DNC's Pandora's box of emails reveal black/gay rivalry

Was Daughtry involved with the Todd challenge?

The letter implies that she was, if only to the extent of advising Dean and the DNC to support Reed.  If she was, she needs to go.  The facts aren't clear, though, from this letter.

The Todd episode was truly shameful and embarrassing.  Those supporting the challenge exposed themselves as lawless race grifters and should be disqualified from having authority within the party.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:01:07 AM CST

Honestly, Pam,

"smart strategy" and Democratic National Committee" aren't phrases likely to appear in the same paragraph anytime soon.  With the best electoral advantage in decades they're in the process of blowing this election.  (And if that seems far-fetched, just remember the last two.)  All we can do is sit back and enjoy the surreeal spectacle.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:24:05 AM CST

DNC's pandora box...

Pam,
I wanted to share a letter to the editor submitted to the Washington Blade this afternoon in reference to the Blade article "DNC lawsuit.."

Dear Editor:

I have until this point remained for the most part publicly silent in the Democratic National Committee/Donald Hitchcock lawsuit "he said, they said, he did, they did".  A silence I held out of respect for my personal friendship with the plaintiff but also believing that both sides should have their "fair" day in court.  But I break that silence because I believe the Blade, with the sad assistance of the plaintiff, in their latest salvo (1-24-08 article), combined with their unfair portrayal of Democratic activist Clare Lucas, have again unfairly reached too far in trying to infer that purported actions or words by a DNC top official and another Black party leader were done to "stir anti-gay prejudice" or create a "black versus gay rivalry".

The article in the Blade was outrageous, plus it was unfair and inaccurate to the total picture.  It took a small dab of a long discussion about a delegate selection rule change and tried to paint a picture.  It took an outsider's view regarding DNC efforts to events in an Alabama state legislative race of an openly lesbian Democrat, and again tried to paint that exchange as the total picture.  The total picture of both events would clearly show a completely different hue.  I say this as an intimate participant of both events as Chair of the DNC's LGBT Caucus, a leading proponent of the rule change and friend of Patricia Todd.

In politics, like life, many discussions are held and strategies examined when any policy, proposal or action is being considered.  Some things are said or done, if taken in isolation, would paint an entirely different picture.  Too infer that the purported views expressed were done to stir a black/gay rivalry or anti-gay prejudice, is like saying Cong. Barney Frank or HRC's actions regarding the ENDA revised legislation was to intentionally create a gay/lesbian versus transgender rivalry or stir anti-transgender prejudice.  Both of which would be outrageous and simply not the truth!

At the conclusion of any event that has controversy or disagreement, I look at the results of the product; see who constructively helped deliver those results, and whether they were positive or negative.  In the two cases highlighted, the Blade irresponsibly published an article that did not truly reflect the entire actions of Leah Daughtry, Donna Brazile, or the DNC senior staff.  All were instrumental in delivering a positive outcome.  We all know that in any organization or business nothing is accomplished or changed without the support or consent of that organization's Chief of Staff or CEO.  As to the rule change, without Daughtry's or Brazile's and another leading Black DNC member's support and efforts, a positive LGBT change would not have been accomplished.  Without the behind-the-scenes calls and public statements, led by Daughtry and her DNC staff in conjunction with Victory Fund, HRC, Stonewall, supporting fairness to Patricia Todd and seeing that the voter's choice in the Alabama race be respected, a different outcome might have happened.  Don't believe me?  Ask State Rep. Patricia Todd, who was one of four recently at-large Platform Committee appointments to the 2008 convention assembled under the director of Leah Daughtry.

What would have been more responsible for the Blade if it had explored more completely the entire record and actions of the DNC as it relates to the GLBT community during Ms. Daughtry's seven-year tenure.  I submit that the Blade would have found, to name a few:
· A chief of staff who hired a significant number of LBGT persons who hold key positions with the DNC staff-director of training, director of party affairs and delegate selection, second in command of the finance division, one of four regional political directors to name a few.  These individuals, along with GLLC Director Brian Bond, form a nucleus to a DNC working group that advises Ms. Daughtry and Gov. Dean on LGBT issues.
· A chief of staff who initiated a policy that covered employee's domestic partners to the organization's insurance benefits.
· A chief of staff who lent her muscle to a make sure the compromise delegate selection rule change would ensure the greater inclusion the LGBT Democratic community desired.  (A change whose result saw 48 of 51 states adopted a numerical LGBT representation goal--a larger number of states than any racial minority community individually have).
· A chief of staff that at every turn provided financial, institutional and personal support to the national LGBT Democrat organization, Stonewall Democrats.
· A chief of staff that directed the DNC Lawyer Council to assist in verifying signatures to the Illinois anti-gay constitutional ballot proposition, thereby helping thwart this anti-discriminatory proposal from seeing the light of day.
· A chief of staff in her role as the DNC's 2008 Denver convention CEO, who hired key senior LGBT convention staff and established an early outreach and working relationship with potential LGBT vendors, Colorado LGBT Democrats and the DNC's LGBT Caucus.
· A chief of staff that has worked hard with the faith community in building a bridge of understanding on LGBT issues.
· A chief of staff who has never turned down any request that I as Chair of the DNC LGBT Caucus have personally made for financial assistance or institutional support to numerous LGBT organizations, election campaigns or countering anti-gay ballot initiatives.

Paints a really different picture of the DNC and Ms. Daughtry's leadership!  So shame on you, Washington Blade, for letting an interested party's one-sided "leaked" documents strategy influence what should have been balanced and fair reporting.

Respectfully,

Rick Stafford, Chair
DNC GLBT Caucus
DNC Member, Minnesota

---

by: rickatmpls @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 16:12:02 PM CST

missing the bigger picture of DNC self-injury

Unfortunately the real problem here is the DNC's decision to go forward and thus the dirty laundry was bound to come out in a legal proceeding. The DNC should have made Hitchcock's action go away if it didn't want this to occur, that was in its control.

The Blade shouldn't shoulder the blame for reporting the story.

Bad business/legal decisionmaking at the DNC is newsworthy; it's clear there are serious communication problems to say the least, and what's come out so far isn't particularly surprising since many, if not most organizations have internal divisions between people that normally don't go public. After all, they are human beings with foibles and biases.

This mess highlights the importance of informing employees that whenever you send a work email, it is part of the discovery process of any lawsuit involving your organization. It's a business communication and the law is clear -- don't hit "send" using a work email account unless you are willing to have the contents of the email out in the public domain. How this message wasn't clearly communicated to DNC staff dealing with sensitive, politically damaging issues is an organizational failure, not the fault of those pointing it out.

The DNC may not like that answer, after all, it's on the hot seat, but I'm sure if a controversial personnel matter was occurring at the RNC, there wouldn't be a problem with that kind of information entering the public domain.

Part of my job in my organization is to write policies that remind staff precisely about the limitations of privacy in the workplace. It pains me that the DNC is not being run professionally -- that it cannot protect itself regarding basic HR matters all organizations of any size have to deal with. More time and money are wasted trying to clean up messes like this than taking the time to establish clear policies in the first place that cover legal bases.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:19:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]