New Obama Surrogate Joe Andrew Goes Negative Right Out Of the Chute

The more we hear from Joe Andrew, the less I respect him. Undeterred by the fact that the Clinton campaign has said nothing about him, Andrew decides to go nuclear negative on the Clintons (and his HuffPo post is even worse):

In an interview with ABC News, Andrew says he knows what's coming from his friends at the Clinton campaign. He anticipates the Clinton campaign "will use the same words and the same language to attack me that Republicans used to attack me when I was DNC chair and I was defending Bill Clinton."

"I say this as a longtime participant in old politics," he says. "I've sparred with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. . . .The same words will come out of the [Clinton campaign's] surrogates' mouths to attack me that the Republicans used and that demonstrates the very hypocrisy of the old politics," he says.

More . . .

After this despicable, unprovoked attack, Andrew then has the gall to say:

"We need to unite the party. You can actually be for someone without being against someone else."

You sure can Joe. Why don't you try it some time. Not only is Joe Andrew a fool, he is a nasty, hypocritical fool.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< PA, FL and OH | What's The Magic Number? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ick (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    what an as$. This utterance I do not respect at all.

    And what does it say (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by BDB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST
    about the fact that he originally endorsed her?  If the Clintons are so awful, why did he endorse Hillary last year?  And don't give me he was scared of them, that's crap and it's especially crap since Hillary looks a lot stronger this week than she did before Pennsylvania.  If he really wanted to end this thing he would've done it before Pennsylvania (when there was the big WWTSBQ? push) after Tuesday if Obama does well.  Instead he does it now, when Obama's chances at becoming the nominee, while still good, are probably the lowest they have been since Super Tuesday and he's falling in national polls?  

    Something is very wrong with this picture.  Very wrong.


    Sounds to me like someone.... (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    was expecting to have a consulting contract from the Clinton campaign by now... and has decided to go where the cash is.

    It wasn't for money, as he doesn't need it (none / 0) (#243)
    by andrys on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    HuffPost likes to say they don't delete comments that merely disagree with a person or with their site.

      Mine went up, uncensored but was taken off.  All it said was that he had a fascinating bio and that everyone should read it.

      I also asked that in the future he not represent "New politics" by excoriating Hillary Clinton for things he feared she'd do but hadn't even done, since that is more like Old politics.

      Apparently that was probably deemed too insulting to the blogger, but actually it accurately described what he did, in the name of New politics.

      Arianna's censors on that "news site" are probably acting more as candidate-vigilantes than as objective staffer moderators.


    It's all about changing the news cycle (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    they seem desperate now

    Who is Rovian now? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    I am so sick of that accusation.  

    Funny how they leak this (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    the day after polls show Hillary up by 10 in Indiana and closing fast in NC. She cut a 25 point lead to 5, in fact one poll had her up by 2.

    Change the story and get voters attention away from Rev. Wright


    The Obama campaign has been plenty Rovian already. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by bridget on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    Bet they listened to his latest advice as well.

    After boycotting Fox forever except for the Bill Clinton interview I decided to watch the HC O'Reilly interview yesterday and afterwards listened to some of the pundits.

    Rove the SuperFoxAnalyst did have only one advice for Obama: Change the subject from Wright. No matter what it is. Go on the Attack Hillary Clinton and change the subject. Guess another Clinton supporter decided to backstab ... but good.


    Just a feeling (5.00 / 12) (#55)
    by NotThatStupid on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    But I think the Obama camp had him announce today in an attempt to provoke the Clinton campaign to responding a la Richardson, and thus taking the spotlight off of Rev. Wright.

    They didn't take the bait, so he had to create a straw man.

    Best thing the Clinton people can do is just ignore this idiot.


    If they respond, it makes him important (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    And he has already said they will respond with a attack dog. If they ignore, it dies quickly.

    This was my take when i heard (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by bjorn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    it on the radio.  Wow, this is one way to get Wright off the front page, they are going for it.  I would not be surprised at all if What's his name got some sweet promise from Obama to flip and to flip NOW.  What a jerk to come out screaming about it. This emphasizes that he has no good reason to do it!

    It's wierd (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    Have we had a Super D be this bitter before ;)?  I know he's supposed to be a plus but in the light of the past few days he is coming off as another person who Obama knows who just needs to shut up please before you cause even more harm.

    Amen! This Guy Is An Opportunistic Putz (none / 0) (#214)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    ...let's check his bank account and see what really happened.  Isn't it something that this guy can pee all over Sen. Clinton and obama will just sit back and not say a word.  This is typical of any coward.

    I love it (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by Nasarius on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    He puts words into the mouth of the entirely silent Clinton campaign, then gets outraged over them.

    How do you even do that?

    That there was the epitome (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    of the Straw Man fallacy.

    Kool-Aid? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by nycstray on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    Yep, I mentioned this in (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by eric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    an earlier comment.  He suddenly got "inspired" (his word).  So inspired, it seems, that he immediately began to rant about "attack dogs".

    The Golden Rule of the New Politics (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    Do unto others before they do unto to you.

    Obama inspired him.

    Who knows what Obama's camp has on him. But Obama sure is cracking the whip hard. A simple endorsement isn't enough.


    I must have missed it, (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by coolit on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    but I am SURE that Obama has condemned Andrews' words.  Those words were divisive and Obama brings people together.  Can someone link to the website which talks about how upset this sort of old politics has made Barack Obama?

    (can you hear the crickets chirping?)


    But did he disown them? (none / 0) (#125)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST

    I am sure he did (none / 0) (#154)
    by BernieO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    because just the other day Obama told his people they were getting too negative. Joe will fit right in.

    Nowhere does he say he was for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by felizarte on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    before.  He supported Bill Clinton way back when.  I suspect he was for Obama all along and only says he switched because it looks worse for Hillary that way and better for Obama. D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N !

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    The Obama campaign is rolling out these "new" endorsements to create the perception of inevitability.  When the going gets tough, another superdelegate comes out for Obama.

    Doesn't this just show the average American (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by MMW on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    that the Democratic party is clueless? If the Average American is pulling away from Obama, doesn't this only infuriate the supporters needed for victory?

    I think these endorsements can shore up the elite vote but the average "joe", may be offended and wondering why their voices are not being heard.

    I think it plays into the Republican frame of the Democratic party. A frame pounded in for years. A few clips of this man's words (come November) showing he wanted to stop or influence the voting process, is very bad for the GE. And those things can be applied to any candidate with a D in front of their name.


    This is why those Republican frames (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST

    There's always an element of truth to them.

    Yes, some Democratic pols are elitist. But true Democrats aren't.

    That's why HRC is getting more Democratic votes than Obama.


    It's certainly shown me that (none / 0) (#120)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    I don't know how closely the average American follows politics, but these Super-D endorsements may create resentment.  Of course, on the other hand, you have the Obama supporters, who will be infuriated if Hillary "steals" the nomination.

    It's a no-win situation. IMO, the fix is in for Obama.  The party leaders are more afraid of incurring the wrath of the AA and youth voters.  The squeaky wheel gets the oil - even if the wheel ends up driving us off the cliff in November.


    Flash back (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    Joe sez 11/2008:
    Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to compete and win across this country," Andrew said. "I have seen up close her intellect, character, and fortitude, and I am convinced she is the best prepared to handle these challenging times. Her 35-year record fighting for America's families is as impressive as she is, and demonstrates why she will be a great President of the United States."

    Joe sez today:

    Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    Thank goodness Joe thinks Obama is equiped to handle a 3a.m. phone call from  Rev Wright


    What's the date on his first statement about HRC? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by shoephone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    You wrote 11/2008. Did you mean 1/1/2008?

    In any case, that is quite a turnaround from him.


    Thanks. its 11/08/2007 (none / 0) (#146)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    Ah, much better, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by shoephone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    Maybe Hillary and Bill didn't invite him to last year's Thanksgiving Dinner.

    It was 11/08/07 (none / 0) (#202)
    by myiq2xu on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    That's the date on the website.

    "principled stand" (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    every time one of the Obamabots or obama SDs etc... use the phrase "principled stand" I have this picture of people walking around with a big old stick up their butt.
    Is there anything prissier sounding than this constant talk about "principled stands"?
    Having principles is great.  Bragging about them when you are the same old Chicago politics, is prissy and obnoxious.

    Another hackneyed uptight phrases from camp Obama:

    "Change agent"


    How he handled Wright? (none / 0) (#213)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:14:37 PM EST
    You know, these idiots can keep saying over and over again how flawlessly Obama handled Wright (one idiot  yesterday said Obama's Tuesday press conference was his Sister Souljah moment -- blech!) but it will not do any good. 1. It only reminds people about Wright and 2. Everybody with half a brain saw how unf'ing- believably badly he handled Wright -- a day late and a dollar short doesn't even begin to cover it.

    Good point. He was like other (none / 0) (#16)
    by Shainzona on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    WJC friends who always supported Obama but because they worked for him people automatically assumed they originally supported HRC.

    Just spin.


    Old politics? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    Are we talking the same political games that have been played since well before Plato here?

    Gee, I used very nice words in... (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:19:14 AM EST
    the e-mail I just sent him suggesting that since he has switched once, he can switch back, again.

    If I had only known he was such an idiot, I would have told him what I really think.

    Anti-Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    just like Richardson and Michael Moore.

    Nothing postive about Obama at all.

    All about Hillary.


    These are the types of endorsements that one hopes for.

    Good......it's still all about Hillary.

    Agree, why can (none / 0) (#244)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    they focus on Obama merits since they are supporting him?  All they can say is "he'll unite" and then
    trash HRC?  Compare with NC Gov. endorsement of HRC.
    I watched him last night on Charilie Rose and he was a gentleman vis a vis Obama. So, why is it that Obama attracks these bitter SD ? ...

    He's really a Washington lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    'cause he couldn't get elected as a pol in Indiana.

    Put it together -- what do Washington lawyers want?

    Yeah, that's pretty lame (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by AF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    A preemptive strike of hypocrisy doesn't really work.  

    Hmmm, 1999 DNC Chair... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Oje on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    I am sure he is one of the good Clinton "establishment" people to support the Candidate of Change. The loss of both branches of the legislature and the presidency that year surely had nothing to do with this brilliant political mind, a "longtime participant in old politics." I am sure it will not be long before the Obama supporters insinuate that Andrews is plant from the Clinton campaign, to give Obama an "undue" air of negativity.

    *the following year (none / 0) (#21)
    by Oje on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    oh, just Wow. On the heels of Obama's collapsing poll numbers nationwide this just looks beyond desperate. Not only is it desperate it looks insane too. Does the Obama campaign realize how bad this looks? I doubt it because they didn't realize Wright was a problem until too late.

    it looks bad and quickly getting worse (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    Sometimes the best laid plans...

    Andrew comes off like a real amateur (5.00 / 15) (#26)
    by shoephone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    The best thing the Clinton campaign can do is totally ignore this guy. That would kill him, of course, as it is obvious from his statements that he is trying hard to bait them into a fight.

    Ignoring him would be a swift blow to his ego and his silly, amateurish tactics. It really sounds like he's been consulting with Axelrod...

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    Yes, in light of his performance (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    I think that the best thing to do is to ignore him.  He certainly doesn't come off as the anguished loyal supporter of the Clintons who is making this sacrifice for the good of the Party and the country.  Strike my initial first cup of coffee reaction this morning.  

    My thought as well (none / 0) (#129)
    by Davidson on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    Whew.  Thank God, he went batsh**.

    I second that... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    Simply ignore it... 'these things happen in a campaign'... 'He's allowed to make up his own mind' - it would speak volumes to the other SD's, and make him look petty.

    ignoring is good... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    also "I like Joe. He's a good guy. He's allowed to make up his own mind."

    We will welcome him back (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:46:53 AM EST

    The best response is for them to say "We understand Joe's needs and will welcome him back as a supporter again as we wrap up the nomination.


    I think it's nice of him to save them (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    the trouble of responding or attacking him by his doing both sides of the attack and defense himself. Keeps the Clinton campaign from having to spend time and money on him. I think that is a very nice way to stab someone who made your career in the back. Save them time and money by doing all the work yourself. Weird, but nice.



    Andrew's letter (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    >>>I ask Hoosiers to come together and vote for Barack Obama to be our next President. In an accident of timing, Indiana has been given the opportunity to truly make a difference. Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right

    This man makes no sense! The "accident" was caused by voters supporting Hillary - extending the primary to Indiana!

    A tell, perhaps? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    It does seem as if a script was handed out a few years ago right before Obama's "landmark" convention speech prior to his election to the Senate, and that Hillary either didn't get a copy or has chosen to rewrite it to her satisfaction.

    None of this passes the smell test and my devotion to the party will not trump my devotion to basic integrity.


    Man, Obama And His Surrogates Are Really (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    talented at making voters feel important and valued.

    If I were Hillary, I would say that the Indiana primary was a wonderful opportunity to have the voices of Indiana voters heard and not an accidental event in all of her campaign stops in that state.


    "By an accident of timing" (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    Clinton has won primary after primary since the end of February, and is competitive in Indiana.  Therefore, Indiana must reject her candidacy so that her winning streak can end.

    Translation: "Stop her before she wins again."


    Joe calls it an accident of timing (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    the rest of us call it democracy.

    And then (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    he implies that the contest has gone on too long.  

    The ongoing illogic coming from the entire Obama camp is is mind boggling.


    Hillary spokesman Phil Singer responds... (5.00 / 15) (#34)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    "Joe Andrew's point is that he thinks the process has gone on too long.  To the contrary, this process has resulted in record turnout and registration.  In fact, Oregon is seeing record registration in anticipation of the upcoming primary there."
    (Time, The Page)

    They didn't take the bait - and moved on to a future primary.
    Love it!

    The entire Obama game plan (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    has been predicated on the presumptive close. When it doesn't work, they really seem to have nothing to fall back on.

    Like Salo, I will never forget how ruthlessly and quickly the lefty blogs became all-Obama, all-the-time. I will never be convinced that that was all coincidence.

    I hate to be all tinfoil, but this entire primary has smacked of a rigged boxing match gone awry.


    This race will be studied for years (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by thomphool on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    There is going to be some great political science coming out of this race, particularly focused on the changing dynamic of races over time, the impact of "negatives" in 2-way vs multi-way races, tone of discussion, advertising spending and the effect of negative vs positive advertising, retail vs wholesale politics, the impact of coverage on the incentives of candidates campaign tone (there's some great game theory analysis to be done here) etc, etc.

    The most interesting thing though (at least in my mind) will be a systematic tracing (in voting patterns and coverage) of the race Pre-Edwards dropping out and post-Edwards dropping out.  Things completely changed at that point.  It has always been the nature of American politics to try to run AGAINST something than to run FOR something, because it is easier to define one's self in negation.  For most primary fights that we've seen, the nature of the race has been defined by candidates trying to define themselves and how they contrast to the incumbent in the other party (or the presumed front runner in cases like 1988 and 2000).  This year, both sides started out differently, where candidates had to try to define themselves in a positivist light, not through negation.  When the race got down to Obama vs Clinton, that dynamic completely changed, and the race has, in some ways become a race about Clinton and "Clintonism," both the good sides of it and the bad.  It seems to me there is a divide in the Democratic party in the assessment of Clintonism, both among party leaders and voters, and that's been a huge driving force in this race.  Only time will tell, but this race, beyond the melodrama is a fascinating study in the nature of our democratic institutions (press, electoral systems, etc).    


    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    with you.  The most telling point for me, as a woman, is that I relate to Hllary in one basic respect.

    I've always had to succeed by, somehow, managing to support my oppoonent.

    That's tricky.

    It isn't fair, but that is the way it is for women.

    We simply trigger off male ego when we don't respect that dynamic.

    Her campaign will be a blueprint for how to walk that fine line.

    Even if she loses the nomination, she really will have won.

    We all know that now.

    This will go down as how the woman lost.  

    It's a story of sexism.

    And women will follow her path for decades to come.

    Because this trend will not last.


    And worst (none / 0) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST
    of all how a good portion of the Democratic Party became suckers.

    I don't know about become... (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by thomphool on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    This segment of the Democratic party has existed for a long time.  It's easy to forget that in 1992, there was a sizable chuck of the Democratic party (I don't want to call them the elitist segment of the Democratic party, because that seems to have become a dog whistle word) who vigorously fought and besmirched Bill Clinton all the way to the convention.  Some out there just cannot comprehend the appeal of the Clintons' style of politics, and some have a visceral reaction against it.  They just cannot comprehend that the Clinton view of government is something that resonates very strongly with some people.  They seem to not realize that people (many at least) didn't settle on Clinton, they actively and passionately supported the campaign in their own ways.  Maybe we didn't notice it as much in 1992 because the platforms didn't exist for it to really solidify in the way that it has-- Cable news commentary wasn't what it is now, distribution of national newspapers was not extensively online so someone like Maureen Dowd wouldn't have as much of an impact on the national story, and the social media space online didn't exist.   Additionally, in 1992, after Tsongas ran out of money, they didn't have someone to mask their rage into a positive argument for (Jerry Brown just didn't cut it), and a good part of the party was VERY reluctant to rally around the nominee (See NYT from 1992).  The sentiment that Obama has tapped into has always existed in the party, it's just been limited, and it's never been enough to win a nomination on its own.  It's always had to tap into another part of the coalition to try to gain a victory.  

    Wow. (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    They completely blew him off, AND made it clear that they want the voters to decide and he doesn't.

    Her campaign has been really good lately. Thanks, Maggie Williams!


    And Markos is atwitter (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    I guess there's a worldwide connection of guys with delusions of grandeur.

    I'd end that sentence at "delusions." (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Fabian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    I can't read the comments of any anti-Clinton diary.    Those commenters have.....issues.

    Ack, the scrum to the trough upset the trough! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:54:38 AM EST
    And stomping around complaining about spilled political nectar -- rather than taking a pause to scoop and salvage what they can -- only makes their role in this disaster more apparent.

    They've tapped out the strategy they've been using until now to refill the trough and it's just going to fail faster. ('Hey, you lower echelons of scum, more nectar here and fast or we'll be jerks!')


    I hear they have a convention every summer (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    and they allow women to attend too as long as those women play nice according to the rules as set by the boys.

    What (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    the heck is this guy so angry about? Is his little tantrum because his big moment has been ignored? Seems the anger should be coming from the other side. Instead this pinhead is evidently having a hissy fit because no one is commenting about what he's done. No one likes to be ignored people.

    Will someone please call him some names so he'll shut up and go away?

    People like him are making the "super" part of the Super Delegate look a misnomer.

    What does the Chicago machine (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    have on him is the question?  This is really starting to look and feel like  the Sopranos.  This guy is the Walnuts guys.  

    the DC establishment and elites (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    that support Obama never liked the Clintons because they didn't attend their dinner parties and bow down to them.
    But most likely the Obamas will.

    Methinks they already have, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    and done a good job of sucking up too. That's why they got all the support. DC is like the diplomatic corps. Most of the business is conducted at cocktail parties, not at the embassy. At a party you can discuss things without being official about it, no commitment. So you discuss things at the party and then go to the embassy for the official formalization of the things you discussed and agreed to at the party. The thing is that at the party, you can bring into the discussion people who aren't party to the agreement but have an interest in what is agreed. Those people won't be at the formal discussions because they aren't party to the things being discussed, but their interests have been taken into consideration due to the previous discussion at the party. People have no idea what goes on at parties in Washington, and other capitols. It's where the business of the day is conducted in reality. The office is where you do the follow-up paperwork.

    "With friends like these" (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    is the phrase that comes to mind, along with a few others that are a lot less polite.

    I'm pretty much disgusted and appalled at the passive-aggressive nature of Andrew's statements - "here, let me stick the knife, in, twist it a couple times, and yank it out - there - that was fun!  Hey - now will you be friends with Barack and stop trying to make trouble?  Let's be friends, okay?"

    What is wrong with these people - totally classless and clueless.  Hey, maybe that can be the theme of the Democratic Convention: "Clueless in Denver."  The featured Workshop could be "Finding Your Spine," along with "Winless in November: Learning to Love Moral Victory."  In a show of unity, Jeremiah Wright can give the invocation.

    Closing ceremonies can feature ballons that won't inflate, noisemakers that make no noise, and directions for entering the Witless Protection Program.

    Why is it that... (5.00 / 13) (#50)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    ...all that "newkindapolitics", "hope" and "unity" always seems to bring out the worst in everyone who espouses it?

    Because (none / 0) (#163)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    the stark reality is that it's the sleaziest most deceptive campaign ever by a Democratic candidate.

    This (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    guy is an example of why I'm beginning to really dislike some Democrats.

    What a weasel.

    What the wingnuts say (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:12 AM EST
    It's spectacular, maybe the wingnuts are right about these guys?  

    I don't trust the converted Democrats, the ones (none / 0) (#197)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    USED to be Republicans, like KOS, Huffington, and maybe this guy, who I've never heard of

    Sounds to me (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    like he's been in the tank for Obama for quite some time.  Long enough to come down with a full-blown case of CDS.

    If he said that it would be different (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    But he didn't so don't put words in his mouth and get upset at us for actually responding to what he actually said.

    Why can't ... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:50:51 AM EST

    ... we all be Obama-voting friends?

    The world would be so much sunnier without those nasty Clintons.  Just drink the kool-aid!

    Lately the koolaid (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    is laced with psychedelic mushroom extract...

    Ingredients from China, perhaps?! ;) (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    Campaign focus (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    I think I now get it.  SDs will decide this.  Obama is bored with the voters and the campaign.  The Obama camp has shifted gears, all they are focusing on is SDs, sort of how they outwitted Hillary with the caucuses.  So, they are spending all their energy on the SDs and blowing the elections cause they know they cannot win.  It's all a war of nerves now.  Hillary is working her heart out for naught cause it's all about PR and maneuvers from now till the end and back room dealings.  They are saying:  sc**w the voters.

    I Hope that that you are not right. (5.00 / 8) (#84)
    by Fabian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    But if you are, then they'd better explain why I should voter for "their" candidate as well why I should bother voting D down ticket as well.

    "We don't suck as much as the Republicans do!" is not going to win me over.


    Unify (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    behind the less sucktacular candidate!!! Obama 08!!!

    What a great bumper-sticker that would be.



    x (none / 0) (#171)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    "We don't suck as much as the Republicans do!"

    Quote of the day - maybe the theme of the whole fall campaign.


    Someone needs to tell Obama the difference (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM EST
    between superdelegates and the Electoral College, don't you think?

    I have this sinking feeling that Obama's 2009 resume will read, "Democratic Nominee for President, 2008."

    Shoot - I don't know what's going on.  Maybe this is a little experiment to see whether these SD endorsements will change the trajectory of the actual primary results, and if not, it will be time to finally admit that Obama cannot win the GE.

    Time for an Advil with my lunch.


    This is a Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    reality check.

    I have so changed, but not at all in the way they wished I would have changed.

    The Democrats now look like the worse party for pandering to fear.

    They lost me.

    I will now look at every single down-ticket candidate with a keen eye.

    I've voted straight Dem for over 30 years.

    No more.

    This is a party without principles.


    I think you're right (none / 0) (#173)
    by Terry M on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:55:11 PM EST
    The Obama campaign senses that they've lost their shine with a significant number of voters, so now, it is crunch time with SDs.  It is exactly a war of nerves.

    While my nerves are shot already, I would put my money on Hillary.  Chicken is not a game she's likely to lose.

    BTW, Maggie Williams is my hero!


    His reason for supporting Obama (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by shoephone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    is because "this race has gone on too long".

    Like Obama, he is bored with the primary process. He didn't come out strongly for Obama's policies or leadership skills. He's just tired of the primaries.

    But the fact that a guy no one has ever heard of comes bolting out of the gate with attacks on Clinton's character is more than curious. As I said upthread, I think he's been consulting with Axelrod on tactics.

    This type of comment by Andrew is why (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    I get very testy when people wring their hands about how HRC would appease the Obamans if she gets the nomination. (Notice I do not say that she will need to appease only AA voters, since the most die-hard Obamans appear to be white, elitist "liberals.")

    It is up to Obama to tell his followers to support Hillary, since it is his followers who have created this schism in the first place. If they don't vote for HRC, I say, let's tell them what Obamans have told us at least 400 times:

    "Fine. We'll win without you. Buh-bye then!"

    And we will.

    Obama is a politician. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    Not a demon. When and if he loses, he will turn around and begin stumping for Hillary, just as she will turn around and begin stumping for him when and if the game ends for her.

    They may or may not ever be friends, (though god knows stranger friendships have formed out of politics) but they are both professionals, and, ultimately, they're on the same side. I don't think we have to worry about either candidate not making a sincere effort to rally the troops behind their victorious opponent.

    We might have to worry about effectiveness of those efforts, however. Will latte liberals open their wallets if Obama starts stumping for Hillary? Will rural voters really care what Hillary says after she loses?


    I hope you are right. (none / 0) (#111)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    I certainly don't think Obama is a demon. As I've often said, he will get my vote should he be the nominee.

    Your other questions, about effectiveness, are very important and I suspect the SD's are carefully considering them. HRC's supporters have shown a rising reluctance to vote for Obama, whereas Obama's supporters still seem more willing to vote for HRC.

    We will know more after all the votes have been counted. That's why it seems desperate for Obama supporters like Joe Andrew to come out and say the primary is hurting the Party.

    If Obama is going to be legitimately nominated, fine. But the race is too close not to count every vote.


    TeamObama's overnight denunciations don't inspire (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Obama has personally denounced virtually everyone significant in his life who helped him achieve his position before his kingmakers decided to make him The One.

    Too many of his flashy, sudden endorsements that have come out of nowhere spend more time needlessly trashing the people they were once connected to. Note: NEEDLESSLY trashing.

    Obama looks even less likely to be able to endure the primary on his own cred, a surefire disastrous loss for the Dems in the GE and, should he make it through by some bizarre miracle, he'll be even worse than McCain in taking a complete failure at leadership well into the future.

    I hope every backstage prop is removed from prolonging Obama's wafer thin mythology now, so the Dems don't try to play this train wreck again and again for decades to come. (Like chronic losing gamblers who justify losses by saying they were just one card away from striking it RICH -- richer than Croesus, I tells ya!)


    white, elitist... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    but definitely not liberal! Using that word in relation to closed minded bigots, it's no wonder it has has taken on unsavory connotations.

    A liberal is someone who keeps an open mind and considers all sides of a situation/subject/question. I don't think that describes Obama or his supporters, at least not the noisemaker kind.


    I could not agree more! (none / 0) (#91)
    by MMW on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    I'm glad he went to the Obama side (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    The man is attacking himself and defending himself against himself.

    There are padded rooms specifically reserved for people like that.

    so am I (none / 0) (#137)
    by libfighter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    as it is a delegate race and taking one from Clinton is twice as good as drawing in an undecided.

    If you want that guy as an Obama surrogate (none / 0) (#149)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    I am all for it.

    The new campaign of hope (none / 0) (#157)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Victory via unprincipled hack. Why don't you tell Barry to win Indiana instead?

    Obama might be a trojan horse in the spirit (none / 0) (#200)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    of Joe Lieberman.He sure acts treacherous as far as we've seen of his dissing his pastor who married him and baptized his daughters.

    I mean, a man's got to realize his limitations, Obama doesn't seem to get that.


    It's called the popular vote. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST
    And electability.

    And Florida and Michigan.

    And the will of the people.

    And isn't HRC still ahead in superdelegates?

    And nothing will be decided till everyone votes.

    Any other questions?

    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by shoephone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:12 PM EST
    And since February she has won two of the most important, delegate-rich states the Democratic nominee will need in November. That's all.

    off topic (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    but greg craig on msnbc just said obama "wears well" and in penn had two weeks of the most negative campaign in the history of politics to date.

    I didn't mean to troll-rate you (none / 0) (#94)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    so I uprated you instead.

    More attitude problems: (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    Check this

    Michele Obama says:

    I've spent my life trying to convince him not to be a politician. Teach, write, sing, dance -- I don't care what you do. Don't do this. These people are mean." She says she has since come around, viewing her husband as someone "who could unite people around values."...

    ---------------------------------------- ------------

    "Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics." - Michelle Obama

    So, since Obama is just SOOO smart, there's no question he should be President, right?

    Sure lays to rest all that talk about (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    his elitist attitude doesn't it?

    This woman desperately needs to acquire some grace.


    good news for the Clinton Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    is that Obama is utilizing Michelle now to get the Blue Collar Working White Vote.

    Yeah, that's really gonna work out.



    Right brain smart or left brain smart? (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:26:11 PM EST
    OUCH!!! (none / 0) (#140)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    They need to put her back (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    in hiding.  Her language choice in poor...   'deign' to enter.

    : to condescend reluctantly and with a strong sense of the affront to one's superiority that is involved
    : stoop <would not even deign to talk to him>
    transitive verb
    : to condescend to give or offer

    Isn't that the problem with them?  They come off as condescending and elitist?


    when i was at the dnc (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by isaac on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    someone, from the other side, referred to him as an, 'attack puppy.'

    he is a little man, in stature and mind, with a napolean complex.  he wishes the hillary camp would come after him

    good discussion on super going on at (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:18:47 PM EST

    Posted by: Pat Johnson | May 01, 2008 at 09:20 AM

    I'm so confused..... every time Obama should be accountable for something..... excuses come flying in and more super D's jump on board on his behalf! Is this country crazy or what? These super D's don't even wait around long enough to see how serious or valid these known issues will impact us..... is someone paying someone or is the agenda going to be carried out regardless of what happens to the American people. Something seems very wrong here.... do you guys agree?

    Maybe these people aren't soooo super, look what happen to us in the last 8 years....hmmm.

    universal (mental) health care (none / 0) (#144)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    These crazies better hope Hillary gets in. They need her health care plan way more than anyone with a mere physical malady!

    Don't settle for the tried and true and simplistic (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    "but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired," he wrote" - J. Andrews

    -- oh please. Not this tired meme. I thought they got over it already. Geez they've even changed the signs, somebody please tell him whats REALLY going on!

    yeah seems like desperation on Obama. He's sinking and Hillary is rising. And I do believe he's been paid, they all have, because up close Obama seems to disappear like a mirage.

    What's really incredible (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    is that the Obama camp was all exercised about superdelegates earlier in the campaign when Hillary had a big SD lead.

    truemajorityinaction.com  emailed requsts to sign a petition demanding that SDs follow the primary/caucus results in their respective states.

    There was all sorts of trash thrown at SDs at "a-list" sites.

    Now with the worm turning and and the spread of the Wright toxin we get this.

    Suddenly SDs are good guys.

    New politics. A load of sh*t from the start a load of sh*t to this day.

    The internal power struggle continues.

    +1 (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:36:07 PM EST
    Now that Obama is bored with teh whole "election, voice-of-the-people" thingy, he is working on winning with a trickle of hacks.

    If Joe Andrew is an example of what we have to look forward to, we will all need to take a shower.


    Joe (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    was the Indiana State Democratic Party chair for 5 years... wonder what Obama dug up on him?

    This tirade neutered any appeal (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Davidson on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    At first I was worried about this endorsement because it could easily be portrayed as a Clinton supporter who realizes that Obama is The One.  Instead, his outrageous attack upon both Clintons makes me sigh in relief: He'll just look bitter and desperate.  In his interview with the Indy Star, he said he didn't consult with the Clintons because he just knew they would send the "attack dogs" on him, which is hilarious considering he sounds like a mangy, deranged mutt.

    At least, I hope I'm right.  On pins and needles until Tuesday.

    What a tool. (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    All of a sudden, he's for new politics? Makes a lot of sense, huh?

    Well, the Clintons' old politics involves winning against Republicans. New politics must mean getting your ass handed to you in the fall.

    Old Politics Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by tdraicer on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:33:49 PM EST
    Nothing like a guy using the oldest political tactics in the book to denounce the "old politics" of an opponent, but then take away hypocrisy and the Obama campaign would have nothing left.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    repeatedly making the same point to the extent that it becomes annoying. Comes under "chattering". Also the insulting tone of your comments were most likely a factor.

    "unbelieveably" - favorite adjective (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:57:33 PM EST
    I listened to his conference call with the press when I was running errands at lunch.  He is "unbelievably proud" of the Clinton years, "unbelievably proud" of himself for serving, Obama is "unbelievably principled", and on and on.

    This guy did not just change his mind.  They always say that they jsut switched, and point to the latest utterance out of Hillary's mouth to justify it. Then they go on a diatribe about how terribly negative the Clinton campaign has been all along, reciting every Obama talking point.

    There is nothing as unbelievably condescending as a newly minted Obama superdelegate.

    projecting (none / 0) (#186)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    He's quite right about the unbelievable part.  Joe Andrews seems to be reacting to some inner demons and is involved in a dialog with non-existant enemies and critics.  A new Dick Morris was born today.

    email the people (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    in charge.

    The point isn't that he's scum... (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    The point is that he made a Straw Man argument when he said "this is what the campaign's going to say about me" and then countered the claim that he put into the campaign's mouth.

    And by doing that he was putting a really big piece of bait onto a fish hook and dropped it into the water.

    That was the point of BTD's post.

    The other statement that you've commented on was connected to a different post, which is prolly why it got deleted as OT.

    What's that I hear? Is it...? Coudl it be...? (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by wahhhmbulance on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    Did someone call the WAHHHHHHHMBULANCE?

    Have been working with my class (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    on fallacies for the last week...

    The Straw Man:

    Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

    Go back through the comment BTD is referring to...

    He anticipates the Clinton campaign "will use the same words and the same language to attack me that Republicans used to attack me when I was DNC chair and I was defending Bill Clinton."

    In other words, "They will say this about me..."

    To my eye, that looks like he's sticking words in the campaign's mouth and then responds to his (not the campaign's) statement with:

    "We need to unite the party. You can actually be for someone without being against someone else."

    Your repetitive use of the comment doesn't make it any more on topic for this particular diary.

    As for who Andrew prefers...that's nice for him. I don't really care.

    The entire Obama movement (3.66 / 3) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    Is a hypocritical joke of course.

    The best defense is a strong offense. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    he must know what he looks like (in political terms, he's a traitor) is trying to compensate.  He's probably right -- this is really a bad, bad thing for Clinton and I'm sure they're taking note of it.

    Your comment makes no sense to me (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    Don't know why. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    He's trying to get ahead of the talk making him out to be a political traitor.  He's reacting defensively to what he knows, politically, is a crime -- lack of loyalty.  And he probably believes that this particular instance is too important for Clinton to let pass.

    That was Carville (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:28:50 AM EST
    about Richardson because Richardson promised not to do it. Richardson pissed Carville off. No one gives a sh*t who Richardson supports.

    This was nuts by Andrew.


    Did they think they could stop the voting? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    All these superdelegates being sprikled about for Obama right after sometimes disastrous happens to his campaign (it's a pattern) doesn't seem to stop the voters from voting.

    Couldn't these Obama surrogates at least be patient enough to wait for him to win on Tuesday?  I mean... what a way for the campaign of a supposedly inevitable candidate to behave!It shows a complete lack of confidence that Obama could have a good day on Tuesday, otherwise why the rush?  Or they think they can cancel the primary on May 6th? LOL.  Wait for your guy to win on Tuesday, Joe Andrew. This looks like a move inspired by a fear of voters, to me.


    Is there a chance (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by standingup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    Andrews possibly has a self inflated sense of himself?  Outside of Richardson, I don't recall the Clintons being overly critical of anyone and Carville was the chief critic there.  And I don't even see the close relationship with Andrews that existed with Richardson.  

    I think Andrews either:

    1.  Sees himself and his role as more important than it is or

    2.  Would like to see the Clinton take the bait to change the news cycle to focus on Clinton being negative, divisive, old politics and everything else that has worked in the past.  

    Personally, I don't think Clinton will touch this with a ten foot pole since the it would only serve to slow any momentum she has going into May 6.



    Scared (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST
    Bill will call him and give him a talking to.  

    It's not that bad. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Why won't Andrew admit he was really the ED of the DNC during 1999-2001 while Ed Rendell was the chair?

    (Ok, the terms were "general" chair and "national" chair, but for him to keep pretending to hold the same spot in the canon as Terry McAuliffe is just silly.)


    It's the new "transparency"! (none / 0) (#82)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    Ok, where's the strong offense? (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    Or did you mean a strong offense

    I'm confused by this whole bizarre Joe Andrew thing.


    Speaking of offense and defense (none / 0) (#31)
    by eric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    I think the best way to describe him is defensive.

    pre-emptive awkward defensiveness (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    is that the new speciality of Democrats?  That's quite the opposite from the neocon pre-emptive offenses.  I think that's LarryNYC got confused a bit.

    It's a little wacky to see people on blogs touting Obama's "brilliant" responses to controversies and speeches and endorsements, but somehow the polls keep sliding for him.  Conventional wisdom strikes again.


    Yep. Sounds like he feels guilty (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    and ashamed. Why do you predict your detractors comments before they even speak unless you feel you deserve it? This situation is very strange.

    Or, it's a talking point, & you fear they (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    wont't say the nasties your counting on to create sympathy for your guy and to raise negatives for his opponent.

    He had to get it out there -- bcz, seriously, I don't see him as getting anywhere near the reaction Richardson evoked from Carville.  That seemed, based on what Carville said, to be a very personal anger based on Richardson going back on his word, if not to the Clintons, then to Carville.  Carville has not said things about other endorsements.  And Richardson's was not even a public endorsement of Hillary to be reversed. So, I surmise, it was a private promise not kept. Pure guesswork on my part.


    the private promise (none / 0) (#142)
    by pukemoana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    apparently mary matalin said on don imus that richardson asked bill clinton to come and do him a favour (fundraising or something--sorry details missing). clinton pointed out he was on the trail for hillary at a crucial time and asked whether richardson was going to support hillary, and richardson indicated yes.  so according to this, the judas betrayal wasn't just about not supporting hillary, but also about diverting clinton's attention away from hillary's campaign right before super tuesday

    what isn't clear to me is how clinton going to richardson benefitted the latter.  take it fwiw--i got the info from a comment on craig crawford's site that linked through to a blog i hadn't visited before that linked through to a recording of the interview (but i didn't follow through to listen to the interview)


    I heard it (none / 0) (#211)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    and you've got it mostly right (according to Matlin) -- Richardson asked Bill to come help him with fundraising during Superbowl weekend and Bill said "Don't have me come do this and then endorse Obama."  And Richardson said "Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. He is too inexperienced, etc." The way Matlin relayed the story, it didn't sound like Richardson promised to endorse Hillary, but he def. promised not to come out and endorse Obama.

    Another (none / 0) (#9)
    by DaytonDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    Obama supporter who thinks Clinton is really Atwater in reverse drag. Disgusting.

    Dick Morris is nervous (none / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    he hates the Clintons the most and that will never change, never!! You hear that, Joe Andrew?!

    But, but Giiiiraldo... Hillary is a communist... Giiiiraldo...

    (you had to have seen the clip)

    Carville's "Judas" statement (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    is the opening for this.  Obama has to get Wright out of the news cycle and a Judas-redux appears to be the ticket (not saying it's right).

    When's Carville scheduled to be on CNN, because I'd like to see if he takes the bait here.

    BTW: Another Obama superdelegate announced (some DNC'er from TX), making 5 today for Obama.

    That is stupid (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    if that is the Obama camp thinking. One hopes they are smarter than this.

    Or we are headed to defeat in November.


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    must really be scared. If he's desperately annoucing supers then he's coming off as afraid of the voters. Wow. Wright really did huge damage.

    Nobody in real life (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    cares about this guy.  We are the obsessed. :)

    What's relevant to me is how the Latino voters must be building up a huge resentment.  The fear of offending AA voters is obviously in play.

    Yet, Latinos are the minority group that is really on the firing line today.

    So what is the Dem party doing for them?

    After months pre-election of talking about how important they are, they are now being ignored as irrelevant.

    It's all about the AA votes.

    This is so not going to work.  It's too obvious.  It's a red-herring for Democrats.  Look over there!  These people are upset!

    Excuse me.

    If Democrats are honestly going to support minorities, then you obviously support the minority group that is under direct fire.

    And that is Latinos.

    End of story for me.

    That is why I flick off accusations that I'm "racist."

    Hardly.  I look at the minority group that is under attack TODAY.

    I support THAT group.

    The support of AA voters while Latinos get sold down the river?

    Oh man......that is so not a party that I'll represent.

    And I'm so not "cool."  I don't know half of what you guys talk about.  I never watch these pundits.  I only figured out this year who Maureen Dowd is.  

    But I am firm about this.

    Democrats of my type fight against prejudice in the present.  Today, my Latino friends are in danger.

    They have been under attack for 2 years now.

    If the Democratic party chooses to make this about skin color, they can do so.

    But don't try to tell me that you're really about minorities.

    Hillary is.  But not this party.

    You're abandoning that group.

    And I, in turn, no longer support the Democratic Party.


    A lot of truth. n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    Democratic bigwigs are scared (none / 0) (#164)
    by wasabi on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    When you have someone like Donna Brazile hinting that "there will be blood", or Gov. Wilder saying there will be blood in the streets of Denver if Obama is denied the nomination because he has more elected delegates, the party takes notice.  No one wants a repeat of 1968.

    Why the party did nothing to push back on this narrative is my question.  I guess they just didn't want to "take sides".


    No... (none / 0) (#168)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    Let's be honest.

    They abandoned Latinos.

    That's the deal.


    the way Obama has distanced himself from Wright (none / 0) (#203)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    is probably going to affect the AA vote.

    Obama shows no sign of extending the olive branch
    at least before the nomination process ends, which of course will be too late. If he doesn't get the nom, how will he even be able to face the AA community again?

    No one is talking about this yet, but worthy of some thought. Obama is shameless just on this alone.

    He's not ready for prime time. He should accept the VP nom and do some OTJ training.


    Keep hoping! (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    It isn't going to happen.  

    "I come not to praise Clintons, but to bury (none / 0) (#77)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST

    ~~~Joe Anderson, Mayday, 2008, who, as I wrote earlier, now thinks the Clintons are the Roves among the Democratic sheep.

    Oh my.

    ~~~Joe Andrew -- messed up his last name. Oops. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    Your error highlights (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by standingup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    the hilarity of Andrew's claims.  He has low name recognition and probably much less influence than he hopes to have on others.  

    Getting his 15 minutes of fame! (none / 0) (#241)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    Why indeed (none / 0) (#89)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST

    Joe Andrew's endorsement flip is leading the NPR (none / 0) (#92)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    hourly news.  Quoted him saying the Democratic ship is taking on water.

    Yes, it is an MCM news changer!

    Saw in passing somewhere that McSame has said he will not use Wright agaist Obama in the general election. (Yeah, he'll that to the 527's). What is meant to me is that he wants to run against Obama much more than against Hillary.

    I woke up to that NPR piece (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by shoephone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    and Steve Inskeep treated it like the b*mbshell moment of the campaign season!

    NPR = Not Particularly Reliable


    When I heard it on the newscast (none / 0) (#204)
    by akaEloise on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    I thought "A guy who is so obscure that an NPR newscaster has to use fifteen or sixteen words to describe the position he used to hold before she even mentions his name -- this is not my idea of a big endorsement".

    Pretty much the definition (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:42 PM EST
    of passive-aggressive, no?  I think that actually is the new politics.

    Politics as usual by a staffer . . . (none / 0) (#132)
    by wurman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    Some of the "semi-professional" & quadrennial staff folks for major campaigns have to show their bona fides by being on-board before the candidate is actually a sure thing nominee.  It's a gamble.

    Big Tent, or someone else, noted that Richardson was wangling for the veep slot with Sen. Obama.  Perhaps Andrew is deserting what he perceives as a sinking Sen. Clinton ship & jumping on the Obamarama.  To some extent, if these pilot fish swimming with the political whales wait too long, they are seen as johnny-come-lately.  Andrew may just be trying to "procure" a job--pun intended.

    From my observations though, Joe Andrew bet wrong.  It seems reasonably clear that Sen. Obama will not have the 2025 delegates necessary for a first ballot nomination (or the 2209 or some other number depending on the FL / MI fix).  As a result, the convention will be a chaotic 21st century verson of the 1952 floor fight & Sen. Obama's 2000 delegates will become trade bait.

    I love it.

    Side note: there are 100s of these pilot fish because every member of congress has a senior legislative assistant, aides, home office staff, etc.  These staffers are cronies, toadies, hacks, etc., depending on who's doing the name-calling, with varying degrees of honesty, loyalty & moxie.  And many of them are "on the make" to move up (money & prestige) in the unofficial, not civil service, parallel bureaucracy.

    Carville baiting. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Faust on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    That's what he's doing in these quotes.

    That unity comment is thick with irony.

    madamab...EXACTLY! (none / 0) (#147)
    by hummingbirdv on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    This endorsement is just Distraction Distraction Distraction blah blah.  Already old news and Hill doesn't even miss a step as she keeps focused on the job of meeting and talking with the PEOPLE who are going to vote VERY Soon.  Don't care about all these good 'ol boys and their tricks.  Waste of time.  The PEOPLE are going to have their say and then the DNC and SD better listen.  Popular vote here we come.  Go Hill Go!

    Joe Andrew is a DLC hack (none / 0) (#151)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    He was everything about the DNC all the anti-DLC people hate.

    Andrews must have seen the new Gallup poll (none / 0) (#156)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    Oh wait.

    Obama has had 30-40 super Ds in the bag (none / 0) (#169)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    since Obamania was at its peak, and they keep rolling them out in a steady stream to fabricate momentum... and the media is more that willing to oblige.

    yes I agree that's what they're doing (none / 0) (#181)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    Hillary is up in the Gallup poll, btw.

    My understanding is that comments (none / 0) (#161)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    "Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed..." Check the comment guide.

    I'm slamming the puritanical Obamiacs... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    Obama used to be in the DLC as well, before he wasn't.

    But this is pretty typical (none / 0) (#174)
    by ajain on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    I feel like this is the attitude of most Obama supporters (not necessarily Obama supers, but people in general). They smear Clinton and then want to run away from 'old politics'.

    Nothing more hypocritical and old about that politics.
    Considering he didnt even inform Clinton or Bayh before switching, I think I am going to see this as something beneath a response.

    Obey The Roolz! (none / 0) (#180)
    by Fabian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    They are simple, straight foward annnnnnnnnd...enforced.

    Deal with it.

    heh (none / 0) (#182)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM EST

    Oh and I've had comments deleted (none / 0) (#190)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    sometimes cause they were responses to someone who may have been fishing for a flamefest.

    At that point, the whole thread gets deleted rather than have non-sequitor comments hanging around.

    He has grossly overestimated his own influence (none / 0) (#191)
    by Iphie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    if he believes that his statement is going to change what looks to be very real momentum on Clinton's side. And how foolish is he going to look if she does do much better than expected on Tuesday? He better hope he's right, because with that sort of statement, if Clinton wins, he should really prepare himself for 8 years in the wilderness.

    Talk about arrogant.

    As I said... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    email the people in charge.

    I'm. not. psychic.

    Oh? (none / 0) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    Andrew compares the Clintons to Atwater.

    Yet diplomatic is beyond the pale?

    well let's be honest (none / 0) (#207)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    there is no one worse than Dick Morris, is there?  I'm quite proud of the comparison anyway.  This endorsement by Andrews is not playin well, imo.

    Okay... (none / 0) (#247)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:41:04 PM EST
    It looks like someone vanished into the ether.

    My point is that he's not announcing them as they (none / 0) (#201)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    come in the door. He's obviously held onto Andrews for awhile and been waiting to drop it at a time when he really needed a bumb.

    the saving grace to this endorsement is that its (none / 0) (#205)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    fluid. He could change it anytime.

    Re: Joe Andrew-a Few Quick Questions (none / 0) (#206)
    by SunnyLC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    which he probably answer with any logic...


    in the same way (none / 0) (#208)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    the parent poster got his statement wrong.

    Though I suspect your question was rhetorical, I will say that there is a balance of lackluster comments from both sides and in either case there aren't that many.  It's a blog, after all.

    I generally ignore them, or rate them a 1 and move on.

    The campaign began (none / 0) (#209)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    With Obama reciting Lincoln Bedroom talking points and ends with someone blaming Clinton for using Right Wing talking points on Obama.

    You might not like the overall all encompassing nature of the comment.  But you failed to refute it.

    The Obama movement is a hypocritical joke, and that actually doesn't bother me as much as the damage he'll do to the country.


    you chose the one-liner (none / 0) (#212)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    and you have a tendency to go over the top and attack entire groups of people--not methods, behaviors, or political strategy.  That's one reason I rated you down.

    The other issue I have is that you're now petitioning me to either cut you some slack and/or expand/fill-in your arguments -- you wrote a zinger that was mildly offensive, functioned as troll bait, and could have easily offended other readers.  You appear to know that...so apologize and move on or just ignore my rating.  Don't attack me for failing to refute you.


    awkward (none / 0) (#233)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
    its an issue.  I think its odd that you can report on a campaign and that anyone who read those reports would conclude what I just said but you can't say it cause then saying it the way i just said it makes you trollish.

    Why tip toe around the most accurate assessment?


    Carville should let him have it IMO (none / 0) (#210)
    by bridget on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    from the Los Angeles Times article:

    "Despite the fact that he is "unbelievably indebted and grateful to President Clinton," Andrew said, "I don't want to look my kids in the eye and say I'm part of that problem."

    Okay. Another "eye looker" makes his case.

    How about looking Bill Clinton in the eye while he is backstabbing him ... and gladly takes his place in the line next to George Stefanopoulos and Richardson and who knows else.

    Carville can outwit Obama and Andrew (none / 0) (#215)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    with half his brain tied behind his back. PUH-LEAZE

    I hope they KNOW this can change and (none / 0) (#224)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    the floodgates can flow the other way, its not over till the voting is finished, try again

    Andrew is on Fox now (none / 0) (#226)
    by stillife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    saying that he endorsed Obama because he's "inspired" by him.  

    Did Richardon's endorsement help Obama? (none / 0) (#232)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:31:28 PM EST

    You would have said those played well also, correct?  Time for you to be honest.  I'm going with my instinct on this one.

    Oh Dear (none / 0) (#234)
    by Rainsong on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    He had to get the boy's locker-room to help him out.

    I don't think the Party wants to win the WH, if they let Obama take it through super-delegates. The country is in a huge mess, and who wants to do all that work? Its much safer, and far more comfortable to sit across the aisle and whine and spout nasty big words at the Republicans.

    I'll worry more when high-profile hard-working supporters, like Ed Rendell start switching sides.

    no one here reps (none / 0) (#236)
    by isaac on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    for the clinton campaign far as i know, and predictbly, the great clinton backlash joe was expected is a shrug.  they're are already looking ahead to oregon!

    Uh... (none / 0) (#239)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    both Andrew's predictive statement/paraphrase and your paraphrase of Rove are straw men...actually.

    In the case of Andrew, he's predicting that the campaign is going to be mean to him even before they've had a chance to respond. So if the campaign does call him names, he can turn around and say "See? I told you the campaign was going to call me names."

    Additionally, equating the Clintons with Rove/Atwater is a tu quoque fallacy.

    On his first day, he put words into the campaign's mouth and implied that the Clintons were dirty dealers by way of Rove/Atwater references.

    But...Brutus is an honorable man, eh?

    Frankly, as a non-camp Democrat, I'm reallyreally tired of these types of references...they don't help the so-called "unity" efforts.

    Oh...BTW...BTD? Check out his bio. He's been around for a very long time...and has never been known for temperate blogging (even in his guise as an Obama supporter).

    I'm out...have a nice day.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#240)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    If you think that's shocking, you haven't been around the Democratic blogosphere for long.

    Yes, if Andrews said that, he is a liar. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    Gee, it just happened to be on a Thursday of the worst news cycle he's had in awhile? Give me a break. And, no, there isn't anything wrong with rolling them out one-at-time -- its a great strategy that has worked. It just isn't working on me and I hope it doesn't work on others.

    AP story featured on Yahoo News (none / 0) (#245)
    by nellre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    Defection of longtime superdelegate jolts Clinton

    So the reporter made a big deal of it even though Clinton didn't bat an eye.
    This press is not free... it's bought and paid for by bad guys.

    AP story featured on Yahoo News (none / 0) (#246)
    by nellre on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    Defection of longtime superdelegate jolts Clinton

    So the reporter made a big deal of it even though Clinton didn't bat an eye.
    This press is not free... it's bought and paid for by bad guys.