Home | About | Donate

#DearDebbie Hits Back at DNC Chair's Insult to Generation of Abortion Activists


#DearDebbie Hits Back at DNC Chair's Insult to Generation of Abortion Activists

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Reproductive justice activists on Wednesday launched a social media campaign to tell their stories of working for abortion rights after Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz told New York Times Magazine that women who came of age after Roe v. Wade had become 'complacent.'


You almost have to think that DWS is a Republican plant there to undermine the entire Democratic Party apparatus. It might not even be necessary as there is something self-destructive in hubris. Regardless, it couldn't happen to a better bunch of sell outs than the corporate, bought and sold to Wall Street bunch that has taken over what might have once been worthy of our time and effort to defend.


It's no mistake DWS drives the DNC since Prez Obama nominated and "installed", and keeps her in the chair of the DNC even given her tone-deaf stupidity - maybe their common agenda is to further a political divide in Amwerica to better serve the 1%, corporate greed and MICC war machine....couldn't do a much better job of it......Presidents failing to build on their success at the polls and build a stronger party and electorate to serve the people is no mistake! Clinton the First and Obama are prime examples of tearing-down, not building up, IMO....


DWS urges young women to support HRC, over BS, because her husband WJC was so good on reproductive issues, wage equality for women and welfare reform. And, they both still " feel your pain ", as well. They should, too, of course, since 2 decades of worsening economic conditions, etc.; were set in motion by their lousy policies and third way compromises to " get things done ". And, HRC and WJC only " sold out " after the 2nd campaign for the White House, when they and their cronies couldn't be held accountable by the electorate of the U.S., anymore. So they're such good role models, too, for all the upcoming generations when they've supported eternal war, massive income inequality, gov't climate disaster procrastination and blatant corporate political corruption. DWS needs to go and taker her bogus observations about the electorate with her. She's been horrible at her job for years, with her bent weather vane political insight, and sounds very much like a Hillary/DNC wind sock, here, as usual. Martin O'Malley should drop out of the Presidential race and take her job over. He'd be great at it, imo.


So much for keeping in touch with her constituents...let alone the American millennials (of both sexes) nationwide. Her actions as DNC chair have been a train wreck...she may as well join the HRC campaign staff for all intents and purposes.



she needs to go on back down to florida and be with the rest of the snowflakes


She sure doesn't seem to have done much to get Democrats int0o office, esp progressive Dems. She refused to fund the Dem candidate for my state against our horrible Republican governor and nobody knew who he was as our sitting governor is Koch bought and owned and had a 4 million$ war chest.
We lost the state house too...lost a few seats in the senate.
I attribute our losing the US congress to Wasserman-Scultz' total lack of connection/awareness with the trend of the base voters


Common spin by Common Dreams. Whether you're for outlawing abortion or protecting it as a legal option, abortion itself is not in the Top 5 Greatest Concerns of the public today. That said, I suppose it's possible that our liberal bourgeoisie have been unaware of the Democrats' worsening of conditions for our poor (low wage workers, and those who are far worse off), our elderly poor, and our disabled. The "ordinary masses" are keenly aware of how damaging the Clinton right wing has been to the party and the country ever since the 1990s.The continued determination of both Democrats and liberals to ignore our serious poverty crisis -- largely the result of the Clinton Dem policies -- is an insult to a generation of humans.


Depends on how you look at it. DWS was a solid, rt. wing Clintonite well before Obama was elected. Obama actually did seek/work for change. As a candidate, he repeatedly stressed that we wouldn't see change until we actually got to our feet and demanded it from Congress We almost did that, too, with Occupy, only to discover that we did not agree on what changes are needed and wanted. It mattered that Obama was able to restore the disability aid that Bill Clinton had slashed. As a result of Clinton's policies, the disabled/seriously ill had become one of the fastest-growing groups of homeless Americans by 2000, to the flat indifference of liberals. As our attention began turning to the 2016 elections, Democrats made their priorities very clear by voting to virtually end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled, confident by now that liberals would once again shrug.


Sign the petition, Dump Debbie!


The vetting process by which this "dog in the manger" was selected to be the Chair of the DNC must have been done by blind veterinary. The bitch is the Worse of Breed, she's more "stool" than Chair. Just the kind of(s)tool to prevent any criticism of the the Israeli Zionastie killers of Palestinian babies or to "discourage and disparage critical thinking Democrat (a rare breed; an endangered specie) from running for office. I recovered from Catholicism some years ago after a loong bout of delusionism and have converted to Seventh Day Agnosticism. I've also have recovered from the "ratism" of the Democratic Party. I remain an uncompromisingly aggressive progressive and a small d democrat. Debbie, Gai kaken oifen yam!


Debbie is a failure. She should not hold that position. If she isn't literally a Republican she is effectively a Republican.


DWS and Clinton and Obama, and Andy Cuomo, have all worked to undermine progressives and progressive issues to serve the uber-wealthy and big-money over the 99% and many groups of at-risk Americans, they and many others including RepubliCon criminal idiots. If you order the confusing comment it (and others) might be understood more easily by readers....or perhaps your intention is to be confusing and obtuse?


I have been a democrat and liberal for ages. But I'm no fan of the DNC because they are just not doing their job. We Democrats have lost the Congress and most of the states to the right. I expound on my thoughts in a letter I mailed to the DNC the other day. A copy can be read here.



For women, access to abortion is a very important issue as it directly affects whether a woman ends up stuck in a cycle of poverty or not.
Fact of the matter is: Everything is of Importance at this crucial point in time.


Schultz is the perfect example of what an "establishment politician" is.
Making the statement she did reveals how short-sighted her strategic thinking is. For the last 7 years she has been waiting to coronate Hillary as the next President of the United States.
Hillary is an establishment politician that supports the status quo. Both political parties use the side issues known as values voting issues as distractions. Behind the scenes they work cooperatively to consolidate corporate power and the increase of wealth gained through investments and non-productive means.
Schultz is an unabashed Clinton supporter. She cannot perceive the benefit in supporting policies not proposed by the establishment who control our current political system. She's out of touch with popular opinion and the importance of progressive issues. Whenever she issues a statement such as the one at issue here, she gets caught completely off-guard when a groundswell of public support in opposition to the views she expressed arises.


These days, republicans aren't Republicans.
Right wing politics are always dedicated to the support of the wealthy and politically connected members of a society. The policies enacted under right wing political establishments are designed to protect and uphold the positions of privilege and influence those individuals hold.
During the Revolutionary era of American history the political right in England was institutionalized as the Tory party. The opposition was the Whig party. In the America of the day, both sides had their sympathetic supporters. Those holding to the Tory party were in the minority. For the sake of being brief, I'll capsulize the basic philosophy as supporting the existence of a landed aristocracy. This same principle is present in American politics and can be identified as the meme of those who advocate putting an end to what they call the "death tax."
In the 1930's both Germany and Italy were ruled by strong right wing political parties. The term used to describe the governmental institutions in control in those nations at the time is fascism. Like it or not, once a person gets past any knee jerk reaction they may have to reading or hearing that word, an honest comparison shows the same patterns exists in the institutions and operations comprising the federal government of the United States today.
Our politicians today continue to bandy about terms like freedom and democracy, but when we get down to it, the record reveals that nearly all politicians on the national stage today, and those politicians in charge of politics and governments at the state level, are working to strengthen the control, power and authority the right exercises over the daily lives of the individual Citizen or Resident.
This goal was never intended to be a part of the political party established as the Republican Party in the USA. Over the decades individuals who were sympathetic to these political doctrines entered and worked to establish themselves in positions of authority within the Republican Party. After consolidating their positions they worked to expand their influence by recruiting likeminded members. Over time this leadership gradually managed to shift the emphasis of the Party further and further to the right.
The expression "wolf in sheep's clothing" comes to mind. And that image fits Hillary Clinton to a remarkable degree, IMO.
What's happened to politics in America since the days of the Regan presidency is that right wingers did the same thing with the Democratic Party. Right wing sympathizers like Hillary Clinton and Schultz worked their way into positions of authority and proceeded to shift the emphasis of the Party further and further to the right.
Today, the issues championed by Progressive politics stands in stark contrast to the platforms upon which both Parties base their legislative agendas. When any given plank in their platform becomes untenable in the political climate existing at the time, the Party adopts the popular policy as a new plank. They keep the popular name and proceed to subverted the goals of the policy by revising the goals through a process of "compromise." This is what happened to the call for universal health care, and that's how we ended up with the Affordable Care Act that does nothing to make health care truly affordable by containing cost increases over time.
The ACA is nothing more or less than a formalized version of a policy that supports the basic status quo that was in place prior to the popularization of the call for universal health care. That goal is to maximize the profits earned by corporate for-profit health care providers, manufacturers of dugs and other health related profits, and the earnings of executives controlling those corporations and insurance companies.