Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland who is now running to lead the Democratic National Committee, said he disagreed with two top rivals for the chair who have recently claimed the party made a strategic error in refusing to allow a representative of the “Uncommitted” movement to deliver remarks at its convention last summer in Chicago.
“I don’t believe the DNC made a mistake there,” O’Malley told Jewish Insider in an interview on Tuesday. “In fact, I think the DNC accommodated the desire for the uncommitted to have a forum — albeit it wasn’t at the podium or in prime time. But the purpose of the convention was to confirm and support the nominee.”
The issue has been a topic of renewed debate in recent weeks as two state party chairs viewed as leading contenders in the DNC race, Ben Wikler of Wisconsin and Ken Martin of Minnesota, have said that the convention should have allowed a member of the “Uncommitted” movement, which emerged as a protest against President Joe Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war, to speak from the stage of the August nominating convention.
In an interview with JI last month, Wikler suggested that “featuring a voice like” Ruwa Romann, a Palestinian-American state lawmaker from Georgia championed by “Uncommitted” activists but who faced scrutiny over anti-Israel commentary, “would have conveyed the strength and unity of purpose of the Democratic Party.”
Likewise, Martin argued during a candidate forum hosted by Young Democrats of America last month that he believed Romann “should have been allowed to speak at the convention, period,” saying the party “should not be afraid of debate or dissent.”
But O’Malley, a former Baltimore mayor who ran for president in 2016, shared a differing viewpoint, emphasizing that while he is in favor of engaging in debate on hot-button issues such as Middle East policy, he did not feel the convention was a proper venue to air disagreements just before the election.
“We can’t be afraid of dissent, but once we get to the nominating convention, where the purpose is to support our candidate and nominate our candidate and win the election, I think it’s right that the party focus on winning the election — even as we allow for the fact that there will be people who disagree on the issue both before and after the election,” he told JI.
He said it would have been “more unusual for the DNC to give time to people who are not supportive of our candidate at our convention,” calling such a move misguided. “That doesn’t seem to make much sense,” he reasoned.
“I think people forget that there was a forum provided,” he said, referring to a series of panels the DNC granted to “Uncommitted” activists during the convention, even as Vice President Kamala Harris would not accede to their most extreme demands, including an arms embargo on Israel. “I think even the uncommitted said that was a small win of sorts for their ability to have their difference of opinion heard.”
Despite his opposing perspective, O’Malley echoed his leading rivals in otherwise broadly advocating for a “big-tent” approach to addressing ongoing intraparty tensions over Israel, while indicating that he would be a supporter of the Jewish state if elected next month to succeed Jamie Harrison, the outgoing DNC chair.
O’Malley, who stepped down from his position as commissioner of the Social Security Administration in November, pointed to his record as governor of Maryland from 2007 to 2015, when he created a Commission on Middle Eastern American Affairs including Palestinian and Israeli representatives.
“I am very aware of the strengths of both communities, and I think all of us have been distraught over the loss of life on Oct. 7 and also in its aftermath and the struggle that ensued,” he told JI. “Israel, like every other nation, has a right to defend herself, and as a Democratic Party, we need to allow for people of different perspectives on this issue to express their differences of opinion on the right course of American foreign policy under the big tent that is the Democratic Party.”