My date with Debbie

Okay, so it wasn't a date. It wasn't even so much "with" her as "in her presence." But I did go to hear Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) speak today and, despite an initial setback, I persevered and was able to ask her my question.

First, though, a summary of the event. I arrived early enough to attend a "Count the Votes" press conference headlined by the congresswoman. This turned out to be a bit of a dog-and-pony show, as Rep. Wasserman Schultz was surrounded by a dozen or so well-dressed Democrats armed with signs and flags (right). She delivered her remarks clearly and forcefully, insisting that "we must have fairness in the process" and so the Democratic National Committee must "count the votes from January 29" and allow Florida's delegates to be seated at the convention.

Indeed, the entire thrust of the presser was that no revote was necessary because a record number of Florida Democrats already cast their votes, in our primary-that-didn't-count on January 29. Even when asked directly by a reporter how she would respond to those who stayed away from the polls because they thought their votes wouldn't count, she emphasized the record turnout, not how much larger it might have been had there not been a controversy over the seating of the Florida delegates.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz was complimentary of DNC chair Howard Dean because he has called her as well as Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) to say that he will work toward a solution to this issue. She also stated repeatedly that she believes the two candidates will be able to come to some sort of agreement on this, and she emphatically concluded, "Our delegates will be seated!"

At the luncheon itself, Rep. Wasserman Schultz expanded her remarks beyond the primary debacle, saying that "although it is well known that I support Sen. Clinton, I will work hard for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is." She referred to the "total lack of competence by this [Bush] administration," and she blamed the Republican-dominated legislature for the primary mess, noting that "the Democratic members of the legislature had no choice" but to vote for the January 29 date, as the bill also included the long-sought (and vehemently opposed by Republicans) guarantee of a paper trail in voting, thereby ridding the state of the notorious touchscreen machines. The congresswoman also encouraged those in attendance to work hard for down-ticket races as well, in hopes that we could chip into the 16-to-9 GOP majority in our U.S. House delegation as well as the large majorities the Republicans enjoy in both houses of our state legislature.

As for the revote controversy, Rep. Wasserman Schultz cited three reasons why the nine Florida Democrats in the U.S. House opposed the effort: the possibility of fraud, concerns over an unprecedented privately-funded election, and rushing into what amounted to an electoral "experiment" without enough time to do it properly. She concluded by returning to the theme of a cohesive Democratic Party needing to stand behind whichever candidate is the nominee. "Come off your hardened positions," she said. "Come out of your corners, [because] we've got to come out strong for our Democratic nominee. Now is the time for all Democrats to stand united."

At this point, I have to say something about the ham-handed way the luncheon program itself was run. Even the welcome sign (left) was grossly misspelled -- perhaps that was the venue's fault, as noted by one of my lunch companions, but it still certainly was something that should have been fixed immediately.

I will contact the organization's chairperson personally and will not call her or the organization out by name in this venue, but I have to say that I was angered and appalled by how she -- the chairperson -- dealt with the Q&A session. Rep. Wasserman Schultz indicated her willingness to answer questions, so the chairperson, acting as emcee, called on the first person, who asked her question without incident. I got ready to pose my question, and even stood up for greater visibility ... but the chairperson hijacked the remainder of the Q&A by asking not one, but two questions of her own from the podium, the answers to which took up all the congresswoman's remaining time.

Everyone at my table thought that was very poor form, and it was reminiscent of a similar stunt the chairperson pulled when the organization hosted Rep. Ron Klein (R-Fla.) a few months ago. If you are going to have a Q&A session, do not take it upon yourself to ask the questions if you're in charge. A number of other attendees also wanted to ask questions but likewise were shut out of the process by the chair's egregious actions. Thus, I was unable to ask my question in the public forum I sought.

However, while leaving the site of the luncheon, my friend and I spotted Rep. Wasserman Schultz and her aide waiting for their car, and so, unwilling to let this opportunity pass, I approached the congresswoman, introduced myself in my "meatspace" identity, and identified myself as a blogger with a tremendous amount of respect for her voting record and her performance in Congress on behalf of Florida. However, I continued, "is it not counter to your responsibilities as co-chair of the Red-to-Blue program in the DCCC to openly refuse to support the Democratic candidates who oppose Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers in Miami?"

Before I get into the answer, I want to tell you this: Rep. Wasserman Schultz and I chatted about my question for a good ten minutes (while her aide silently fumed behind me, I later learned), and she was entirely gracious, candid, and respectful of me as a person and as a blogger. I didn't feel, as I have at times in the past when talking with lawmakers, that I was getting the brush-off; she was genuine and engaging, and she took great care to respond fully to my concerns.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz told me that she has raised money actively as co-chair of Red-to-Blue on behalf of candidates all over the country. Indeed, she said, she expended a tremendous amount of political capital in Washington and in Florida to help get Ron Klein elected in 2006. Now, in 2008, she has had to deal with the "difficult position" of being in charge of the DCCC effort but also being friends with the three Republicans in Miami -- "I'm especially close to Mario [Diaz-Balart]," she said, "since our days in the state legislature, but I count all [three] of them as friends." And so, while the congresswoman believes the Democratic candidates in those districts -- Annette Taddeo, Joe Garcia, and Raul Martinez (for whom she said she actually has worked in his race against Lincoln Diaz-Balart) -- are strong, she "just can't cross that line personally" to campaign actively against her friends. It would be too hard to criticize them (I said, "well, don't criticize them, just say positive things about the Democratic candidates," and she replied, "I am!") publicly, and although she has disagreed with them on innumerable issues -- she shared an anecdote about trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to persuade Ros-Lehtinen to vote in favor of overriding Drunky McStagger's* veto of SCHIP -- she prefers to focus her attention on other House races and let other members of her coalition take on the three Miamians.

I was impressed by Rep. Wasserman Schultz's understanding of blogs and bloggers. "I have read some of the bloggers' comments," she told me, imploring me to "please help get them off my back," as she seemed to be frustrated by the coverage she's received lately in the blogosphere. As she finally made her way to the car, to her aide's conspicuous relief, she grasped my arm and said, "Thank you for asking me about this to my face." I must admit that I was moved by her sincerity and her appreciation for my forgoing the flame war in favor of seeking an answer directly from her.

So, to those (including myself) who would criticize Rep. Wasserman Schultz for her decision to stand aside in the three Miami races, I can say only that while I still do not necessarily agree with her decision, I can respect her reasons for making that decision, and I understand that her Red-to-Blue group has other members who can fight those particular battles in her stead. [See second update below.] Heck, after today, she might even be my "congressional crush" again ...

UPDATE (6:36 pm 3/18/08): Based on my conversation with her today, I have every reason to believe that Rep. Wasserman Schultz at some point will read this post. So, if you have an opinion about her decision not to campaign against the three Miami Republicans, I encourage you to share it (respectfully, I hope) in Comments below.

UPDATE (2:05 pm 3/19/08): With so many folks coming over from Daily Kos, I think I'd better clarify my conclusion above, lest you all think I am giving Rep. Wasserman Schultz a free pass on this.

While I respect her reasons for her decision not to campaign against her friends, and I appreciate her sincerity and candor in telling me about it, I believe that if Rep. Wasserman Schultz's friendships mean that much to her, she should step aside and allow someone else to lead the Red-to-Blue effort. Even though she said others in the DCCC would be handling those Miami races, if she cannot be an effective leader of the effort, she should not stay in that role.

UPDATE (7:34 am 3/20/08): Perhaps this short post will give you a better idea of my feelings on the matter.

---

* My affectionate and descriptive term for the "president," not hers.