home

Donna Brazile Needs To Look In The Mirror

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Donna Brazile has been the most divisive and destructive force in the Democratic Party this year. She engineered the Florida/Michigan fiasco, threatened to bolt the Party if the super delegates did not do her bidding and now has taken to publicly smearing the Clinton campaign:

Despite Obama's impressive victories in February, Clinton's comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. "In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever."

. . . "If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate," Brazile said. "But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

(Emphasis supplied.)

Donna Brazile is a disgrace. She has been perhaps the most destructive force in the Democratic Party today. She needs to look in the mirror. Oh by the way, what do you think Brazile will say about this:

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past.

Think Brazile will characterize this as "the politics of personal destruction?" Me neither. Please go away Donna.

< The Will Of The People: The Popular Vote | Working the SNL Refs >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    New Rule (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    IOKIYAO = It's ok if you are Obama

    Well Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:33:35 AM EST
    hasn't linked her with terrorists, drugs, or criminals yet.

    But it appears he may do some of that now.

    "``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.'' "

    source.

    The question is whether the super delegates will let this get too out of hand as they are concerned with November not Hillary or Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Neither has Clinton of Obama (none / 0) (#73)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    1. she never brought up his admitted to drug use

    2. She has never made the "Osama" slip, or the muslim (which does not equate to terrorist) remark, and she has fired those in her campaign that helped spread the specific viral e-mail.

    3. Rezko is not yet a criminal...and yes she did bring that connection up...its just as legitimate as Obama bringing up Hsu, or her tax records. And it is fair. The difference here is Clinton didn't promise to run a "different sort of politics." That was Obama's broken promise, not Clinton's. Its not fair to fault her for playing hardball, when she never said she would not.


    [ Parent ]
    Not tracking (none / 0) (#74)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    Bill Shaheen said the GOP might ask if he was a drug dealer. Penn or Wolfson kept bring up "cocaine".

    I was referring to the weather underground actually.

    It's good to know that you agree that criminal donors are fair game. I imagine that's what's coming next. She has a boatload unfortunately.  

    I haven't seen Obama run on the politics of personal destruction. Perhaps I missed something. Can you be more specific?

    [ Parent ]

    Personal destruction? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    He framed both Clintons as racists based on lies that his campaign manufactured.  You probably still think Hillary made racist remarks about Obama on MLK day and diminished MLK's legacy, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Careful or you might find (none / 0) (#79)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    some of those donors contributed to the Obama Campaign also.

    [ Parent ]
    Hsu certainly (none / 0) (#84)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    did but he didn't come from broke to 50 million in under a decade and Hsu didn't make them rich like that.

    All I see happening is a destruction of their legacy. It's unfortunate since they are so popular.

    [ Parent ]

    You are using Republican Talking Points (none / 0) (#86)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    they tried it in the 90's and your doing again.

    [ Parent ]
    who? (none / 0) (#90)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    what Republican talking point?

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see (none / 0) (#101)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
    It's good to know that you agree that criminal donors are fair game. I imagine that's what's coming next. She has a boatload unfortunately.   that's one

    and making it sound that they have made 50 millions is somewhat proof that they did something illegal.

    Of course the "unfortunately" and the reference to their Legacy and how sad it is to destroy make it sound like you really care about her.

    [ Parent ]

    I care about the party. Not any individual. (none / 0) (#124)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:03:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right and your attacking the Clintons (none / 0) (#131)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    honesty helps how?

    [ Parent ]
    Then you should (none / 0) (#132)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    be interested in the fact that Obama seems to be faltering under mild press scrutiny, and seems unable to handle a press conference where ther are some tough questions.

    Supporting the party may mean that you have to support the person who seems to thrive under negative press scrutiny, even win.

    [ Parent ]

    More important specifically to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    is the fact that he is winning not the Democratic base, but the independents and Republicans...this is a Democratic primary...and one would thing that supporting the Democratic party would mean empowering Democrats.

    there are upsides and downsides to each candidate, but the problem here lies in the fact that these "cross over" votes don't count for a hill of beans in the GE. It is possible that they could cross BACK over...and what we get stuck with is a nominee who didn't have the support of his party's base, and his own base splintered just enough (or a lot) for him to lose the GE...that is a possibly a real problem...not only will we lose, but we'll hurt the party 100X more  because the party won't have selected him.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#151)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    Obama courted Hsu also and I believe took money from him.

    [ Parent ]
    David Axelrod has used the word (none / 0) (#88)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    cocaine too---he even said Obama was using when he was 20, which doesn't sound like the "teens" that Obama mentions in his book.
    Is Axelrod a Republican attack dog too?

    [ Parent ]
    Did he ask if Obama would be (none / 0) (#91)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    questioned about being a drug dealer?

    [ Parent ]
    Penn was attacked for using the (none / 0) (#98)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    word "cocaine", which was preposterous.
    Shaheen was correct, of course, but nobody likes a prophet.


    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#97)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    I AM making a distinction between surrogates and candidates themselves. As for campaign workers, then yes, Wolfson and Penn have both mentioned the drugs (again which Obama actually admitted to experimenting with), but that goes both ways; Jesse Jackson Jr. in the same breath being misogynistic AND bring racial issue into the race for example of campaign workers, or McClurken as an example of surrogates...so this does cut both ways; it is hardball politics.

    I hope weather underground isn't an issue, its really not worth being one...even criminals can support candidates if they so desire, i think we really need to get over the whole "you took money from a criminal" bunk...who cares, in America everyone has a voice...that said, it is fair game to point them out (on both sides).

    Up to this point, I actually don't think EITHER candidate has run personal destruction politics. I think it has been a real cakewalk compared to what we expect in the GE. But they both have taken it to each other on the differences, and the issue they are passionate about...so I think often we see that passion, or see the starker differences and call it something that it is not. If Hillary has a strength that is a weakness for Barak, it is not negative to point it out. She does have foreign policy and national security bona fides that Barak does not have...just as he has a message that excites and seems to empower a large number of people...she doesn't have that...it is fair game to show those contrasts (and others)...and it is FAR from the politics of personal destruction to do so.

    Pointing out Rezko (or Hsu) also doesn't fall into personal destruction, in both cases (and in the tax return case) they are asking for clarity, they are not making sweeping accusations. This race so far has been "civil" hardball. Fine with me. Barak just needs to be able to take a bean-ball, and then stand back up and hit a double.

    [ Parent ]

    okay. Fair enough (none / 0) (#107)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    so what examples can you give me showing that Obama has played the politics of personal destruction?

    [ Parent ]
    Re-read my above (none / 0) (#112)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    Up to this point, I actually don't think EITHER candidate has run personal destruction politics.


    [ Parent ]
    Well I think the slumlord comment (none / 0) (#116)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    fits since it was factually misleading, and intended as simply a smear.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it even possible (none / 0) (#119)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    to smear Rezco? Isn't he his own built in smear already?

    [ Parent ]
    go read up on ryan in the (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    senate race. just where did the info on his divorce get released? huh? who profited? obama

    [ Parent ]
    That's ridiculous! (none / 0) (#156)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:11:24 PM EST
    Penn didn't bring it up.  He was in an interview about this very subject, and so in his reply to a question about this word, he mentioned the word again, and Joe Trippi got all excited.

    I don't think I can find the excellent video shortly after that fiasco. It was on hardball, and a congressman was representing Clinton camp.  Matthews kept baiting him, and saying Penn has mentioned cocaine, and the congressman was saying (paraphrasing from memory), "Penn was asked about the topic you mentioned, and in his reply he mentioned that topic.  And I can't mention that topic you are talking about, for fear that I will be accused of mentioning that which you have mentioned."  I wish I could find it.  It was classic, like a SNL sketch.
     

    [ Parent ]

    And she only brought up Rezko in reply (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    to Obama going on attack first in their debates. He really ought to have learned a lesson from that.

    [ Parent ]
    On attack about what? I don't recall (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    As far as lessons go, I'm sure he's learned that going negative works and he's going to vet her as much as he needs to I guess.

    She has a whole closet full of new skeletons now. So far he's been unwilling to hit her with them but it sounds like they will now.

    As far as the GE goes (my only concern) that will finish her and he'll still be able to beat McCain (they have similar negatives).

    [ Parent ]

    His attack that she (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    had connections to Wal-Mart. You could look it up.

    [ Parent ]
    He attacked her for sitting (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by vicsan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    on the Board of Walmart YEARS ago. After he did that, she threw Rezko in his face and he deserved it, I might add.

    [ Parent ]
    but she did.Wal-Mart is a scummy company (none / 0) (#103)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    and was when she was on the board. do we agree on that?

    I have not seen any indication that when he did his work as an associate attorney Rezko was known to be trouble.

    So she attempted to deflect the truth with a misleading statement that implied a) Obama did substantive work for Rezko and b) this work was done when it was known that Rezko was trouble.

    [ Parent ]

    No but his Finance Director Penny Pritzker (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    was part of the Sub-prime loans situation and I would not blame Obama for the Housing problem.  Or accuse him of being in cahoots with an alleged  predatory lender.

    [ Parent ]
    What part of the sub-prime loan situation? (none / 0) (#125)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    Was she on the board of a company that was engaged in predatory lending the same way that Sen. Clinton was part of a company engaged in the union busting?

    I love that "Democrats" have been reduced to defending Walmart.

    [ Parent ]

    Hold On... (none / 0) (#118)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Clinton sat on the board of an Arkansas-based company from 1986-1992, LONG before people thought of it as "scummy."  Meanwhile, Michelle Obama was a paid board member for a company that is one of the main suppliers of petfood to Wal-Mart until 2007, when she realized it might look unseemly that she was on that board while her husband was joining the anti-Wal-Mart campaign.

    And Rezko WAS a slumlord - that is pretty much accepted fact.  You think Obama didn't know that?  Huh - sounds like a question of judgment to me, then.

    [ Parent ]

    What? Walmart wasn't thought of as (none / 0) (#122)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    scummy between 1986 & 1992? I think that's incorrect.

    As far as the pet food supplier for Walmart that's quite the tenuous connection.

    Walmart has many products.

    When was Rezko shown to be a slumlord vs. being into real estate?


    [ Parent ]

    Evidently, (none / 0) (#135)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    Michelle Obama would disagree with you since she left the company PRECISELY because of its connections to Wal-Mart.

    Have you actually been following any of the Rezko story?  If so, I'm not sure how you could have missed the whole "slumlord" piece.

    I sure don't remember Wal-Mart having the same negatives then that it does now.  If you have some facts that prove me wrong, I'd be happy to take a look.  As far as I recall, though, they certainly did not have the same kind of reputation in terms of goods sold or treatment of employees that they do now.

    [ Parent ]

    This is very true (none / 0) (#148)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    This period of time K-Mart was the 800 lbs gorilla...

    [ Parent ]
    Wal Mart (none / 0) (#139)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    did not have that rep when Hil was on the board and she prompted them to change for the better.  

    [ Parent ]
    And Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by Fredster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    is/was on the board of a company that is a supplier to Wal-Mart so that's bad too, right?

    Drive by any Wal-Mart on a Friday night and check the parking lot.  It is jammed! As much as I hate that they buy a shit-load of goods from China they aren't the only ones.  Would I want to work there?  No.  Do I/have I shopped there?  Yes.

    [ Parent ]

    honestly, i can't criticize hillary (none / 0) (#160)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    for walmart without being a raging hypocrite, because i've shopped there.  of course i'm not proud of it, but it's true.

    [ Parent ]
    A mixed bag... (none / 0) (#153)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    First of all, I'm not saying Walmart was completely clean, but from the NY Times

    "Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart's only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business." "On other topics, like Wal-Mart's vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said."

    But, "On other topics, like Wal-Mart's vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said."

    Of course, it was a bit disingenuous for Obama to bring up Wal-Mart, since his wife sat on the board of TreeHouse foods, a large vendor of Wal-Mart (and where he only stopped shopping after he decided to run for POTUS), and where she voted to close a pickle plant in California that put about 150 people (mostly Latinos) out of low-paying jobs and moved those jobs to Mexico.

    [ Parent ]

    I loved that! (none / 0) (#157)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:16:16 PM EST
    She was attacked on Walmart.  Obama said he was so selfless, and doing community organizing when she was on the board of walmart.  Big mistake.

    Hillary got mad!  I could see that she was p&*ed, and she brought Rezko up with a "so, there" attitude.  

    [ Parent ]

    I guess this means the 3AM ad (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    wasn't about issues, but was the "politics of personal destruction" right?

    The media and Obama's campaign keep calling it "negative" campaigning, when in reality, all it did was attempt to show HRC in a positive light in terms of NS.

    So...HRC can't make an issues ad that is favorable to her without it being called negative...so how is she supposed to win this thing?

    He Can't Handle It (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    If Obama can't handle a race against Clinton - he's supposed to go up against McCain and bin Laden?  Give me a break.

    Obama should stop whining about how difficult politics is.  And his snarling news conference the other day was eerily reminiscent of Bush.

    And - enough of the "kitchen sink" meme.  It's called issues.  Deal with it.

    [ Parent ]

    The Kitchen Sink thing (none / 0) (#55)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    first came from HRC's camp, right?  Can't really blame that on Obama
    Also, the 3am ad was an attack ad.  That's okay but let's be honest.  If she wants to say she's more experienced, that's fine but the footage looks like an ad for a home security system.  You could easily replace your children are asleep but "something's happened in the world" with "but there's a prowler at your door."  Who do you want answering that phone?  BHO or Brinks Home Security...I mean Hillary Clinton.
    And, yes, Brazile is awful, awful, awful.

    [ Parent ]
    Please explain how it is an attack ad (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:01:01 PM EST
    rather than an advocacy ad.

    By your definition anything that contrasts Hillary positively, MUST contrast negatively on BO. And therefore any positive ad about Hillary's strengths will be an attack ad.

    So again, I ask, what kind of ad can she run about the issues, that people will not charge her with being negative? How can she draw contrast without being said to have attacked? How can she win? These rules make it impossible for her to do anything to advance her candidacy without being smacked down.

    Is she supposed to say something nice about Obama before she touts her strengths? That is rediculous
    ...no other campaign in my life time (or probably over the last century or more) has had some rule like that. "You can't say anything nice about yourself, without complementing "Bob" here." These are kindergarten rules, and if Obama NEEDS these rules to win/run then he will be 1) a disaster as a candidate, 2) a disaster as a president (the world, life in general, does not play by kindergarten rules).

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#96)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    It shows sleeping children (playing on our fears RE: a terrorist attack), looks exactly like a Brinks Home Security ad (dark house, children in danger), and many have said that it's the most negative ad they've seen in a dem primary since Mondale's.  Also, an issues ad?  Really?  Even Jon Stewart, who is pretty equal opportunity when it comes to calling out political sillines, laughed about the "something's happened in the world" line.  If Obama had run a similar ad you'd be going nuts.  I'm just saying that, hey, it's an attack ad.  The dem nominee will face much worse in the general election.  Let's just not pretend that by showing us a dark house and referencing a vaugue threat to the country she was simply trying to point out contrasts.  That's stretching.
    No one wants her to play by kindergarten rules...we just don't want her to play by republican rules.    

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#100)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    I believe I already outlined how she could contrast herself positively without going "wolves in the forest" on us.  Just run an ad highlighting her vast experience.  Leave the sleeping children and the scary, dark house out of it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#109)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    and I'll leave it at that

    [ Parent ]
    "many have said"? (none / 0) (#159)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    doesn't mean much if you're talking about the punditocracy.  political commentary has been a bit skewed this election cycle, in case you haven't noticed.  and while i love jon stewart, i stopped watching him a while back when i realized he was in the tank for obama.  if you can't see this, then i don't know what to tell you.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (none / 0) (#163)
    by sas on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:47:42 PM EST
    can't make you afraid.

    It has to come from inside you.  If the ad affected you, then you are someone who is, or can be afraid.

    It didn't affect me in that way.  I thought it was pointing out that she was someone you could count on in a crisis.

    I didn't think it was at all negative either.
    I think the negativity comes from the beholder.  I looked at it as a positive for her.

    [ Parent ]

    Hahaha (none / 0) (#165)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    So, the GWB "wolves" ad made people afraid because it came from inside of them?  It wasn't an attack ad?  You'll concede that point?  And, yes, I am someone who "can be afraid."  I guess you, somehow, are incapable of fear?  
    If your response is a joke, it's brilliant.  Otherwise...


    [ Parent ]
    Hold On Hold On (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    she also was the first to attack Bill Clinton and engaged Clyburn if you recall. But overall I agree and if I were a Dem I would want her to resign effective today lots of the unflatterning drama coming

    What irks me is her little act.... (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:09:41 AM EST
    ...how she keeps pretending to be an undecided super delegate. Sorry Donna, we don't buy it.

    She has a lot of power from her (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:13:18 AM EST
    podium on TV to lobby the super-ds.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (none / 0) (#13)
    by S1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    I don't think anybody in the party takes her seriously -- if they did, she'd have a job in Obama's or somebody's campaign, instead of having to get gigs on TV.


    [ Parent ]
    Who's to say where she'd have (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    more influence though.  TV pundit or "being Axelrod."  Interesting to speculate though.  No channeling of Deval Patrick maybe.

    [ Parent ]
    I have no problem with someone going (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    public with their support for a candidate, and would, in fact, prefer that kind of honesty from Brazile so that when someone from NBC or ABC puts a mic on her, we can take what she says with a few grains of salt.  Or a whole shakerful.

    Something is clearly off the tracks at the DNC, when someone who is on the DNC rules committee can announce that she will quit the party if things do not come out as she would like them to; I see this as a failure of Dean's leadership that he has not been able to manage the DNC message, and I see it also as turning the DNC into an organization that people will believe cannot be trusted to manage party business in an impartial manner.  With Brazile constantly on the TV, it may already be too late.

    As for the "politics of personal destruction," OMFG.  Apparently, raising anything substantive qualifies as engaging in dirty politics and smear tactics.  Part of the problem is that, because the media doesn't seem particularly interested in working for a living, the issues that get raised and the questions that get asked have to come from the Clinton campaign, and as soon as it does, it all gets painted with the "politics of personal destruction" brush, which the media then uses as a way to continue to justify their not covering the issues.  No, no - they can't go "there," although they do seem to like asking Obama how he feels about being a victim.  Poor guy.

    And Brazile buys into all of it, making her the last person who should be speaking for the DNC.


    [ Parent ]

    I Agree (none / 0) (#123)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    And have written the DNC urging them to relieve her of her duties.  She seems to beworking for the RNC, not the DNC, in her attacks of not only a frontrunner in this race, but an important member of the US Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    I must live in a dream world. I stayed up (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    until 4:30 looking for TX caucus results and flipping channels. Every talking head was talking about how the Clintons have thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and that it will get nastier. They said Obama can't go negative without ruining his uniter image. Can't go negative? I've seen plenty of it, from mailers to his surrogates with their slams and threats.

    The worm really did turn between (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    midnight and early morning.  AP this morning barely acknowledged HRC won Ohio and TX primaries.

    [ Parent ]


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe HRC's campaign figured (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:17:49 AM EST
    out how to handle caucuses afterall.

    [ Parent ]
    They always knew how to ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:02:42 AM EST
    it's a question of money and organization.  You really can game caucuses.

    They essentially ceded then on Super Tuesday.

    That's a mistake no Democratic presidential candidate will ever make again.

    [ Parent ]

    That number hasn't budged for hours (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    now, almost 12 hours now -- anyone know why not? Don't the caucuses have to report results by now? Or are they waiting for orders from Donna "Mau Mau" Brazille as to what results are supposed to be?

    [ Parent ]
    AP this a.m. stated counting will (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    resume this a.m.

    Same article sd. HRC was asked on the Early Show about a joint ticket.  She sd., that may be where this is headed, but, of course, HRC/Obama.  

    [ Parent ]

    You don't read this site anymore (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:33:32 AM EST
    do you?

    [ Parent ]
    Ha. As soon as I scrolled (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    down to your earlier post I knew I'd blown it. Always start with the earliest post and read all links before commenting.

    [ Parent ]
    Mau Mau.. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    I sort of worry about using that term, I know the meaning here, but it was also the nationalist movement in Kenya in the early 60's.  Sort of violent.  

    [ Parent ]
    Actually MAU Mau's are an African Nation or (none / 0) (#31)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    tribe a term which I dislike

    [ Parent ]
    Movement (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    The name is foremost associated with the anti British colonialism movement, started in the 50s into the 60's.  They were very effective.  

    [ Parent ]
    Truly that kitchen sink thing spread... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    ...like wildfire on MSNBC. My first instinct was to think there was somthing sexist behind it, but I am trying hard to reject kneejerk reactions so I decided to do a little research into the origins of the phrase. The consensus seems to be the following:

    Example 1) Everything but the kitchen sink - comes from World War Two when everything possible was used to contribute to the war effort...all metal was used for the U.S arsenal. The only objects left out were porcelain kitchen sinks. (link)

    Example 2) This expression was born in the early 20th century and became popular after World War II (the late 1940s). The kitchen sink is heavy, connected to pipes and usually bolted down, so it's not easily movable. But if you took everything but the kitchen sink, you'd be taking virtually all there was. (link)

    Although Wiki does also say that "Kitchen Sink Politics" refers to a comprehensive and aggressive attack strategy against an opponent. (Link)

    So, I guess the last meaning is what Tweety et al had in mind although I think I prefer the original meaning.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by S1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    Thank you for letting me know I'm not the first person to find her increasingly tiresome. And, yes, of late she's moved into rank hostility that benefits nobody but her.

    She's been on TV since 2000, mostly trying to get herself a new job with a campaign. That certainly hasn't gone well, has it?

    But she is very definitely getting into party-harming territory. Somebody needs to tell her to shut up or, failing that, point out yet again which candidate is winning the big blue states (you know, the ones where lots of Democrats live and vote).


    RECALL PLEASE (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    Every time Clinton wins an Obama surrogate comes out the next morning and smears her on tactic as picking on Obama the victim then Tweety et al can say the B is at it again the terrible vicious B and her terrible vicious husband it's a political stunt.  This is just one of those tactics so you talk Poor O instead Go Hillary, Donna should be ignored shes a DNC embarrassment she should just resign and admit she is for Obama and award her delegate status which I would guess this is about the mean bad Hill and Bill made me do it.

    This stuff has the makings of destroying the Party.


    Donna Brazile Might Win The Nomination For Obama (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    with these tactics but will she lose the war for him in the GE.

    Donna's history (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    On October 20, 1988, she made news by telling a group of reporters that George H.W. Bush needed to "'fess up" about unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair. Said Brazile, ""The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House."[2] The Dukakis campaign immediately disavowed her remarks and, at the suggestion of campaign manager Susan Estrich, Brazile resigned the same day
     Remember this?  Wikipedia

    Reverse racism and sexism. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:18:28 AM EST
    That's what's dividing the Democrats.

    Donna and Dean.

    Well, BTD - (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:25:51 AM EST
    You speak for me, too.  The few times I have seen her on CNN, I was shocked by what was coming out of her mouth.

    And I am SICK AND TIRED of everything Clinton does being labeled NEGATIVE while Obama has attacked her in speeches for MONTHS now, raising the antagonism against her AND her supporters while SHE is called to task for splitting the party, and NEVER being challenged for his boorish, unsportsmanlike behavior when he loses, not to mention the unsavory tactics which he employs!  The media concoted her "inevitability" thing, but HE acts like he is the heir apparent.  In other words, he has bought into his own hype.  People like Brazille just make it worse.

    Frankly, I simply do not understand how she has this much power.  I have never been much impressed by her.  I think BTD has hit the nail on the head!

    [ Parent ]

    I fear you are correct (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM EST

    but it could also trigger something good if women are marginalized again disfranchised by Dem Party male elders, women again may well bolt the Party and become a independent political force that tempers the Party's strangle hold on nominees.  And Personally I would love to see women join forces not divided by one issue, in 2004 they were 54 percent of the electorate, 51 percent going with Dems, imagine any Party any Candidate that could galvanize and solidify the women's vote, if like black voters women choose to vote for someone like themselves after a 230 years of males, so some good for the process is in these group manipulations.  At the least the DNC should realize they are under represented in the voice of white women and their issues and acknowledge their are differences in these community and group grievances.  Basic's like running a candidate to attract male who uses dismissive comments targeted at the female in the race may offend women, HELLO.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm with you. (none / 0) (#164)
    by sas on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:58:36 PM EST
    I'm ready to bolt this party.

    The DNC has so totally screwed up this entire  process.  I have no respect for Dean, Brazile, etc., nor their leadership.

    All this BS about you can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
    I am fine with that, but I get the suspicion that they ARE going to change the rules because this is SO screwed up.

    [ Parent ]

    "unity"=racism (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    We see now what a lie the unification/hope thing always was.

    Unacceptable and Damaging to the Party (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    She's free to support Obama, but if she wants to peddle his talking points she needs not be part of the DNC.

    I'm writing to complain.  

    As should every dem should both CNN and he DNC (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Yelled HA! at My Screen (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    When CNN said she had not endorsed anyone.  It's ridiculous that simply because she hasn't formally endorsed anyone that she's allowed to portray herself as neutral.  She's not.  And, again, she doesn't have to be, but if she wants to advocate for her candidate, she needs to identify herself as his supporter and resign from any decision-making position at the DNC.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, I just wrote too (none / 0) (#59)
    by Polkan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:21:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Got the email or address (none / 0) (#120)
    by mexboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    I too am fed up with her c*@p, and would like to send Dean a nice little email.

    [ Parent ]
    Go To: (none / 0) (#130)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    dnc.org, and hit the Contact button.  There are several options (like donations or issues, etc.), and one general-type link.  That's the one I used.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#145)
    by mexboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I will be dropping them a civil yet stern letter about this.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for You! (none / 0) (#149)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    They need to hear from the base abt who they have to represent them nationally.

    [ Parent ]
    Big Mistake (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:28:46 AM EST
    ...."Some superdelegates are bracing themselves to intervene on Obama's behalf if necessary."

    from the article, if Party leaders are arrogant enough to further disenfranchise voters with an anti Clinton anti female power play and cloak themselves in denial about the flaws of their Kennedy anointed heir they will lose come Nov and I personally without reservation will not vote for the Party nominee.

    Again this is an attack by an Obama surrogate one intended to inflame and rally party activist and favorable anti B press again.  Now we folks are talking about poor O and not Hillarys amazing comeback her wins.  I would say the party may have victim hooks built into their subconscious all these identity group grievances being played by political operatives that know exactly what they are doing. If Al Gore comes out for Obama I will be very disappointed I for one am not falling for this manufactured ruse of a smear against Senator Clinton her tactics unlike Obamas have been above reproach, isn't it he that said she would say anything to be President what was that a compliment I hate victimhood.


    Mass. Appeal (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    Would that be Ted, Kerry and Deval - who lost their state for their own candidate?  I'm waiting to see them jump to Hillary.

    Where's the Mass. exodus to Hillary?

    [ Parent ]

    why? (none / 0) (#53)
    by myed2x on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    She barely pulled out Texas, her supposed firewall from a mere 2 or 3 weeks ago - which by the way, she had a 20 point lead at one time, she focused all of her efforts there and scraped out a statistical tie...she isn't really too inspiring except to those that hope she can make a comeback, (ie most of the individuals that frequent here)...

    ...additionally, if I'm not mistaken she had a sizable lead in Ohio at one time as well which was also chipped away at by OB.

    If you look at the numbers from an impartial standpoint you'd understand why there is no stampede to her side...yet.

    [ Parent ]

    IF he had MO (none / 0) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    why did he not trounce her?  Why is she not toast?  I guess the just does not have "it".  

    [ Parent ]
    your (none / 0) (#61)
    by myed2x on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    spinning the spin....

    numerically speaking in an impartial manner her numbers declined from a few weeks ago in these much vaunted two states, throw in her firewall strategy and it just isn't that impressive...she hung on, and kudos to her for doing that...I am merely postulating my theory on why there has not been a mass exodus to her side.

    [ Parent ]

    Did he trounce her? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    No.  Is she gone?  No.  He did not have momentum, not spinning anything, I call it like I see it.  Face it, lots of voters, half in the Dem primaries, do not vote for Obama.  You are spinning spin.  

    [ Parent ]
    Mr. Hope outspent Hillary 3:1. (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicsan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    and 4:1 in Vermont. He should have wiped the floor with her, but didn't because he CAN'T. If he can spend that kind of money and still lose...HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

    [ Parent ]
    I suppose if you ignore the fact (none / 0) (#111)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    that she is the highest profile Democrat in the nation you could come to that conclusion

    [ Parent ]
    Denial, she won she won big and she wins where it (none / 0) (#147)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST

    matters to a Dem Presidency CONGRATUALTIONS DEMS and Women many who crossed over in Ohio to vote for Hillary.  The Tweety love feast tingling up my leg its over, Axelrods inside press advantaged toast it was the Chicago Tribune coming after the belated Obama Rezko questioning and calling him of the ruse of openness on the Home purchase.  Obama won only 5 counties in Ohio a need to win State, Senator Clinton won 82 there is a delectability issue with Obama and wait till we get to even more conservative anti liberal non messianic PA.  And the B stories Hillary is picking on Obama not working, Hillary ate my home work also not working, Hillary set me up on this not working pro Clinton and Republicans are not buying any and the MSNBC line up silly punditry starting with Alter fodder for the late night comics their creditability in shreds, which should actually give us a all a good tingling up the leg.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think (none / 0) (#154)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:33:10 PM EST
    That argument about HRC having more name recognition plays anymore.  If someone hasn't heard of BO by now, they've been in a coma or living in a cave.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly. (none / 0) (#161)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:06:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Are some these ones who left their own state (none / 0) (#44)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:53:28 AM EST
    and went to California to try and intervene there too? The ones who couldn't even control the will of the people in their own states?

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM EST
    was on CNN the other night bashing the dickens out of the Clinton campaign and then ended her little monologue by saying "but I'm neutral, of course."

    To borrow a phrase from my favorite columnist ever, Molly Ivins, I was just goshwoggled.

    Do these people really think we, the viewers, are that stupid? (Never mind, of course they do.)

    to digest.

    First she distorted Bill's fairy tale remarks on CNN on election night in New Hampshire. His remarks were in-fact accurate in regards to comparing Barack Obama anti-war speech in 2002 in a reliably safe one party Democratic district outside Chicago to his change in rhetoric when he began running statewide a year later and to his actual votes when arriving in the Senate.  

    Now after Barack Obama was able to successfully exploit negative perceptions of Hillary Clinton for the last six months, she is basically saying Hillary Clinton is not allowed to do the same.

    Barack exploited perceptions about Hillary's character and her tendency to polarize. First of all, she has never been found guilty of any wrongdoing in a court of law. Secondly,Hillary has actually become goods friends with some of the same senators who tried to impeach her husband, and in fact, she has worked with them to pass legislation to expand health care for our National Guard. For all this talk about Obama being a post-partisan, she has a much more moderate bipartisan record than Barack Obama. Hillary hasn't come to the senate looking to refight old battles. Yet, according to the media, those attacks weren't divisive or the politics of old.  We didn't see Donna defending Hillary from those baseless attacks.

    So now, when Hillary is trying to exploit perceptions about Barack Obama and his inexperience, she and other Obama supporters are resorting to label it as the politics of fear and divisiveness. Politics of Fear, Demagoguery, why didn't the media say that when Barack Obama misconstrued a sense of the senate vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, even though HE MISSED THE VOTE.

    I hope Donna and other Obama supporters wake up and take Barack at his own word in 2004:

    "If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket...I would essentially have to start now...before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah...I'm not one of them".

    He did in fact start running in 2004 and thats why hes neglected to hold oversight hearings as chair of the Subcommittee on European affairs which has responsibility to investigate NATO's role in Afghansitan.

    Donna only cares about... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by garyb50 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    ... Donna.

    Donna Brazile has been knocked by blogs (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    for quite a while. I hope not to see her as a Super Hero now that she is for Obama. She is not playing neutral and needs to be let go from the DNC.

    And as a side note: My neighbor, a reg Repub, loves Hillary. She called late last night to say, "we won 2 states so far". She is finding out if she can change party affiliation in order to get to vote for Hillary in the Dem Primary. AND, she will vote for her in the GE. Not like my Texas friend who's GOP husband voted for Obama last night but admits that he would never do so in the GE. GOP for him all the way. These are the unreported stories.

    Here, here, here (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM EST
    I was hoping you would post this, I saw her say that last night and nearly jumped out of my chair.

    After her role in Mi and Fl, Donna Brazille has a lot of goddamn gall lecturing what should happen for the good of the party. I have an alternative proposal: "Chairman Dean and Others" should be on standby to throw her sorry ass out of DNC leadership.

    Brazille's threat is serious business since she still does have a leadership position in the DNC. We have no idea if she is regarded as a joke or not, but Dean needs to be called out on this and tug on her leash.

    Hear! Hear! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    Here, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Article up at Huff Post re (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    recent interviews of CA Super-Ds.  

    Also, HRC supporters, take a look at Huff Post's front page graphic of the front pages of national newspapers.  Thrilling.

    What good for the goose.. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    CNN's Situation room took James Carville and Paul Begala off because they supported Hillary.... They should take Donna Brazile off because she supports Obama and she should take Jack Cafferty and Gloria Borger with her..  

    I just saw Begala yesterday. Weird. (none / 0) (#108)
    by RLMcCauley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Whew. Its o.k. for HRC to (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST