a lot of non-political people watch.
http://mag.ma/cnn/3701641
"New Hampshire - stammers - I would say that New Hampshire really probably won't even mean much because most polls show that he's (Romney) going to win, and so that's not much of a victory there either - because they do what's expected..."
She then went on to mention that her home state " is) always pivotal."
Just didn't seem like the best message to a state that is already annoyed at being overlooked for Iowa and South Carolina.
It also seemed less than genuine to utterly dismiss wins in the first two contests.
I did like her a lot better when I just watched her clip with that awful Gretchen lady from Fox who so proudly stands behind her made up facts that support Romney. I guess she seems more natural when she's getting to attack in a contentious setting than she might seem in a more neutral setting like Piers Morgan's show?
Anyway, as I said, I'm glad that my concern does not seem to be shared by any(?) - and would be even more glad if that sentiment had been also heard in less adamantly democratic circles outside of the DU-verse.
MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)She was specifically asked about what a Romney win in New Hampshire meant in the Republican race.
Since he's leading there by 18 points, she's right. An expected Romney win in New Hampshire indicates no shift in voter sentiment, no change from the status quo in the GOP primary.
She didn't say that the state of New Hampshire, or its voters, don't matter to the President or the Democratic party.
I just don't understand how you divined that meaning from her statements.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)She was asked how she reacted to his "win" in Iowa.
She brought up New Hampshire on her own.
MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)But, my point remains that her statement, "New Hampshire doesn't matter" pertains to the complexion of the Republican primary and Romney's chance at winning it.
She's not denigrating the state or the people in it, like you assume.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I just know how things can get twisted and things seem to be very touchy right now in NH, so I thought it wasn't the best way to put it. I don't think you even want that sound bite out there.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I love her appearance. She is smart and I don't even notice her accent.
Don't worry about it. If someone is so stupid as to not vote for Democrats because of DWS, then we don't have their vote anyway.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Against Rinse Pubis or whatever his name is she's the knowledgeable classy adult; he always comes off as a pissy little bitch. Also, I admire the way Debs pivoted from Hillary to Obama without missing a beat. She's got class in spades. I'm very happy to have her as DNC chair.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)She is everything you say, PLUS a slavish
lapdog to the corporate wing of the party.
THAT is why she says the things she does.
She will SELL ANYTHING (or attempt to) that the party wants.
She's better than Terry McAuliffe was though.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)Is there anyone left?
EC
(12,287 posts)Debbie is the bulldog...she doesn't need to keep lock-jawed hold, snarling side to side, to finish an arguement. All she does is deliver one big bite that has the needed punch to finish it off.
Debbie is articulate, precise and knock-out in her rebuttles. She's up to date and a quick thinker. She also keeps with the Democratic ideas, so she doesn't need to think when it comes to defending the rights of others.
Marnie
(844 posts)Yeah I know, her hair is naturally wavey, but that does not alter the fact that it looks dirty and unkempt and trimed.
Yeah I know. It is unfair to have a different standard for professional women's looks than men's, but the fact is, that there is.
senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)Her hair looks great. It looks casually elegant and natural.
Edited to add that I only chimed in about the hair because it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread, and I don't want all the comments to be negative. Sure, it's superficial, and I wouldn't bring it up on my own, but I feel compelled to defend her. It doesn't look at all dirty to me, either.
tosh
(4,422 posts)Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Forever.
HelenWheels
(2,284 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That line just amazes me. You, OP, seem to dislike her. Then you assume 'many sections' hold this 'instinct'.
I'm not crazy for her politics all the time, nor her work as Chair. As a 'talking head' for the Party, she rocks the house unrelentingly. She should hold workshops for other Democrats on how it is done, she should school them, for she is madame skill in the media.
That camera, it likes her. People like her. And just so you know, she'd not hold that position if this instinct to dislike her existed. The Party could tell you how she tests to all 'sections' or demographics. If some 'segment' held instant dislike for her, she'd not win elections nor hold the position she now holds. She did not win these things in a raffle.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)That "line amazes (you)" because I never actually said it, and you know, fabulism and amazement go hand in hand.
You would think that if you were going to imagine yourself to be wielding a skewer you might actually be accurate in dissecting the target.
I made it clear that I was expressing a temporary reaction that *I* have had to a few of her recent appearances.
If you're going to accuse someone of assuming something, you probably want to be extra sure that said assumption was actually in what you are criticizing. It wasn't.
"Then you assume 'many sections' hold this 'instinct'."
What utter hogswallop.
I assumed no such thing.
I merely said that it would be problematic if we had someone in that position who invited that reaction. I am glad if we do not.
And as to the rest of your ridiculous post, I enjoyed " you know, she'd not hold that position if this instinct to dislike her existed." Oh, do teach me about the politics, sir!!!
Yes, our party has NEVER elevated anyone unsuitable to a prominent public/political (politically prominent and, thus, publicly prominent) position. The Democrats have been a party of sheer wizardry. And people never rise to prominent positions through inner-party dealmaking. Right.
And TO BE CLEAR: I am not saying that this is why she is the DNC Chair, only that this part of your post is stupid.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)in Florida, refusing to support Democrats running against them. She's a part of the good-ole-boy buddy system and not the person for the job IMHO.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Of course they despise Pelosi, Reed and Obama too. 24/7 hate radio will do that.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)and I think she comes across as likeable and sincere.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)ay yi yi.
It's a new board - I hadn't seen the new board until today.
Tomorrow is my five year DU anniversary, was here throughout all the primaries, not much during the period I served as an Obama fellow, and then here regularly through the election.
People didn't like my recent temerity to be un fucking believably pissed off about the removal of Horse Slaughter defunding from the farm bill.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I think she is pretty sharp
former9thward
(31,805 posts)Especially in an election year. W-S is a full time congresswoman and she is involved with other organizations also. Too much on the plate.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)opinions?
Is that a concern with merit or not so much?
TomClash
(11,344 posts).
Mira
(22,378 posts)as a matter of fact, I'll go on my knees in a minute and pray for a few hundred more like her to represent us immediately.
JerseygirlCT
(17,384 posts)I think she's young, savvy, fast on her feet and very committed.
I love that a woman is out front in this.
And no, her accent doesn't bother me.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)She is perfect, as we need a fighter there. Plus I think she is appealing (to middle aged white males anyways). I haven't heard or read any complaints/concerns of this type with regards to her before.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Before then I thought she was cool
DemoTex
(25,371 posts)And I'll kick ass defending her.
Mac
GusFring
(756 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I have developed a crush on her as she gets more face time every time she goes on tv.
She's fantastic!
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)but I would have enjoyed it more if you had continued with the food-based pun and somehow worked "pamplemousse" in there.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)She is very typical of Florida's pathetic Democratic party that refuses to take on the hardline right wing because they have the money. I would rather have her than McAuliffe though.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)hate that weasel McAuliffe.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)I believe she was chosen for the job because she's got what it takes to move the party forward into winning more elections. I hope that she is unsympathetic to the thugs--we need someone who isn't eager to play footsies with them.
And where is the link that supports your statement that "many sections" of the American public will instinctively find 'unlikeable'? We can expect for the thug segments not to like her, but this rhetoric sounds like the mess they were saying about Hillary Clinton when she was running in the primary.
And I hardly care about what her hair is doing. How shallow to be distracted by that.