Tim Kaine’s VP Selection is Payback for Resigning DNC Chair-Unproven!
Summary of eRumor:
A popular theory that Tim Kaine, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton manipulated the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ensure that Clinton would win the 2016 presidential nomination has gone viral.
There’s no proof that Tim Kaine, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC to ensure Clinton would win the party’s nomination in 2016.
That theory works like this: Tim Kaine agreed to resign as DNC chair in 2011 so that former Clinton campaign co-manager Debbie Wasserman Schultz could assume the role and rig the system to ensure a Clinton nomination in 2016. In exchange, the theory goes, Kaine was promised the VP spot on Clinton’s presidential ticket.
The series of events described above ring true, but press reports from the time indicate that President Obama — not Clinton — was the driving force behind both Kaine’s resignation from the DNC chair and Wasserman Schultz’s appointment.
Kaine became the chairman of the DNC in early 2009. Although he was reluctant to accept the partisan post, the Washington Post reports, “Kaine was heavily courted by Obama in the final weeks of 2008.”
Kaine remained DNC chair until 2011, when he announced he would run for Virginia’s open Senate seat. Again, the Los Angeles Times reports, Kaine was hesitant to run for the Senate, but, “Obama himself emerged as one of his top boosters, and he told Democratic donors just last week that Kaine would be an ‘outstanding senator’ if he chose to run.”
After Kaine’s resignation, the DNC sent out an email on April 5, 2011, that “announced (Obama’s) choice of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to lead the DNC as it its newest chair,” referring to her as, “the right person for the job.”
There’s no proof that Clinton was involved in the transition from Kaine to Wasserman Schultz. There’s also no proof that Clinton, Kaine and Wasserman Schultz conspired to rig the 2016 Democratic primaries in Clinton’s favor. That’s why we’re reporting this one as unproven.