For me, the choice of the word neutrality is not a helpful one. You’re talking about fairness and inclusiveness. These two words have a much more positive ring to me than the word neutrality. They have a feeling of action, whereas the word neutrality, for me implies in action, passivity.
I can see how passiveness could be perceived from neutrality. Yet, neutrality also speaks to an openness for ideas...ideas that come from anyone, group, organization, etc. This openness is good, to a point. But, at some point there has to be decisions made, on strategies, platform, priorities, etc. That's where neutrality may be difficult to maintain. Also, not everyone has the same means to promote their ideas, or promote them as rigorously. Likely just one of many reasons why fairness and inclusion becomes important. But, neutrality doesn't inhibit this. Also, it may be more strategic to keep certain, more potentially inflammatory, verbiage below the fold into the nearterm while galvanaizing a critical mass to take back this country.
David hogg represents the fresh blood our party desparetly needs. I am 81 years old, and i conttubute monthly to both his nonprofits. I am retired public policy wonk. He is where we should be.
If you push hm out, you will keep us without new support.
Mr. Martin shared that he has a deep respect for Mr. Hogg. We can only hope that the feeling is mutual and that these two gentlemen can get past their differences and figure out how to move forward and help us right the ship.
He is not being pushed out...he can stay in the Dem Party...but if he is a member of the DNC Leadership...then he must sign the Neutrality clause...he can promote whom ever he chooses...but NOT as the vice chair of the DNC...this should not be hard to understand...and it seems right to me..in addition...it bothers me that he has made this all about what he wants...
I am 81 too and I have also contributed to David Hogg's group. I want to see young people come in and be candidates and active in the Democratic party. But I find his recent pronouncements to be ageist.
I agree that we have had some unfortunate cases of people hanging on too long. (Diane Feinstein was a terrible example), but the responsibility for such cases should rest with friends and close associates in making people behave responsibly.
I'd like to see him stay in the DNC, stay active, continue to be the strong voice that he is. But I'm not going to contribute to him any more until he drops this stance of running candidates in a primary, against a sitting Democratic incumbent. He appears to be putting himself into the position of making the decision of who can run. Will he make senior Dems obligated to explain that they are still competent in spite of age?
I believe his PAC is providing funding support to newer candidates who want to run against an incumbent who has not risen to this moment appropriately. It’s still a free country last I checked. If someone wants to run a primary campaign against a democrat in a “safe” seat who did not meet their constituents expectations, why shouldn’t they? And why shouldn’t his PAC support them? It’s a vote. If the incumbent did well, they will move onto the general election. If they didn’t (ahem Schumer) they won’t. That’s the way our system works. Do I have my facts wrong?
no one is saying that he cannot do that...but he cannot do that as vice chair of the DNC...the leadership must remain neutral...hence the neutrality agreement
Yes, his PAC can support anyone he likes. But he doesn't get any more contributions from me if that is his position. It makes me sad. I liked what he was trying to do.
Another issue is that as an official with the DNC, he has certain obligations. I am still angry with the Debbie person who used to be a DNC official and who blocked Bernie from using his delegates.
That is how I understand the system. I am not against age or experience. but I was so upset by Diane Feinstein. Look at Jeffries--pretty ineffective and not that old. We need people like Chris Murphy and Jamie Raskin and they aren't old. Shumer on the other hand....Nevertheless, I do think it is time for age limits and term limits too. How many over 70's know and understand what an influencer is? Just wondering.
Completely agree, like it or not, age makes a difference. We need new younger folks willing to fight and not just write sternly worded letters and wait for midterms. They need to get off their asses or get out of the way!
And it just occurred to me that it’s kinda working already. House democrats are being threatened with arrest for protesting ICE at the facility where the Newark mayor got arrested. Glad to see them protesting! About time they joined us in the streets! We’ve seen the fear that being “primaried” strikes in Republican hearts; apparently our Dems have the same fear.
I am 79 and I actually agree with David Hogg that we need more younger people. We need to be training younger people and give them a chance, experience and get rid of some do nothings who are just hanging on. What we need is to bring down the average age so we can have a mix of ages experience and wisdom. How many of those >70 yo understand AI, social media campaigning, etc. The future is coming faster than many over 70 cannot comprehend or keep up with. Who was it several years ago that thought the internet was a bunch of pipes connecting it all together? I am not ageist, just realistic.
Term limits gor supreme court and legislative leaders and keeping the presidential ones would help ensure fresh leadership, new ideas, and divetsity, while contunuing to provide avenues for experience.
I'm happy to say that I keep up with my reading and have been on social media since the late 1990s. I agree that we need to have a mix of ages, but not because of tech issues. The future is certainly alarming but an understanding of the past is also important. We have a lot of very scary echoes today. What I object to is the idea of running against an incumbent because of their age, regardless of their capabilities.
I do want to see new (young) people coming in, but let them get a little seasoned before they want to captain the boat.
What I really dislike is crony politics. That is probably the cause of Biden's running for a second term. I'm guessing no one wanted to say no to him.
I think neutrality is more important than anything and this idea needs to be enshrined into the party’s bylaws. If Mr. Hogg can’t abide by the rules then he needs to resign. Full stop. Does anyone remember the talk about superdelegates during the Hillary campaign and the talk about party insiders putting her over the top? If we are going to stand for fairness, then we need to adhere to our own principles.
If a candidate is so good, they will prevail in a primary anyway. That’s my two cents as a long time volunteer and party activist.
This is not about David Hogg...or agreeing that more young people need to be elected. This is about a rule of the DNC ensuring all officers remain neutral in D or D primaries whether that is for President or other down ballot races. That is needed to earn trust of voters and for voters to decide who our nominees are NOT party officers.
This. Exactly. As a veteran of MANY CAMPAIGNS, they always endorse without publicizing. Martin is lying. I have seen it first hand. They are not neutral.
Good points, all. This note is sadly necessary because of past favoritism. I'm unaware of Hogg's dissent. This whole thing seems like airing dirty laundry. How about a joint statement that conveys unity. In the meantime, is DNC aware of how desperately we need to replace the old timers? (Chuck, et al.) The status quo is what got us to this sorry place.
I agree with the concept of neutrality you explained. And I appreciate your taking time to explain it so thoroughly. I also think the work David Hogg is doing getting younger people into office is important . It’s just not compatible with the job he’s taken at the DNC. Hopefully he can understand that and choose between running his PAC, doing that work - or working for the DNC. It will say a lot about his character and intentions if he can make that choice and not do it in a destructive and divisive way. That’s the last thing our party needs at this point. What is the mechanism for getting him to make that choice? With thanks for the work you’re doing for our party and for our country.
I agree with your rationality Alexandra, and with this position taken by Ken and the DNC. This is not the time for more inner turmoil, we need a unified front to get through this mess and save our democracy. I believe it was too soon to bring David Hogg into such an important role, and recognize my opinion is likely not very popular. I met him briefly when he spoke at a local event a year ago. He was arrogant, a little rude and not prepared, again another unpopular opinion. I admire all he is doing and absolutely believe he is the future, however a bit more maturity is necessary to understand We the People, means all of us, young and old.
Neutrality is the banner we should rally behind while fascists are torching the Constitution and kicking down the door with steel-toed boots‽‽‽
Let me say this plainly, neutrality in the face of injustice is complicity. And neutrality inside a party system during an existential crisis‽‽ That’s not principle. That’s cowardice dressed up in a press release.
This self-congratulatory ode to “process” is the sort of empty proceduralism that gives the Right a five-lap head start while Democrats are still holding a damn feelings circle about Robert’s Rules. He wants a gold star for saying party officials shouldn’t rig primaries‽ Congratulations, Ken, that’s the bare minimum. Meanwhile, the actual work of power; movement-building, youth organizing, challenging incumbents who vote like Blue Dogs but fundraise like oligarchs, is being stiff-armed behind closed doors by the very same people who clutch their pearls about “decorum” while our rights are being strip-mined.
Let’s talk realpolitik. When a 24-year-old like David Hogg shows up with fire in his belly and a base behind him, the party should feel the heat. That’s not “disruption,” that’s vitality. That’s democracy breathing through a clenched jaw. Neutrality in this context isn’t just a fig leaf; it’s a flak jacket for incumbents who’ve gotten far too comfortable outsourcing courage to younger generations while hoarding influence like it’s a retirement plan.
If Ken really wants to prove the party “trusts the people,” then trust us to challenge power, not protect it. The enemy isn’t internal competition. It’s inaction, timidity, and the ever-growing chasm between what the base demands and what leadership dares to deliver.
Final blow: You don’t get to quote the party charter about trust while gatekeeping the keys to the damn building.
Neutrality in a party primary is much different than passion in an election. All politics is local. Support whom you want to, but no the party should not choose our candidates: We the party members should.
Yes, “We the party members should choose the candidates.” Agreed. Enthusiastically. But here’s where we diverge: neutrality only means something if the structure of the party actually empowers the members to choose, and not just in theory, but in teeth-baring, power-wielding practice.
Because right now, “neutrality” is too often used as a shield to silence grassroots energy while the donor class still whispers in backroom ears. It’s neutrality for the masses, and access for the insiders. It’s “everyone’s equal” right up until a 20-year incumbent who hasn’t met a fossil fuel he didn’t like gets a quiet boost from a friendly chair who claims to just be ensuring stability.
Neutrality that isn’t enforced with radical transparency, binding rules, and teeth is not neutrality. It’s clerical theater. And when the party refuses to support bold, local primary challenges because they might be “too disruptive” or “too green,” it’s not neutral! It’s calcified.
So yes, all politics is local. But don’t pretend that national party dynamics don’t leak into those local processes like toxic runoff. That’s what we’re pushing back on. Not fairness, we love fairness. We're demanding actual democratic access to the table, not polite invitations to sit quietly at the kids' end while the grownups make the real decisions.
Let the people actually lead. Or stop quoting the charter like it's scripture.
I think what David Hogg is doing by supporting primaries so that elected officials are forced into consistent messaging & accountability instead of being fundraisers with a fancy title is a good thing.
I agree that having the DNC put it's thumb on the scale is a very slippery slope & finding an ethical solution to the issue at hand is paramount.
I'm glad to hear that the DNC is taking a stance & will NEVER again punish elected officials like AOC & Bernie who aided in raising funds for primaries in safe districts for more representative officials. That also means I would expect that the DNC will not take a stance on political speech like AIPAC either.
We ought to overturn Citizens United. Then we wouldn't have this conundrum.
If David Hogg is to be the Democratic Party Vice Chair, he must abide by party policy. Chilling to think he could someday be our chair and run the party like a tyrant, choosing our candidates. I like David and applaud his activism, but his inexperience in life is a threat to our party. United We Stand Divided We Fall.
So we can only count on the Dems to ensure a fair primary when we all know that voting manipulations are a serious detriment to our free and fair elections. This is like telling us that we must do it ourselves. Gee, thanks.
Very well said, Mr. Martin. I'm not as informed as I'd like to be on what might be differences between you and Mr. Hogg, but I couldn't agree more with the spirit of your point. There is a little pause over having trust in the electorate (citizens/voters), as it is clear from the 2024 results how poorly they can perform and the general lack of long term, strategic decision making.
Since David Hogg will most likely not be allowed to stay after a new vote, he should focus on building up his Alternative fundraising platform which backs only fighters!
The DNC is so entrenched with their complacent incumbents controlled by their funders.
While Leaders We Deserve’s mission may seem ageist, the outcomes could be that we get fighters in office. However the “age” messaging sets a bad precedent. They need to tweak that messaging eventually after they catch on with more young folks.
We have to also acknowledge that Washington has been ageist against young leaders, keeping them out until incumbents die or are replaced by others anointed by the DNC who abides by funders’ requests.
This cycle has kept us stuck with those who don’t do much or worse, incumbents who vote for legislation against the interests of the masses.
For me, the choice of the word neutrality is not a helpful one. You’re talking about fairness and inclusiveness. These two words have a much more positive ring to me than the word neutrality. They have a feeling of action, whereas the word neutrality, for me implies in action, passivity.
I can see how passiveness could be perceived from neutrality. Yet, neutrality also speaks to an openness for ideas...ideas that come from anyone, group, organization, etc. This openness is good, to a point. But, at some point there has to be decisions made, on strategies, platform, priorities, etc. That's where neutrality may be difficult to maintain. Also, not everyone has the same means to promote their ideas, or promote them as rigorously. Likely just one of many reasons why fairness and inclusion becomes important. But, neutrality doesn't inhibit this. Also, it may be more strategic to keep certain, more potentially inflammatory, verbiage below the fold into the nearterm while galvanaizing a critical mass to take back this country.
Agree with this.
David hogg represents the fresh blood our party desparetly needs. I am 81 years old, and i conttubute monthly to both his nonprofits. I am retired public policy wonk. He is where we should be.
If you push hm out, you will keep us without new support.
Mr. Martin shared that he has a deep respect for Mr. Hogg. We can only hope that the feeling is mutual and that these two gentlemen can get past their differences and figure out how to move forward and help us right the ship.
He is not being pushed out...he can stay in the Dem Party...but if he is a member of the DNC Leadership...then he must sign the Neutrality clause...he can promote whom ever he chooses...but NOT as the vice chair of the DNC...this should not be hard to understand...and it seems right to me..in addition...it bothers me that he has made this all about what he wants...
I am 81 too and I have also contributed to David Hogg's group. I want to see young people come in and be candidates and active in the Democratic party. But I find his recent pronouncements to be ageist.
I agree that we have had some unfortunate cases of people hanging on too long. (Diane Feinstein was a terrible example), but the responsibility for such cases should rest with friends and close associates in making people behave responsibly.
I'd like to see him stay in the DNC, stay active, continue to be the strong voice that he is. But I'm not going to contribute to him any more until he drops this stance of running candidates in a primary, against a sitting Democratic incumbent. He appears to be putting himself into the position of making the decision of who can run. Will he make senior Dems obligated to explain that they are still competent in spite of age?
I believe his PAC is providing funding support to newer candidates who want to run against an incumbent who has not risen to this moment appropriately. It’s still a free country last I checked. If someone wants to run a primary campaign against a democrat in a “safe” seat who did not meet their constituents expectations, why shouldn’t they? And why shouldn’t his PAC support them? It’s a vote. If the incumbent did well, they will move onto the general election. If they didn’t (ahem Schumer) they won’t. That’s the way our system works. Do I have my facts wrong?
no one is saying that he cannot do that...but he cannot do that as vice chair of the DNC...the leadership must remain neutral...hence the neutrality agreement
Yes, his PAC can support anyone he likes. But he doesn't get any more contributions from me if that is his position. It makes me sad. I liked what he was trying to do.
Another issue is that as an official with the DNC, he has certain obligations. I am still angry with the Debbie person who used to be a DNC official and who blocked Bernie from using his delegates.
Agree with you
That is how I understand the system. I am not against age or experience. but I was so upset by Diane Feinstein. Look at Jeffries--pretty ineffective and not that old. We need people like Chris Murphy and Jamie Raskin and they aren't old. Shumer on the other hand....Nevertheless, I do think it is time for age limits and term limits too. How many over 70's know and understand what an influencer is? Just wondering.
Completely agree, like it or not, age makes a difference. We need new younger folks willing to fight and not just write sternly worded letters and wait for midterms. They need to get off their asses or get out of the way!
And it just occurred to me that it’s kinda working already. House democrats are being threatened with arrest for protesting ICE at the facility where the Newark mayor got arrested. Glad to see them protesting! About time they joined us in the streets! We’ve seen the fear that being “primaried” strikes in Republican hearts; apparently our Dems have the same fear.
Good!
I am 79 and I actually agree with David Hogg that we need more younger people. We need to be training younger people and give them a chance, experience and get rid of some do nothings who are just hanging on. What we need is to bring down the average age so we can have a mix of ages experience and wisdom. How many of those >70 yo understand AI, social media campaigning, etc. The future is coming faster than many over 70 cannot comprehend or keep up with. Who was it several years ago that thought the internet was a bunch of pipes connecting it all together? I am not ageist, just realistic.
Young people have good ideas, too. We need a mix of ages and some do hang on too long. Term limits anybody? Including SCOTUS
Term limits gor supreme court and legislative leaders and keeping the presidential ones would help ensure fresh leadership, new ideas, and divetsity, while contunuing to provide avenues for experience.
Term limits are better than artificial age limits
I'm happy to say that I keep up with my reading and have been on social media since the late 1990s. I agree that we need to have a mix of ages, but not because of tech issues. The future is certainly alarming but an understanding of the past is also important. We have a lot of very scary echoes today. What I object to is the idea of running against an incumbent because of their age, regardless of their capabilities.
I do want to see new (young) people coming in, but let them get a little seasoned before they want to captain the boat.
What I really dislike is crony politics. That is probably the cause of Biden's running for a second term. I'm guessing no one wanted to say no to him.
Biden contributed with our election loss. What do we do when someone is too old and won't let go?
His staff and his friends let us down. Check the Vanity Fair article.
https://open.substack.com/pub/08181920/p/worst-play-yet-dnc?r=27khcw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
https://open.substack.com/pub/08181920/p/worst-play-yet-dnc?r=27khcw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Completely agree!
I think neutrality is more important than anything and this idea needs to be enshrined into the party’s bylaws. If Mr. Hogg can’t abide by the rules then he needs to resign. Full stop. Does anyone remember the talk about superdelegates during the Hillary campaign and the talk about party insiders putting her over the top? If we are going to stand for fairness, then we need to adhere to our own principles.
If a candidate is so good, they will prevail in a primary anyway. That’s my two cents as a long time volunteer and party activist.
Free speech form Dems, too.
yep.
https://open.substack.com/pub/08181920/p/worst-play-yet-dnc?r=27khcw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Yep
This is not about David Hogg...or agreeing that more young people need to be elected. This is about a rule of the DNC ensuring all officers remain neutral in D or D primaries whether that is for President or other down ballot races. That is needed to earn trust of voters and for voters to decide who our nominees are NOT party officers.
The democratic committees actually often help incumbents. Bit if hypocracy here
This. Exactly. As a veteran of MANY CAMPAIGNS, they always endorse without publicizing. Martin is lying. I have seen it first hand. They are not neutral.
https://open.substack.com/pub/08181920/p/worst-play-yet-dnc?r=27khcw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Good points, all. This note is sadly necessary because of past favoritism. I'm unaware of Hogg's dissent. This whole thing seems like airing dirty laundry. How about a joint statement that conveys unity. In the meantime, is DNC aware of how desperately we need to replace the old timers? (Chuck, et al.) The status quo is what got us to this sorry place.
I agree with the concept of neutrality you explained. And I appreciate your taking time to explain it so thoroughly. I also think the work David Hogg is doing getting younger people into office is important . It’s just not compatible with the job he’s taken at the DNC. Hopefully he can understand that and choose between running his PAC, doing that work - or working for the DNC. It will say a lot about his character and intentions if he can make that choice and not do it in a destructive and divisive way. That’s the last thing our party needs at this point. What is the mechanism for getting him to make that choice? With thanks for the work you’re doing for our party and for our country.
I agree with your rationality Alexandra, and with this position taken by Ken and the DNC. This is not the time for more inner turmoil, we need a unified front to get through this mess and save our democracy. I believe it was too soon to bring David Hogg into such an important role, and recognize my opinion is likely not very popular. I met him briefly when he spoke at a local event a year ago. He was arrogant, a little rude and not prepared, again another unpopular opinion. I admire all he is doing and absolutely believe he is the future, however a bit more maturity is necessary to understand We the People, means all of us, young and old.
Least you understand that lots don’t see the problem
Neutrality is the banner we should rally behind while fascists are torching the Constitution and kicking down the door with steel-toed boots‽‽‽
Let me say this plainly, neutrality in the face of injustice is complicity. And neutrality inside a party system during an existential crisis‽‽ That’s not principle. That’s cowardice dressed up in a press release.
This self-congratulatory ode to “process” is the sort of empty proceduralism that gives the Right a five-lap head start while Democrats are still holding a damn feelings circle about Robert’s Rules. He wants a gold star for saying party officials shouldn’t rig primaries‽ Congratulations, Ken, that’s the bare minimum. Meanwhile, the actual work of power; movement-building, youth organizing, challenging incumbents who vote like Blue Dogs but fundraise like oligarchs, is being stiff-armed behind closed doors by the very same people who clutch their pearls about “decorum” while our rights are being strip-mined.
Let’s talk realpolitik. When a 24-year-old like David Hogg shows up with fire in his belly and a base behind him, the party should feel the heat. That’s not “disruption,” that’s vitality. That’s democracy breathing through a clenched jaw. Neutrality in this context isn’t just a fig leaf; it’s a flak jacket for incumbents who’ve gotten far too comfortable outsourcing courage to younger generations while hoarding influence like it’s a retirement plan.
If Ken really wants to prove the party “trusts the people,” then trust us to challenge power, not protect it. The enemy isn’t internal competition. It’s inaction, timidity, and the ever-growing chasm between what the base demands and what leadership dares to deliver.
Final blow: You don’t get to quote the party charter about trust while gatekeeping the keys to the damn building.
Neutrality in a party primary is much different than passion in an election. All politics is local. Support whom you want to, but no the party should not choose our candidates: We the party members should.
Yes, “We the party members should choose the candidates.” Agreed. Enthusiastically. But here’s where we diverge: neutrality only means something if the structure of the party actually empowers the members to choose, and not just in theory, but in teeth-baring, power-wielding practice.
Because right now, “neutrality” is too often used as a shield to silence grassroots energy while the donor class still whispers in backroom ears. It’s neutrality for the masses, and access for the insiders. It’s “everyone’s equal” right up until a 20-year incumbent who hasn’t met a fossil fuel he didn’t like gets a quiet boost from a friendly chair who claims to just be ensuring stability.
Neutrality that isn’t enforced with radical transparency, binding rules, and teeth is not neutrality. It’s clerical theater. And when the party refuses to support bold, local primary challenges because they might be “too disruptive” or “too green,” it’s not neutral! It’s calcified.
So yes, all politics is local. But don’t pretend that national party dynamics don’t leak into those local processes like toxic runoff. That’s what we’re pushing back on. Not fairness, we love fairness. We're demanding actual democratic access to the table, not polite invitations to sit quietly at the kids' end while the grownups make the real decisions.
Let the people actually lead. Or stop quoting the charter like it's scripture.
I think what David Hogg is doing by supporting primaries so that elected officials are forced into consistent messaging & accountability instead of being fundraisers with a fancy title is a good thing.
I agree that having the DNC put it's thumb on the scale is a very slippery slope & finding an ethical solution to the issue at hand is paramount.
I'm glad to hear that the DNC is taking a stance & will NEVER again punish elected officials like AOC & Bernie who aided in raising funds for primaries in safe districts for more representative officials. That also means I would expect that the DNC will not take a stance on political speech like AIPAC either.
We ought to overturn Citizens United. Then we wouldn't have this conundrum.
Bingo
If David Hogg is to be the Democratic Party Vice Chair, he must abide by party policy. Chilling to think he could someday be our chair and run the party like a tyrant, choosing our candidates. I like David and applaud his activism, but his inexperience in life is a threat to our party. United We Stand Divided We Fall.
So, many "DEM KAREN" COMMENTS. Ageist. Programmed. Tone deaf.
Yep
And no one is pushing david out hes got a choice be neutral or the committees will take action
You’re not staying neutral by rigging the primaries for corrupt, inept incumbents who also happen to be old, rich and white.
Stop gaslighting us, DNC.
This is healthy discussion
Let's go Dems! We've got fascists to fight.
So we can only count on the Dems to ensure a fair primary when we all know that voting manipulations are a serious detriment to our free and fair elections. This is like telling us that we must do it ourselves. Gee, thanks.
Very well said, Mr. Martin. I'm not as informed as I'd like to be on what might be differences between you and Mr. Hogg, but I couldn't agree more with the spirit of your point. There is a little pause over having trust in the electorate (citizens/voters), as it is clear from the 2024 results how poorly they can perform and the general lack of long term, strategic decision making.
Since David Hogg will most likely not be allowed to stay after a new vote, he should focus on building up his Alternative fundraising platform which backs only fighters!
The DNC is so entrenched with their complacent incumbents controlled by their funders.
While Leaders We Deserve’s mission may seem ageist, the outcomes could be that we get fighters in office. However the “age” messaging sets a bad precedent. They need to tweak that messaging eventually after they catch on with more young folks.
We have to also acknowledge that Washington has been ageist against young leaders, keeping them out until incumbents die or are replaced by others anointed by the DNC who abides by funders’ requests.
This cycle has kept us stuck with those who don’t do much or worse, incumbents who vote for legislation against the interests of the masses.