There is zero chance of either of these happening.
I think it is more likely than that!
It's probably worth remembering that DWS became the head of the DNC in exactly this deal -- it was part of the price of Clinton conceding to Obama. So it's not like there isn't precedent, and again, it's clear exactly how important everybody views the DNC head to be (important enough to be a concession, but not so important that it can't be a concession).
Fuck.�� Tulsi. �� Gabbard. �� You.�� Islamaphobic.�� Homophobe. ��
She has actually reversed her stance on all of her problematic positions.
Sure, maybe she did it for political reasons, but you know who else took homophobic and Islamophobic stances for political reasons and then reversed them later when it was expedient to do so? Because I bet you do!
No way in hell the Hillary people would allow it to be Tulsi. Switching this close to the election is pointless and symbolic. But they will not let a hand-picked Bernie partisan lead the convention.
Why not? Who cares? Hillary will control the convention anyway. Tulsi Gabbard was vice-chair of the DNC. It's not like the party doesn't trust her just because you guys don't trust her!
As to the "we don't negotiate with
terrorists Berners" stuff, I think that's mostly pretty dumb overreaction. Obviously Hillary will give Bernie whatever she can give him that doesn't really matter. Then Bernie can go back and say he got a bunch of stuff and now he trusts Hillary, and everybody's happy. This is not a new idea, it's how we resolved the last like five crises in Congress. This is just sausage making. Hillary's supposed to be good at it.
Trying to crush Bernie and give him NOTHING to prove our power over him is just self-absorption. Always let your opponent lose gracefully, because you have to work with him again in the future.