What Will Donna Brazile Say?

By Big Tent Democrat

Is Donna Brazile upset about this?

Obama campaign advisers are already making good on promises to confront Hillary much more aggressively on new fronts, hammering her on a conference call over her failure to release her tax returns.

. . . In response, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson sought to shift the discussion back to the Rezko story, a tale the Hillary camp will be hitting on relentlessly in the weeks ahead. "Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15," Wolfson said, speaking of the Clintons. "Instead of making false attacks, we urge Senator Obama to release all relevant financial and other information related to indicted political fixer Tony Rezko."

Are we getting the vapors yets? For the record, I personally could not care less about seeing Clinton's tax returns or Obama's Rezko records.

< FL And MI Governors Demand Plan To Seat Delegates: | FBI Confirms More Privacy Abuses in National Security Letters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:03 PM EST
    Tax returns and Rezko are complete non-starters to me.  I don't give a flying fig about either.

    But I would - (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    - like to see Donna Brazile actually get the vapors and break out the smelling salts.  I personally think that she has done more in this election to damage the party than Obama and Clinton combined.

    She has, I know I tore (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    up my invitation to join just shortly after her Bill Clinton supposed racist vapors on CNN as I have no interest in a Party agenda about identify politics and a social agenda as the burning cause, as part of our countries recovery effort sure but not as the burning Cause of an election..  But also this is not new I believe Obama has run a very negative campaign and used Axelrod's press access as a surrogate weapon against Clinton and this is just another distraction from celebrating Senator Clintons triple crown yesterday and an analysis of Obamas loss and his inability to win in the big States only 5 of 87 counties for example.  Where is a good set of exit data, I wanted to know where the Somalia vote in Ohio went Clinton or for Obama anyone know?   Also NYT front page says he wants her tax returns again yawn....like he did not try this stunt before.  Hey even Gallup shows Hillary up 4 along with Rasmussen 7 and that was before the win bump which I believe I read will be two days out.  Also NYT front page her team is going in for the close this should be fun dose this mean Bill can come out of the closet now?

    tsk, tsk, tsk...with Democrats like Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by toddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    anyone can see through Donna's charade of being an uncommited superdelegate. she uses her perch on CNN
    to tear down Hillary every second of her TV time.

    this is the same Donna that called Bush a hero one year into Hurricane Katrina.
    Bush needed a photo op so he trotted out Mary Landrieu and Donna Brazile for his bipartisan hookum.
    after that Landrieu called him " slow and reluctant " and Donna called Bush a hero.
    who is more credible?

    excuse me while i go vomit.

    Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    my theory on Brazile is simple.

    She wanted a top job in the Clinton campaign.  Based on her performance in the Gore campaign, Clinton demurred.  And now Brazile is exacting her revenge.


    I only want to see the Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    records because it pisses the Obama people off.
    what will they complain about after April 15th?

    Mark Rich, apparently (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    I want to see the Rezko records and (to counter BTD's "you rang?") I want to see the tax records.

    I want to see the Rezko stuff because Obama doesn't want me to (as Capt said).  If there is nothing in there, why are they hiding it?  Earmarks interest me, too. Let's get the transparency candidate to stop acting like Mr Cellophane (haha-Chicago!)  

    I want to see the Clinton tax records because I am nosey and I wanna know what kind of money they make.

    The first is a political issue, the second is fodder for People magazine.


    i want to see the Rezco (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    dealings because I know Obama isn't a "new" politician but rather is just a politician...with all the shady dealings with donors, with all the courting of special interests---Obama didn't yank so many unions away from Clinton by telling them "Yes we can".  But as of yet he has been able to maintain the beatific image of a troubled youth made good.  And I would like to know the skeletons he hides before we get to the GE and the right beats him into submission with the bony remains.

    I just want to see evidence (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:58:44 PM EST
    from both candidates that they have to do even more complicated tax returns than we do, darn it. (My spouse retired once, with a complicated pseudo-pension that changed since, then went back into a new career, and he does consulting now, and our CPA is going to be able to retire on all this.)

    Jeralyn, BTD...deletion needed badly in (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    "The Stakes" post. Very Kos-like behavior and really bad language.

    Yeah, that malc19ke guy has (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    has gone nuts. His comment (#214) in that thread was particularly disgusting. No surprise really considering where he's coming from.

    The House Speaker says ZIP IT SDs (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    House Speaker says voters should speak before any more superdelegates take sides.

    "I think that now is not the time for anybody to weigh in."

    listen to the Speaker strong arm tactics will back fire.

    Pelosi? Link? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:42 PM EST
    Of course, she should have taken her own advice before this, but she only slipped once that I know of, so good for her for saying this now. Not that Donna Brazile will listen to her, either.

    I don't have a link but I also saw this on MSNBC. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    I found it at The Page Mark H (none / 0) (#115)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    and it then links to CNN and others.

    Tax returns? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    What's next, Travelgate? Have we time-warped back to 1995?

    This is all so ridiculous.

    But seeing the Rezko records? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    That is legitimate?

    BTD, I read that if Obama and (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    Rezko planned the purchase of the land and house, this would violate Senate ethics rules.
    I don't have the comment handy, but there was no cite of the regs anyway.
    Is that correct? Can you find out?
    Note that only recently did Obama say that he had toured the house with Rezko, and he has gone to great pains to give the impression that there was no coordination in the two purchases.
    Of course I do not believe that for a moment.
    Obviously they planned this together. If so, was that a violation of Senate Ethics rules in and of itself? I don't know.

    good points (none / 0) (#23)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    Senator Obama should request that (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    the Senate ethics committee review the joint purchase with Rezko and the subsequent purchase of land as Senator Reid did on his land purchase.   You can trust but verify that's more than fair.

    I like that very much; thanks (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    for your excellent memory. :-)

    Memory, Evidentially Not So Good (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    In 2001, Reid transferred his property into a partnership company that he co-owned with Brown. The transaction was done, according to a statement by Manley, to make it easier for the Reid family and the Brown family to try to rezone the undeveloped land so a shopping center could be built on it.

    Manley said that Reid continued to report in his Senate disclosure forms that the land belonged to him rather than to Patrick Lane LLC, the company to which he had transferred it. The reason, he said, was that the senator dealt with the property as if it were still his.


    But hey, what are facts when you are trying to slime your opponents.


    Disclosure (none / 0) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    If this was the violation, it is typically resolved by revising the appropriate disclosure statement. It is my understanding this is not an infrequent happening. Non-issue.

    Not a political issue? I disagree. (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    I don't anticipate BTD will take this (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:44 PM EST
    on as a research project anytime soon.  

    Lol.. well, anyone could do it. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    I am sure that Obama's ethics are impeccable----when he is standing up.

    obama thinks this is unfair. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    ok, maybe ryan thought his divorce settlement was private and shouldn't be part of the campaign for senate also. hmmm, what goes around comes around.

    As a Chicagoan the Rezko records (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    are legitimate to me.

    As a Democrat I want to see his Rezko records and have them compared to the earmarks for '05 & '06 that he won't release. I also have a question about an accidental vote by Obama that I can't get the press I've emailed to answer. Given Rezko's ties to Auchi I think the Rezko records need to see the light of day because in Chicago people don't do favors or help politicians because they're good people.


    Not sure I understand your reference to earmarks (none / 0) (#88)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:52:21 PM EST
    how could Obama not release those?

    earmarks (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:55:42 PM EST
    from 05-06, I believe.  The ones from prior to the bill requiring them to be released.

    I ask myself the same question (none / 0) (#110)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:40:56 PM EST
    "How could Obama not release those?" given that he's the government transparency candidate and doesn't do old politics.

    He hasn't released his earmarks from '05 & '06 though and won't do so until after the GE.


    I'm not a lawyer and am unfamiliar (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    with the nature of such documents.

    My comment was more to the Groundhog Day-nature of this rapidly devolving, nasty mess.


    Why (none / 0) (#2)
    by pennypacker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:13 PM EST
    should she not have relase her tax returns for the last 5 years? Sort of seems like a transparency issue, and odd thatshe wouldnt if there wer no issues in them? Or her husbands donors for his library? There are definitely isues there. Not trying to be a pain, but some of the stuff I have read on the donors is problematic.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    Obama's Rezko records do not concern you then? Hmmm.

    I think (none / 0) (#20)
    by pennypacker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    Obama should release everything that he has regarding Rezko is there is stuff to release. I really just dont understand why she cant release her tax retuns and or the donors to the library. I'm yet to hear a cogent answer.

    I wonder that you do not wonder (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    at the lack of a cogent answer for why Obama has not released his Rezko documents.

    Why are you not demanding said cogent answer?


    BTD, your innate lawyer-ness (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    is clashing with your stated "non issue" mission.  

    "If they don't want to tell me, then it must be something big"

    If Obama had released documents, billing records, etc-if he would go on record, if he would sit down and answer questions-this would all go away.

    Or would it?  By deflecting, he's making people ask "what is he hiding?"  I have worked enough campaigns to know that you get the spin out early and often about skeletons in the closet.  Surely, Axelrod didn't think the "boneheaded mistake" spin would be enough???


    Whitewater (none / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    Not releasing documents certainly hurt the Clintons in Whitewater, although they got lucky and that didn't blow up until after the election (it was mentioned, but didn't get big until later).  Of course, then it became disastrous.  I blame the Republicans and VRWC for most of it and part of me doubts anything would've stopped with the Republican destruction of the Clintons, but still I don't think releasing everything would've hurt them.  It all came out eventually anyway, showing no there there, but by then a lot more damage had been done than would've been done with a quick release.  These things tend to get worse with time as people fill in the blanks and not in a good way.

    Not "lawyerliness" Devil's advocate. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    Fun to watch though.

    and what does the library (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    have to do with anything?
    just fishing?

    she is releasing tax returns in April (none / 0) (#25)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    Hint: Bill and Hillary r 2 different people (none / 0) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    should she not have relase her tax returns for the last 5 years? Sort of seems like a transparency issue, and odd thatshe wouldnt if there wer no issues in them? Or her husbands donors for his library? There are definitely isues there. Not trying to be a pain, but some of the stuff I have read on the donors is problematic.

    I really don't get this -- how a woman would insist that wives should be judged based on what their husband do.  

    Hillary Clinton has released her personal financial disclosure statement as a Senator every year.  Who Bill Clinton may have raised money for his library from is of no consequence -- all it does is give the media, and people like you, the opportunity to continue your twisted obsession with the Clinton marriage.


    I believe they file a joint (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:39:05 PM EST
    return....And his money is hers and vice versa....

    It's how Dem leaders got Ferraro (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:11 PM EST
    and it's from an old playbook, a very old one.

    Who cares (none / 0) (#7)
    by eric on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:57 PM EST
    Let me guess....Bill and Hillary Clinton made a lot of money last year and Obama had dealings with a crook.

    Who cares.

    or we (none / 0) (#15)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    already know this.  Next?

    On second thought, what are in the Rezko records?


    K-1s showing the income (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    from the Burkle/Bill/ruler of Dubai partnership would show the extent to which the Clintons' money comes from the ruler of a country in a very sensitive area of the world...

    Google "auchi" and see (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:07:04 PM EST
    if you really want to get into where money may have come from for another candidate.

    "auchi" money (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
    never made it into Obama's hands....Rezko is about Rezko, not Obama....

    Bill has made a lot of moolah in deals with dictators....


    Obama cannot go negative and win, (none / 0) (#9)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:39 PM EST
    because that goes so much against his promise to bring a new kind of politics.
    He is flaming out.

    except that it seems (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    his supporters (at least blogosphere supporters) love going negative.  So really his unity schtick isn't what's buying him votes, it's anti-Clinton vitriol that is.

    The hardcore supporters, yes.. (none / 0) (#39)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:00:57 PM EST
    but that will turn off a lot of Democrats.

    his latte dems will bolt (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    when they start seeing how the sausage gets made.

    Hillary Haters Fuel Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#75)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST
    I said as much on my blog today:  http://katestone.wordpress.com

    Rezko and Rich (none / 0) (#10)
    by jsj20002 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:15 PM EST
    It will be interesting to compare the indictments of Tony Rezko with those of Mark Rich, who Bill Clinton pardoned after his wife donated money to the Clinton library.  Rich, as I recall, was charged with tax evasion, fraud, and trading with the enemy (Iran) when he took up residency in Switzerland to avoid his trial.  

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    So will Obama pardon Rezko?

    you bet. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    given the track record of presidents, and I mean all presidents, of the past. he's a "friend" and friends take care of friends. How do I get to be one of those friends. :-)

    Hillary clinton pardoned Rich? That (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    would be news to me.

    and people were cold and could (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    have died in those buildings(rezko) in his district. that isn't a problem. hillary didn't give rich a pardon.

    ANd Denise Rich (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:15:32 PM EST
    Is personal friends with HRC.

    Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon. Investigators want to know if Denise's contributions led to a direct quid pro quo exchange for her ex-husband's pardon. Clinton has denied any connection, saying he relied solely on the information provided by Jack Quinn (former White House counsel and Rich's current lawyer) when he was weighing the pardon request.

    And my guess is that Mark Rich did much worse things than Rezko. Big deal.

    You sound foolish trying to sling Rezko's dirt on Obama.


    and you sound foolish with your (none / 0) (#64)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:25:23 PM EST
    rich nonsense. next i'll see whitewater and travelgate.

    i don't have to sling rezko's dirt. (none / 0) (#65)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:26:01 PM EST
    obama set this up himself.

    <yawn> (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    ten year old scandals.  I need something new and exciting.  Rezko is the Ginsu Knife of this primary.

    Yawn (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    My point exactly. The Rich scandal was a yawn imo, and makes Rezko stuff look like nursery school.

    This was the bicker fest (none / 0) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    that went on during the back and forth on "This Week" w/ GeorgeS this past Sunday.

    Nobody cares (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    Much to Bob Johnson and SusanHu's annoyance (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    It's kinda interesting when (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:14 PM EST
    you manage to piss off a pair of polar candidate opposites.

    Pretty much... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:09 PM EST
    btw...hugs and nice to "see" yeh ;-P

    Pandora's Box has been fully opened (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    and now both candidates will start with the full scale warfare.  And it will continue until someone crosses the line.  

    What does Obama hope to find (none / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    in the Hilary tax return that he hopes he can used against her?  Nothing to keep her from  filing a separate tax return in lieu of a joint return. If Obama wants to see HER tax return then HER return is all his is privy to see as per his demands.

    Nothing (none / 0) (#50)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM EST
    And she should either release them now to end the matter (and thus permitting her to demand he release the Rezko stuff) or she should wait until after all the primaries to keep the press from doing what they always do with the Clintons which is treat the mundane as outrageous.

    Personally, I cannot wait to return to the 1990s and the discussion of how much the Clintons' accountant valued Bill's donated underwear for.  Scintillating.  Scandalous.


    she has to turn her tax returns over (none / 0) (#107)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:25:29 PM EST
    every year, as do all the other people serving in Congress.  People think she must be hiding something but riddle me this:  Would the Clintons, put through so much scrutiny since the day Bill won in 92, cheat on their taxes the year before she was going to make a run at the White House?

    If people just want to know what they make go google her returns for the last few years as she is required to disclose them.  But people (the media, the right, and Obama) want to know about Bill, not Hillary.


    Obama is hitting Hillary on her comments (none / 0) (#33)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    last Oct. about Mississippi.

    "I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress. There has got to be something at work here," she said, theorizing it may be the risk-averse nature of a state built around agriculture.
    I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."


    this will certainly help her (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    tremendously with women in Miss who have surely noticed the same thing.

    I hope (none / 0) (#68)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    Obama isn't implying something racist.

    I like to see this sort of attention (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    to the aggregious outlier states like this.  And let it be pointed out that Wisconsin, where Clinton did so poorly, never has had a woman governor, either -- and never had a woman in Congress until the end of the millennium.  So much for such "progressive" states, and it's about time we paid attention to the connections -- and they're there -- between how women do in politics in these states and how other women in general do in these states in many other measures such as education, income, etc.  And guess what, such states generally rank lousy in those areas for ALL residents, no surprise, when you suppress the progress of the majority of their citizens.

    So go for it, Obama.  But is he -- and are these states  and others -- ready for the answers to these questions?  I happen to know the answers, and I think not.  


    Ugh, make that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    egregious. Time for more caffeine.

    Fiengold voted for Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    Uh, Feingold is a guy (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    so what in h*ll do his genitalia have to do with the issue of the other gender -- the gender from which there never has been a senator in Wisconsin? (Yes, it is progress for very German Wisconsin that it has two Jewish guys for Senators, but that's a different issue here.) And what did what I said have to do with a guy voting for another guy for president?

    The point being that (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    a Wisonsin Senator, someone I assume you like and voted for, voted for Obama....He is by all accounts quite progressive....

    It was more a reference to Wisconsin and being progressive than his being male....


    wtf? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    I voted for my mayor, Shirley Franklin, twice. Ditto John Lewis (and more than twice).  That doesn't mean that because s/he supports Obama, I'm voting for the guy.

    I have this thing in my skull called a brain, and I think I can use it for myself.  


    Not the point I was making (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    The original post was about how un-progressive Wisconsin is in some ways....I pointed to Feingold, and that he voted for Obama, to show that Wisconsin has elected progressives and that voting for Obama fits within that progressive spectrum....

    So it wasn't really relevant (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:13:43 PM EST
    to the discussion, which was about women and politics, and about Wisconsin, which I noted is not progressive about electing women . . . so you could only think that was cause to point out that a guy got elected in Wisconsin who benefits from its myth of progressivism, despite his votes for Roberts, Ashcroft, etc. . . . It's like tinfoil in a microwave oven sometimes.

    it isn't being progressive that is important (none / 0) (#111)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:42:43 PM EST
    its the appearance of being progressive.  Obama didn't have to make the choice of whether to vote for the war or not so he can easily say that he was against it the whole time.  He has voted to extend NAFTA and pay for the war...but he can say, the mistakes were made before I got here but now we're saddled with paying for those mistakes.

    I don't believe in "progressive" as a movement.  It was DOA.  If Feingold, Obama, and all the other so called "progressives" were actually progressive they wouldn't fall into the politics of normalcy.  Feingold stood up for about fifteen minutes once and made a stand...then he faded back into being a politician (a person who is more worried about re-election than instigating change.)

    What I see in Obama is a great politician, great orator, who once elected, will shovel his rhetoric in the crapper and start focusing on re-election about mid 09, just like any other politician would.


    "women leaders" versus black leaders (none / 0) (#119)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:51:44 PM EST
    Lots of countries (Britain, Germany, Israel, India, Argentina) have elected WOMAN leaders.  No predominantly white country has elected a black leader or one who is basically not of the dominant tribe, with the possible exception of the Hungarian Nicholas Sarkozy in France.  Third world countries choose leaders by tribe as well.  

    John King just said on CNN that the Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    campaign sent out a memo asking why Clinton is staying in the race since she can't win. Is this true?

    why (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    would doubt it?

    It Probably Is (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:13:31 PM EST
    They can't lose to her if she drops out.

    from that "other" blog (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST

    So is Laura Bush qualified to be president?

    I thought about dropping to remind them that while Laura was selling pot Hillary was on the Watergate committee but thought better of it.


    I Love This Argument (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:29:04 PM EST
    I hope Obama takes it up personally.  I hope he makes an ad saying this.  I hope he sends out Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to say this.  He'll lose women 75-25%.  Because what woman hasn't been defined at some point in her life solely by her relationship to a man?  And, most of us just love that.  Because we don't contribute anything to our partners' success and once we're married we have no accomplishments of our own.

    So c'mon Obama what're you waiting for here's your chance to break open this nomination proces.  You've been given the one argument that could wrap this thing up next month.  Go for it!


    Obama was questioning (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    what Clinton's accomplishments were on those 80 trips she took out of the country as first lady.

    I really, really hope the press answers that question for him.


    Yep, let 'em read the testimonies (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST
    of Northern Irelanders about negotiations, of women around the world about her work for them . . . as if the media we've got can comprehend the many testimonies on her work, much less write about it.

    they couldn't anyway (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:46:05 PM EST
    it is illegal in this country for any media outlet to write favorably about someone with the surname of Clinton.  Why do you think George Clinton's career kinda ground to a halt in the 90's? lol

    Interesting oxymoron (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    If they are so sure she can't win, why are they asking her to drop out?  Why are the talking heads exploding today if they are so certain she can't win?

    Question for BTD (none / 0) (#61)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:18:44 PM EST
    Your posts against the fallacies of your fellow "progressive" bloggers have become even more fun.

    Do you just have fun torturing people with facts and common sense?

    How sadistic.

    Well, I'm gettin the vapos. Kos has his third (none / 0) (#72)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    front page post on the picture up.

    Any Evidence Yet? (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    Why do I think probably not?

    Kos now knows what has given the press Clinton Derangement Syndrome for all of these years - that no matter what crap you throw at Bill or Hillary Clinton, it seems to have no effect.  So you have to throw more and more crap.  Pretty soon, you're the one who starts to look crazy.  The MSM has been doing this for ten years.  The Big Boy Blogs recently.  But the reaction to their inability to affect the Clintons' standing with the public - whether it's to ram through impeachment or win Texas and Ohio - is pretty similar.  Throw a fit and call it news and analysis.


    Should've Added (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    The evolution from blogging outsider to MSM insider has been made complete for some of these guys.  They, too, want to be able to pick our president and can't stand it if the voters don't see things their way.

    Also, it doesn't really matter what evidence Kos or some of the other bloggers develop about that photo (no pun intended).  They've already sacrificed their credibility on the Obama alter.  As the saying goes, "consider the source."


    it is because they think they are more (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    important to the process than they actually are.  Right now Kos is a dysfunctional flock of Obama sheep who are positive that as they go so goes the nation.  It doesn't compute that a hundred and fifty delegate lead is by no means a "mandate".  That pretty much like the last two fifty-fifty pres. GE's this primary process is about a fifty for Obama, fifty for Clinton proposition.  But to listen to them this thing was wrapped up a month ago and Clinton "just wants to destroy the party as she goes down."

    The boyzblogz crashed the gate (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    and are trying to slam it shut behind them, insiders now. And so many are Reagan Dems raised on the belief that the Clintons were and always will be outsiders. You called it.

    That will be put to the test (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    Bill last ran for office in 1996--before a lot of stuff...He was popular because the economy was in the middle of a huge technological boom.....

    Hillary has never run for national office before...So, if she is nominated, we'll see if anything sticks....


    MKS (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    you keep hinting at skeletons that you think are in Clinton's closet.  Could you elucidate, or do you just want to keep putting those rumors out there and see if it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Because-and maybe you missed this-yesterday a certain a-list blogger was making the same ominous threats and all that's come up today is this bogus "they made him blacker!" crap.  

    Well, not wanting to go off topic (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    I would refer you to Bob Johnson's diary at Big Orange, if it is still up--talking about post 2000 conduct....It recaps the pretty standard stuff....There is one issue Bob should have left off though...

    I frankly don't know what skeletons exist--and the wingers will certainly default to the old stuff anyway....


    Oh. Bob Johnson. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:20 PM EST
    Been there, read him, coulda been a standup comic, but the rest? Bleh.

    I Thought Hillary Was a Senator? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:53:50 PM EST
    And if you're suggesting those weren't national elections, given how much attention they stirred up, I'd disagree.  Sure, she didn't have to beat the electoral powerhouse that is Alan Keyes, but still she's done pretty good in elections.

    And if you think Hillary Clinton wasn't involved in Bill's elections - including as a target of every smear imaginable - then I wish I had your memories of the 1990s.  Much better than mine.


    And a senator elected in New York (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    which is a rather sizable state, I hear, and rather significant in national politics.

    And how many people (none / 0) (#87)
    by Paladin on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    other than these bloggers are paying attention to any of this?  I have many friends who are passionately engaged in this primary but aren't even aware of KOS and their ilk.  I wager it's a very, very small part of the electorate that even knows what a blog is.

    But they feed the cable media (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM EST
    desperate for ideas, any ideas, 24/7. The big bloyzblogs crashed that gate, and they have to take responsibility now for crafting many of the media messages.

    CDS. They are beginning to scare me. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    There are multiple people saying "we need to take her out, now!". Since they can't do it by voting right now, they almost sound ready for physical violence. Flat out pure hate.

    getting the vapors that is. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    And let's add Jack Cafferty to the major A-hole list.

    He Wasn't On It Already? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    What list are you looking at?

    ok done. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    Good (none / 0) (#112)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:44:32 PM EST
    comeback from the Clinton team!  Hold hid feet to the fire.

    You lawyers (none / 0) (#116)
    by AdrianLesher on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:28:06 PM EST
    should be familiar with the phrase "you opened the door, counsel."

    Better for Obama to answer Rezko now than on GE (none / 0) (#117)
    by timber on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    Rezko will also come out in GE.  Thus it is better to have it come out now,  and Obama practices answering the questions and satisfying the doubts than in the more vicious GOP attack in the General Election.

    Obama needs practice being vetted (none / 0) (#118)
    by timber on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    Because it is better for him to be vetted now and answer the doubts than in the Gen election.  

    Donna Brazile (none / 0) (#120)
    by STEPHEN GIANELLI on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:02 PM EST
    On Wednesday a prominent super-delegate told the press that should Hillary Clinton's primary campaign continue to be based on "the seeds of doubt" about Barack Obama or otherwise be perceived as negative in tone, then the head of the DNC Howard Dean should step in and pressure Hillary to drop out of the race, presumably using the super-delegates as a lever.

    "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."

    We 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".)

    But we 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".

    We 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 we 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.

    Only then should the super-delegates cast their votes--in the manner provided by the rules.