Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's almost as if the party was ignored by Obama and then run as a shell for Hillary's benefit. Like Sebby, I don't think it made a difference between Clinton and Sanders, but it doesn't seem like anyone involved was all that interested in trying to build a party or win back Congress. It would have been nice to have some real Democrats involved.
eta: Looks like the party functionaries were enriching themselves. If you're going to be a Republican, be a Republican -- they do this kind of thing better.
 |
The party was undoubtedly ignored by Obama after he won his second term, and maybe before then. I think the Obama team theory was the House and Senate dems should run it, because they still had skin in the game and he didn't need to run for reelection again, but one of the problems of separating out DCCC and DSCC operations from the party is that it takes the legislators eyes away from the National Party because they don't need it.
I don't think hiring consultants constitutes enriching party functionaries unless there is some relationship between the two, and that's not yet posited here. Sometimes people hire consultants because they're lazy and don't want to expend the energy to build an operation or they're time crunched and don't have the time to build an operation, so they hire one pre-built. Of course, my view is that both may be fine reasons for a candidate to hire a consultant but they're lousy reasons for a party to hire one.
But the idea of a candidate approval for selecting staff prior to a primary is loony toons for a party operation.
