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.

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?

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

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.

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

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".

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.

``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.''

But on another point. The rumors are that Obama has 50 more supers in his pocket that he is holding back for strategic reasons. Some have said he will announce this today or tomorrow. I think this would be a mistake. He will win the next round (on Sat., right?) which will give him some momentum back. Then as the trial rolls on and he gets some bad press again, he should announce those then. To sort of give him another bump to carry him forward.

The day after New Hampshire, I wrote on another site that the explanation from the networks "seek to deny Hillary's win resulted from the fundamental character and policy appeal of Hillary Clinton. These 'explanations' - much like Matthews comments this morning regarding Hillary Clinton's career due only to Bill's 'messing around' - effectively (and repeatedly) refuse to acknowledge the political savvy and power of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate."

One who will fight for the environment and not water down what we want once he meets with the polluters.

One who will work to enact real Universal Healthcare

One who will not cry when the going gets tough

One who has built personal relationships across the aisle and will be calling on them to pass legislation that will benefit all Americans

One who actually does the work she is called out to do, not one who holds an important position on a committee that deals with NATO and doesn't have a single meeting because he is out campaigning.

One who offers real solutions with plans and details of how she will enact it, not just well delivered speeches.

One who will take positions on difficult issues and not vote present over 100 times.

One who is prepared to lead.

"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."

I understand Ms. Brazile's aversion to negative campaigning, since her unsubstantiated accusation of an extramarital affair against George W. Bush got her fired from the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. (Said Brazile at the time, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House".) We don't mean that sarcastically--we all learn from our experiences--nor has the irony of Ms. Brazile accusing Hillary Clinton of "negitive campaigning" escaped me. In fact, one might conclude that Donna's conclusion that Bill Clinton was being "racist" by referring to Obama as a "kid" and his platform as a "fairytale" makes her the queen of negitive.

But I can think of at least two reasons why any attempt by the DNC to force an early end to Hillary Clinton's primary bid based on the content of her campaign message is a bad idea.

First and most obvious, the idea that a political party would try to censor the speech and ideas of a political candidate or campaign in this manner is not only offensive but contrary to the constitutional values of the United States of America under the First Amendment.

Second, ending the primary process now before any candidate obtains the minimum number of pledged delegates will disenfranchise the voters in those states where the Democratic primary elections have not yet been held.

That would mean that the DNC--in addition to disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan (which the DNC has already done, as punishment for holding early primaries)--would be telling the voters with later primaries in their states that their votes will not count either.

In other words by fiat of the DNC, the voters in Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and West Virginia will join the voters of Michigan and Florida in the "your votes don't count club".

I applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement on Wednesday implying that the super-delegates should back off for now and let the primary process continue to play out. ("I was never among those who believed this would be resolved by now.")

But I do not think that Speaker Pelosi has gone far enough to insure democracy.

Unless and until a single Democratic Party candidate wins enough pledged delegates to capture the nomination the last primary in the last state should be held and the votes counted.

"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."

I understand Ms. Brazile's aversion to negative campaigning, since her unsubstantiated accusation of an extramarital affair against George W. Bush got her fired from the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. (Said Brazile at the time, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House".) We don't mean that sarcastically--we all learn from our experiences--nor has the irony of Ms. Brazile accusing Hillary Clinton of "negitive campaigning" escaped me. In fact, one might conclude that Donna's conclusion that Bill Clinton was being "racist" by referring to Obama as a "kid" and his platform as a "fairytale" makes her the queen of negitive.

But I can think of at least two reasons why any attempt by the DNC to force an early end to Hillary Clinton's primary bid based on the content of her campaign message is a bad idea.

First and most obvious, the idea that a political party would try to censor the speech and ideas of a political candidate or campaign in this manner is not only offensive but contrary to the constitutional values of the United States of America under the First Amendment.

Second, ending the primary process now before any candidate obtains the minimum number of pledged delegates will disenfranchise the voters in those states where the Democratic primary elections have not yet been held.

That would mean that the DNC--in addition to disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan (which the DNC has already done, as punishment for holding early primaries)--would be telling the voters with later primaries in their states that their votes will not count either.

In other words by fiat of the DNC, the voters in Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and West Virginia will join the voters of Michigan and Florida in the "your votes don't count club".

I applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement on Wednesday implying that the super-delegates should back off for now and let the primary process continue to play out. ("I was never among those who believed this would be resolved by now.")

But I do not think that Speaker Pelosi has gone far enough to insure democracy.

Unless and until a single Democratic Party candidate wins enough pledged delegates to capture the nomination the last primary in the last state should be held and the votes counted.