Especially after Obama had enough Dems on his side.

Three cheers for triangulation!

sign on early and those who follow after they know they are safe.

I am glad she is supporting the deal but she does not get a round of applause from me.

Yay AIPAC!

it as the overwhelming majority of her constituents wanted her to do.

How did that work out?

in opposition to her constituents is fuck you which is pretty close to what you wrote then why, oh why do you think a person would do the right thing.

I made mine.

Relax. You'll survive.

Not for applause.

Praise where praise is due, tough vote for her.

And this particular unit understand that its political career is in the dumper.

the deal as the overwhelming majority of her constituents wish her to do.

If her constituents want the wrong things, they can have that discussion in the election cycle.

When last week she was against it but this week she is for it, the pandering is obvious.

It was a bad deal when there were only 30 votes to sustain a veto. Now that there are enough votes to sustain a veto, it's a good deal.

at laying out details on issues.

the veto proof provides her cover if that was the intent

However, ignoring this is what her constituents want, let's bash her

When Maddow said a couple months back that if Hillary announced the cure for cancer, her haters would still bash her, the same applies to DWS

The inability to acknowledge a positive action, in someone who you disagree with on other issues, indicates a narrow mind

This is why we have an ACA, because it was realized we didn't have the votes for single payer, and in the window of opportunity we had something that was far better than what was their before,

Like Nader's incorrect assumption that there was or is no difference between the republican and Democrats, he didn't win any election, and bush as president more than adequately disproved his assumption. The SC if nothing else

Even Bernies Sanders recognizes sometimes something is better than nothing, which is why he voted for the ACA

Would indeed provide her cover. But she is, and so the pressure was still on to conform, which she did to save her position as head of the DNC - hoping that her explanations and tears would be enough to also save her Congressional seat.

It's pretty transparent to many.

expectations. Better luck next time

I'm pretty sure she would have lost her position as DNC chair, which would have made me happy, but it would have fulfilled my hopes, not my expectations. I've been watching politics long enough that this move by her was completely expected.

so I cannot vote for or against her in that capacity either.

However, when someone makes a decision that I perceive is right, I will acknowledge that is a good thing.

I have no idea the criteria the DNC committee uses to elect their chairman.

I would even agree with you if DWS voted against the Iran deal, she shouldn't be elected as DNC chair, but whether that would happen or not is beyond our control

However, a better example which is more within our control is whether the next majority/minority leader should be Schumer. That is determined by our senators. even though Reid recommended that choice. There is at least a potential that we can influence that decision through our senators as voters

If she votes against the deal everyone screams that she is controlled by AIPAC and is a traitor and other nonsense.

When she actually votes for the deal, she is accused of triangulating and still being controlled by AIPAC.

Imagine if she had voted the other way.

Last week, there were not enough Democrats in the Senate who had committed to the deal to sustain a veto. And DWS was against the deal.

This week, there are enough Democrats to sustain a veto. And DWS now supports the deal.

Nothing in the deal changed. If it was a bad deal last week, it still is a bad deal this week. Yet she changed her position.

She is getting crap because of the obvious "triangulation".

It seems like the fact that she has come around to this position would be cause for at least a mildly positive comment as opposed to this snark. If she had pledged to vote against the deal then she certainly would've gotten a ton of crap here. Thus, she can't win.

She has a long history of not having convictions and doing whatever is best for herself. This is just another instance.

The problem with track records is they still exist, even when they are inconvenient.

She could come out in favor of the deal when the outcome was still in doubt.

Lots of other people managed to do that.

Which I would think people would be pleased about - but instead they are still giving her crap.

I agree with you to the extent of saying that it's better for her to support the deal now than to oppose it. She has not, however "now done" what I said, of weighing in when it mattered. She publicly supported the deal only when enough Senators had stated their support so that a resolution of disapproval would be doomed (enough votes in the Senate to sustain a veto, regardless of what the House did).

Also, let's not forget this story from last week: "Wasserman Schultz blocked Iran resolution at DNC meeting: report".

On the available evidence, I consider it more likely than not that the report in The Hill is true.

Of course, the Democratic National Committee has a perfect right to tell grassroots Democrats like me that it will not answer questions about significant aspects of its policy deliberations. What the DNC (and DWS) cannot do is, through silence, bind me to an enforced agnosticism about the subject. If they choose not to make definitive information available, then I have the right to take such less-than-definitive information as is available and decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Of course, all this is rather academic; I know perfectly well that DWS doesn't give a damn what I think.

Look, I'm no fan of her centrist politics and timidity in general, but yes, DU keeps inching closer and closer to its "liberal" version of a "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" view of the world....

I sometimes wonder if she'd take the same heat were she male.

Hmmm.

She knows that's not a permanent gig. It never is.

When Barack Obama is no longer the party leader (and he won't be once his term is up), he won't be making those choices.

…..is good for something.

...I thought she was a citizen of the USA?

Please elaborate.

Based on what she said, her decision weighed heavy because of her affinity for Israel.

I guess that means that if I'm in a national leadership position I need to contemplate what's best for the Nederlands?

I'm pleased she came around but the delay concerns me as does her obvious bias for President.

In fact, he said the following:

"Israel isn’t just an ally, it’s not just a friend — it’s family."

http://forward.com/news/320091/read-the-transcript-of-forward-editor-in-chiefs-interview-with-barack-obama/#ixzz3kzD2J3E6

Do you question his citizenship as well?

...was over the top. I'll agree.

Maybe you can explain why she took so long and brought Israel into the picture?

I think she took so long because she probably heard from a lot of her constituents who have doubts about the deal for one reason or another.

In terms of foreign policy, the security of Israel is an issue that is important to a lot of those constituents, particularly in the Jewish community.

Obama made a point of stressing that this deal will make Israel more secure, so obviously that is a policy goal of his also.

One of my Senators, Ben Cardin (D-MD), will not. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-cardin-iran-20150904-story.html

I wrote to him on four separate occasions, begging for him to come out for the deal and providing links to credible sources to confirm my arguments. He chose instead to believe the lies of AIPAC, Netanyahu, and the same Iraq War cheerleaders.

Cardin is now dead to me. I have written a fifth time to tell him so. I will support a primary challenger in every way that I can. I will never vote for Cardin again.

Unless, of course, he changes his mind. But he has already shown himself to be a tool of the warmongers, so he has lost credibility now - no matter what he ultimately does.

So she flip flopped in 1 week.

I read last week, that this around this time in the last 2 elections, approx 26 debates had been scheduled. Now she only wants 6?

So why are we only going to see 6 this time around? She's out to protect Hilliary!!!! It's sickening, that she does not represent the ENTIRE party. Just the ones in her back pocket. Looks like more corruption to me.

i don't think she sees or weighs anything from other than a political standpoint and want her out of her position in time for democrats to win in 2016.

It's politics.

I was so sure she was going to say no! Totally made my day. Still not a huge fan of hers but this was a good step forward.

Who were chomping at the bit to get at her on this.

All those people who just "knew" she'd be "disloyal."

How dare she back her party boss!


Ruining everyone's "fun."


Buckets of for the irony-impaired.