home

The Morning After: Clinton Fights On

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:57:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

She fights on:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to fight on, heading early Wednesday for a new round of speeches, rallies and town meetings in West Virginia, which holds its primary on May 13.

She is putting up her own money:

Mrs. Clinton has lent her campaign more than $6 million over the last month, according to campaign officials. She did so, they said, in three installments: $5 million on April 11, $1 million on May 1, and $425,000 on May 5.

It has been said by some none too bright people that it is up to the losing candidate to unify the Party. This is simply balderdash. It is almost certain that Obama will be the nominee. He needs to unify the Party. His blog supporters are silly so one need not consider them too much. But people like Donna Brazile can do him great harm. Her performance last night was proof positive that she should be shooed off the stage by the Democratic Party:

BEGALA: We cannot win with egg heads. We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of the first George Bush.

President Clinton — reached across to get a whole lot of Republicans and Independents to come. I think Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both have that capacity. They both have a unique ability – well it’s not unique if they both have it. They both have a remarkable ability to reach out to those working-class white folks and Latinos. Senator Clinton has proven it; Barack has not yet, but he can. And I certainly hope he is not shutting the door on expanding the party.

. . .

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Donna Brazile is a cancer in the Democratic Party.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Open Thread | Hillary's Options >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Morning After: Clinton Fights On | 202 comments (202 topical)
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    is a cancer and she needs to be surgically removed.  I don't trust her to sit on the rules committee.  But I guess it is a moot point since ABC, NBC, and everyone else is essentially calling Obama the nominee this morning.  So be it, then he should act like the nominee and call Clinton and get things figured out.  He should be reaching out to her right now.  I hope he is.

    I don't know about Brazille (3.50 / 4) (#77)
    by cpa1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    I kind of like her because she is honest.  I respect honestyand I can see where she could be compelled to want a black president.  I think she's wrong but I beleive she has integrity.

    Obama, on the other hand, is the liar and the liar is the cancer.  However, the real malignancy is the press, that pushed out Edwards by making the race early on between Clinton and Obama and constantly postulating that Hillary was a liar.  Obama was the pimp and the members press were his whores, spreading the disease of race baiting and character assassination.  Brazille was a Saint compared to Obama and Jack Cafferty and Frank Rich and the NY Times and the Washington Post and Keith Olbermann.  All these holier than though jerks who couldn't take the time I took to find out what actually happened in South Carolina.  

    Obama and the press are the cancers that need to be removed.

    [ Parent ]

    Seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by OldCoastie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:53 AM EST
    that Donna Brazille has not won anything in a long time. Last night's comments show why.

    Can I rec that you not (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:05 AM EST
    try that approach again when talking to people who don't support your candidate?

    Vinegar and upbraiding don't work all that well.

    Enjoy the finger cramp.

    [ Parent ]

    Yet you (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:27:24 AM EST
    continue to come and insult the people here.  Interesting (passive-aggressive) personality type.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama doesn't want your vote (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    That's what Donna's telling us.

    Why shouldn't we believe her?

    We've gotten into a lot of trouble with the Republicans because we didn't believe them.

    Why not believe Brazile? There's no reason to censure her for telling the truth; this is what she believes, and that's the kind of campaign Obama is running.

    So why not face the facts and move forward, instead of shushing her?

    NOTE It makes no difference that Obama's supporters are silly; they'll create their own reality, silly or not.

    [ Parent ]

    no kidding (none / 0) (#176)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM EST
    Why shouldn't we believe her?

    We've gotten into a lot of trouble with the Republicans because we didn't believe them.

    I believe her.

    I wholeheartedly intend to take her at face value.

    [ Parent ]

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    ... all those Alabamians and Idahoans and Alaskans and Virginians and Marylanders and Minnesotans and Wisconsinites and ...

    only the last three will deliver any electoral real estate.  The first three are holding the party to an impossible standard (and probably voted without knowing much about their chosen one.)

    [ Parent ]

    Why do both sides have to hurl insults at voters (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    who disagree with them:

    and probably voted without knowing much about their chosen one

    There are good reasons to support either candidate.  It convinces no one when either side calls the other stupid, ill-informed, etc.  And let me be clear both sides do it.

    [ Parent ]

    you don't get anywhere... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    ...by insulting voters who support senator obama, or states that he won in the primary, and people from those states who voted for him.  I get that you are an adamant Senator Clinton supporter, that you dislike the talking heads backing Obama, etc.  But the dismissive attitude in the wake of Super Tuesday really injured the Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    everytime DB is on the tube (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    Obama loses a few hundred votes

    and the DNC loses money... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:21:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And the baby Jesus cries... (none / 0) (#149)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    that would be MetaJesus... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    crying.

    [ Parent ]
    Think You Forgot a Zero Or Two n/t (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If Brazile has just said (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:04:15 AM EST
    We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    I don't think there would have been any problem. . .

    As to Hillary, I think the media narrative has turned so sharply against her that she really can't stay in. However, I worry about the impact of having the person who will clearly not be the nominee win WV by 30-40 points. Perhaps that will be her way of getting on the ticket. That's fine with me.

    Been thinking about what it would take (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by NotThatStupid on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    ... for me to vote for Obama, should he be nominated. I'll admit that right now I'm leaning to being a -2 should that happen (i.e., I'd vote for Senator McCain). Here's my list of what is required to get my vote:

    1. Obama would have to choose a VP who is a foreign policy wonk. I don't trust his judgment and experience there.

    2. He'd also have to let us know who his SecDef would be in advance, and it would have to be someone who has the support and trust of the military.

    3. The Democratic party would have to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations now, when their votes still can make a difference to the nomination.

    4. The DNC would have to demand the resignation - from all official party positions - of Donna Brazile, because of her outrageous statements regarding working class voters and the party's "new coalition."

    5. Senator Obama would have to apologize to the Clintons for portraying them as racists during the campaign.

    6. Senator Obama also needs to apologize for the sexism his campaign has demonstrated.

    7. Senator Obama also has to demand that his "former" pastor apologize to Senator Clinton for the disgusting insults he hurled at her from his pulpit.

    If all those things happen, then I could vote for him in the GE. Otherwise, I'm voting the other way.

    [ Parent ]
    Very good points... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    but, I have found his campaign to be so vile, and disrespectful that I don't know if he can redeem himself with apologies. That he would rather give us a Reagan economy than a Clinton economy is baffling to me.


    [ Parent ]
    not the media's choice...too much power to them. (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    As to Hillary, I think the media narrative has turned so sharply against her that she really can't stay in.

    The problem is, that would mean the media gets to decide...and democracy really is dead.

    And I'm not ok with that. No American should be ok with the media having the right to decide important questions that are supposed to be up to voters.

    I will resist, in any way I can, a world in which the media gets to manipulate the election outcome. In this case, I will do it by simply accepting that the race isn't over until Clinton concedes.

    Then, when she does, I am reregistering independent, and I will start looking for ways to help defeat these trolls who have taken over my Democratic party. If there is no way to restore the party I was loyal to, I will start worrying about where to go next.

    [ Parent ]

    that would be fine with me too! (none / 0) (#15)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She has to be on the ticket now. (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    It's inevitable.  I can't see a ticket that doesn't include Hillary.  Obama will need Hillary's demos and Bill's campaigning assistance.

    [ Parent ]
    Then Obama shouldn't have smeared the Clintons (none / 0) (#164)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    as racists, destroying their brand.

    [ Parent ]
    Then Obama shouldn't have smeared the Clintons (none / 0) (#165)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    as racists, destroying their brand.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (none / 0) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    but, that's a decision only the two of them can make.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would she possibly (none / 0) (#211)
    by seeker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    want to be VP?  She can be independent in the Senate, and would go down with Obama.

    If she did take it, it would be even more evidence that she truly cares about the party.  That would be as impressive as anything she has yet done.

    [ Parent ]

    The shift in the media narrative (none / 0) (#105)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    is really the key here. That shift is not without reason but it will pick up momentum now. Mass Media creates our Mass Reality.

    As the media shifts a feedback loop will begin and the end will come.

    I wonder if she will go all the way to Puerto Rico?

    Or will she see how Oregon goes?

    [ Parent ]

    the media narrative (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    is driven by their corporate sponsors and some of those sponsors are the oil companies that Hillary is taking on!
    No one messes with the precious oil companies!


    [ Parent ]
    She said this morning (none / 0) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    she is continuing until a nominee is absolutely decided.  Sounds like convention to me.


    [ Parent ]
    Doubt it. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    It will depend on superdelegate trends. I do think after reviewing the days news she will stay in until every remaining contest has been waged though.

    [ Parent ]
    not to me (none / 0) (#140)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    The first part is fine, but who is talking about throwing out anybody? The whole "baby and bathwater" suggests that its someone's agenda to throw something out. The only ones I see (and I am admittedly not unbiased) throwing something out/not reaching out is Obama/Brazile.

    This phrase was very poorly chosen and suggests to me the Brazile faction of the DNC's "Clinton purge" agenda.

    Good luck with that.

    [ Parent ]

    AAAAARRRGH! (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:04:17 AM EST
    Ooooooh!  If I had that feces-for-frontal-lobes Brazile in front of me now, I'd give her glib self a serious tongue lashing.

    Bloggers annoy me when they are oblivious and short sighted.  So-called "leaders" infuriate me.  

    OK....Well, Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    puts her money into it, then I'll send her some, too.

    Apparently, she's decided to give the remaining voters their voice.

    I'd prefer her to bow out.  I hate to hear one more word about how she's hurting the party, etc.

    yeah (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    On the other hand, they've gone this far, why not wrap it up properly? Two or four more weeks won't make or break the election in November.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm now convinced she should see it on out...... (none / 0) (#138)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    Why not?  Come this far, and apparently people would feel bad if she bowed out before the votes are counted.

    It's for the voters, really.

    [ Parent ]

    I would prefer her to stay (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:23 AM EST
    You only have a few more states and Puerto Rico. I know how I felt in Feb not having a say in Penna and I know how I felt being a part of the process when I did have a say. Let them have their say also. At this point I do not believe that Hillary staying in the race will be the cause of any more split than there is. The DNC and what Obama and his supporters have said is the cause. Donna's words last night can not be retracted. We all knew her opinion, but she did not even hide it behind her 'Undeclared'. Right. And if Dean is still mad at what happened in 04, then I can actually believe that is why he wanted the DNC chairmanship so much. I can also wonder if maybe he, a DC outsider, would have made a good President. He was exciting and got my political juices flowing again, but now I have to wonder. Donna has sure insulted me and let me know that I am not included in the 'new' Democratic party. BTW, she is not exactly a 'younger' voter herself But she is AA.

    [ Parent ]
    Nodding (none / 0) (#139)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    I can also see that the other side is going to be polite about this.

    I just couldn't stand the bullying that I assumed would be coming.  

    [ Parent ]

    The netroots (nutroots) are a problem. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    They are basically either one of two things,
    "left wing" extremists like Michael Moore or they are the affluent "creative" class of people who can afford to have a fast talker like Obama in power who will not do much to better the lives of the working class.

    If you look at sites such as Democraticunderground, Dailykos, Huffingtonpost, as well as Moveon.org, and  Josh Marshall and the lefty's on the radio, we have a coalition all to simliar to the extreme right wing one that brought Mr. Bush to power some eight years back.
    These activists have done nothing but antagonize anyone who does not fully support Mr. Obama.
    I am not looking forward to my choices in the fall if it is Obama v. McCain.
    To McCain's defense, he does not tow the party line and the right wing is NOT banging the McCain drum the way they did the Bush drum and the left the Obama drum.

    Of course, we all love talkleft.com!
    A much more reasonable group posts there!

    They are irrelevant now (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    Obama certainly will not pay any attention to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Dare I say AA's are irrelevant now too (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    He'll not waste one iota of future energy on appealing to the interests of the netroot lefties or blacks.  In fact, I expect he'll stiff arm them at every future turn.  The only question is will Obama skew white latte or white populist now in his message?  Will he go modified libertarian with a hopium veneer of concern trolling on Tibetan monks, global warming, Iraq, and the like?  Or will he coopt HRC's populist message and embrace some FDR-style bread and butter solutions to the economic crisis?  He has certainly shown no interest in the latter.  I guess it all depends on whether his team really buys their own spin that the white working class is both unneeded and unwelcome in their coalition.  My guess is that anyone earning upwards of $80,000/year who has moderate to liberal social views, thinks Europe is a paragon of sociopolitical virtue, and keeps busy by buying their favored brands of consumer goods and cruising blogs will be happy under Obama.  At least for a while.  Not so much anyone else.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am amazed... (4.33 / 3) (#115)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    ...that these comments are tolerated on this site.  

     Attempts to paint Senator Clinton as a champion of the working class, while decrying Senator Obama's supporters as "faux Americana" are dishonest and insulting.  I don't need to be lectured about how an upper class, Yale-educated senator from New York and former First Lady is the only populist in the running.  And I harbor no ill will; she is an accomplished woman and politician.  Senator Obama went to elite universities as well, and has a lot of money as well.   Senator Edwards, the candidate who was really running on a populist platform, is out of the running.  You can vent your frustrations with the outcome of this primary (which isn't even over) without resorting to these kinds of insults.

    [ Parent ]

    I am amazed (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    that you are still here.  I mean--why?  What are you hoping to accomplish?  We "get" that you think we are all wrong and deluded.  We "get" that you think Obama is the presumptive nominee.  All of your points have been made.  Now will you please stop this petty, childish gloating and go away?

    And if you won't go away, why not?  What else could you possibly add to any of this discourse?  Why do you continue to lecture and denigrate us?  What kind of person are you that you can do this?

    [ Parent ]

    Funny you should say that (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    Here's BDTs comment to Alec last night....

    [new] You are suspended (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:33:02 PM EST

    You clearly do not know how to behave on a night like this.
    Come back tomorrow.

    I'm saying it again.... Obama supporters have a lot of anger.  They are another large factor of why Obama will lose the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    And yet... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    ...could not refer to what comments were problematic.  He stated that I "clearly" did not know how to "behave" on a "night like this."  I was responding to (baseless) accusations of voter fraud in IN.  

    [ Parent ]
    Dead on right (none / 0) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    I wonder where it will turn now, this anger. McCain can't be enough, I wonder if we will now see factions in Obama support to see which is more "pure." This could be fun!


    [ Parent ]
    Now see... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    ...this is exactly what I am talking about.

     I don't think all Clinton supporters are wrong-headed and deluded; I live with someone who supported her campaign.  He sure as hell isn't as vicious as what I read in the comments section here.  

     And remember...this site is TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime.  I crossover into the discussions of the drug war, and I post at law blogs on a regular basis.  And I've done so for years.      

     What do I add? A gentle reminder that Senator Obama is not demonic, his supporters should not be casually dismissed and the Clinton mythos is full of holes every bit as large as Obamamania.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    What insult? (none / 0) (#128)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    I didn't insult netroots or AA's.  I insulted the proposition that Obama will in any way cater to their interests.  He won't.  He doesn't have to work for their vote, so he'll expend his resources elsewhere.  Do you honestly think he's going to run as the champion of MoveOn's agenda or as the black candidate?  He hasn't catered to them so far, and now that those voters lips are firmly planted on his butt, he has no reason to start.  Look at what happened to women in this cycle.  We've been so terrorized by Roe that we've been reliably voting for any dog that runs as a Dem for years.  So no leverage for us.

    And I never said Clinton was a genuine populist either.  (Though you completely misunderstand what makes someone a populist.)  She just knows enough to value the working class vote and attempt to respectfully work to earn it.  She's found a way to connect and she's promised an agenda to honor that connection. That's good politics, even if it's old politics. Your upper class Harvard-educated Senator could learn a thing or two about that.

    [ Parent ]

    This comment: (none / 0) (#135)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    "My guess is that anyone earning upwards of $80,000/year who has moderate to liberal social views, thinks Europe is a paragon of sociopolitical virtue, and keeps busy by buying their favored brands of consumer goods and cruising blogs will be happy under Obama.  At least for a while.  Not so much anyone else."

     Come on.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    Come on, indeed! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    I am three out of four of those things, yet I prefer HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    What benefits does Obama offer the working class? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    Fill me in.  Is he going to guarantee them health care?  Is he going to rein in the oil companies?  Is he going to regulate Wall Street?  Is he going to protect social security?  Is he going to create blue collar jobs?  Is he going to reform education?  I've yet to hear anything concrete from him that suggests a yes answer to any of these questions.  And what little I have heard from him suggests the answer might even be a flat out no to some.

    [ Parent ]
    By the way (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    I expect to do just fine under an Obama admin.  I've got economic security.  I'm a little freaked out about his foreign policy prospects.  No way of knowing how he might compound the damage Bush has done.  Can't possibly predict it given his inexperience, his naive statements, and his odd stable of advisors.  And heaven only knows what his social justice platform will be.  I expect not much.  He'll be too busy placating all viewpoints and therefore validating nothing.  And I definitely loathe the prospect of watching him devolve into Carter the sequel.  Especially watching the whining from his disillusioned young supporters.  Oh yeah, and I will cop to the fact that Europhiles annoy me.  But economically, I expect to continue to thrive enough to pay for my iphone, keep my satellite tv and internet access, eat out whenever I want, maintain my health insurance, and keep my home.  Not sure about how many other people can say the same, but any one of these candidates will have only a marginal effect on my personal and economic situation.  My support for HRC is all about the belief that a rising tide lifts all boats.  I'd like to see that for everyone, and I think she's the only candidate left in this race that has even a shot at creating that kind of rising tide.

    [ Parent ]
    He has plans... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    ...to make health care affordable, provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of American employees relative to foreign employees, expansion of the FMLA, etc.  

     I just have a hard time believing that a senator who missed the bankruptcy "reform" vote (Obama voted nay, btw) can claim to be the voice of the working class.

    [ Parent ]

    Alec (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    his health care proposal will kill us in CA.  His tax plan will kill NY and CA dual-income families.  He's raising the rates above 100,000.  He's talking about privatizing SS.  That will absolutely kill older Americans headed into retirement.  His energy record is horrible.

    It's a disaster.

    I'm not sure his platform has anything that even makes much sense.

    I suppose bringing home some troops will help.

    [ Parent ]

    I Find It Hard To Believe That A Senator Who Voted (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    against setting a cap on the interest an amendment that would have placed a 30 percent cap on the interest rate that could be charged on credit cards and other consumer debt (Clinton voted Yea BTW) is real voice of the working class.

    As a highly educated, high information Obama supporter I'm sure that you know that the bankruptcy bill was voted on the same day that Bill Clinton underwent heart surgery. So I guess you are just spreading misinformation to discredit Senator Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    No, I didn't know that... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:36 PM EST
    ...although as a highly educated and informed Clinton supporter, I am sure you know that he voted against the amendment because he thought it didn't go far enough (hard to argue with, since most interest rates are well under 30%), and that Senator Clinton voted for a virtually identical bankruptcy reform bill in 2001?  Or is it just another smear?

    [ Parent ]
    I believe the bankruptcy (none / 0) (#212)
    by seeker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    vote happened on the day Bill had his first heart surgery.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#195)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    and that he thinks he should keep his policy plans, and changes a secret is not going to get him into the Whitehouse.

    If he gets to the GE, people will notice the disappearance of substance from the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    stop judging people on where they are from (none / 0) (#182)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    I don't need to be lectured about how an upper class, Yale-educated senator from New York and former First Lady is the only populist in the running.

    Apparently you don't get that it isn't about where you're from...it's about what you believe and especially what you do.

    Obama is an enemy to the working class. His policies throw us overboard to pursue a little more wealth for his own kind at our expense. He won't represent us. All he can do for us is mock and ridicule us...which he has already done.

    Sorry but Obama is a snob, and the working class is going to vote for McCain in such huge numbers it's going to make heads spin. But Donna Brazile knows this - and thinks it's okay, because she's forming a "new coalition" and we're not part of it.

    You can't throw us out of the party and at the same time pretend to be our friend. Doesn't work.

    [ Parent ]

    Please... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    ...she voted for bankruptcy reform in 2001 (allegedly because of problems facing "small" credit unions, notably after receiving generous senate donations from creditors).  She's no friend of the working class.  The only reason she was able to run a populist campaign was because Edwards was out of the loop.  


    [ Parent ]
    so? (none / 0) (#219)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:03:54 PM EST
    ...she voted for bankruptcy reform in 2001 (allegedly because of problems facing "small" credit unions, notably after receiving generous senate donations from creditors).  She's no friend of the working class.  The only reason she was able to run a populist campaign was because Edwards was out of the loop.  

    She's a pragmatist. I don't mind that about her.  

    To me the key is, quite simply, she is the sort of politician who derives her power from the voters. The deal is quite simple: we vote for her, she gives us stuff, we vote for her some more, around and around.

    Obama thinks it's pandering to actually give anyone anything.

    Ultimately it comes down to hoping that Hillary will be exactly like Bill Clinton was. He wasn't perfect - I know there is howling from people who treat politics as a game of chess, instead of something that actually affects peoples' lives. But in the real world, Bill Clinton made life noticeably and appreciably better for those who lived in the US. Especially so for the working class. I believe Hillary will basically stop the downward slide economically and she will fix the world problem. I don't ask her to provide a world where injustice no longer exists.

    [ Parent ]

    african americans delivered florida (none / 0) (#146)
    by sancho on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    to gore in 2000. except their ballots were invalidated. we still have not fixed that problem. the republicans have written off the af-am vote since 1964. let's see, what's their record in presidential elections since then?

    [ Parent ]
    They're not irrelevant to this C list blogger (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    Destroying the media critique for a taste of the Kool-Aid pissed about 5 years of work down the tubes.  By their fruits shall we know them, and a corrupt discourse is never the sign of someone who has a concern for justice when in power.

    We can start over, with a lot more experience, but it's wrenching.

    I never thought that the day would come when a doctored video would make it onto the A list and go viral without a transcript to check or its provenance posted. Move along, people, move along, there's no story here!

    [ Parent ]

    Espec. after all the flap about (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    Bush's docs. and Rather.  Doesn't stack up.

    [ Parent ]
    One way he can unify the party (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    Is to do them what he did to Rev. Wright.

    Of course he won't do that.  I was just saying it was a way he could if he wanted.


    [ Parent ]

    They were always irrelevant... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    ...getting nothing but clear panders from both candidates, and providing nothing to Obama or Clinton except for some petty fundraising cash. In fact, the big blog push for Obama mirrored Clinton's now-concluded resurgence in the nomination contest.

    [ Parent ]
    Moore isn't really an extremist (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    he's provocative.  And clownish.

    i think he's likely to be shunned now.

    [ Parent ]

    Dismissing (none / 0) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    the strength of the Clinton supporters beliefs and expectations has been sport this election season. I don't think the media fully understands the reason, or the depth of the support those 50% who have said they will not vote Obama have for why they won't rejoin the party in November.

    [ Parent ]
    It reminds me - (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    - of some of the criticims of the Labour Party I heard on BBC World News recently, from working class Brits.  Essentially, they were complaining that Labour wasn't much involved with Labour, anymore.  The party built a new centrist coalition that gave short shrift to the needs and concerns and hopes and dreams of the British working class, so it was Labour in name only.  

    [ Parent ]
    This is incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    McCain's defense, he does not tow the party line

    100 years in Iraq, Justices just like Roberts, Scalia, Tax cuts uber alles. Where's the daylight?

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    McCain DOES tow the party line (none / 0) (#122)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    The AZ Republic newspaper this morning has an article about McCain's votes and how they rarely stray from party goals. He only talks like a "maverick"

    [ Parent ]
    wow, that's a lof of nuts (none / 0) (#124)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    you listed, maybe millions of far-left nuts!!  

    kos was in the military
    Josh Marshall is a respected award-winning journalist.

    I know people are disappointed here but don't go smearing every other dem unfairly

    [ Parent ]

    lilybart (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    what are you doing here?  what points are you making?  What are you adding to the conversation?

    [ Parent ]
    lilybart Is Just Here To Distribute Unity Ponies (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    Don't you just feel all warm and fuzzy about Obama after all her great efforts?

    [ Parent ]
    Is there a disclaimer I missed (none / 0) (#196)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    Is there a banner at the top that say:

    To Talk Left Readers: Please do not read any threads that have to do with the DEM primary unless you are a Hillary supporter.

    Is there? If not, I think I am allowed to let someone know that Obama's supporters are not all far-left nuts and the bloggers she smeared are not nuts either.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you AX10 (none / 0) (#200)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    IF not, I wasn't addressing you.

    [ Parent ]
    I learned from my brief brush with political (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    strategists that say what they mean, and then deny any negative implications by denying what they just said.

    Ms. Brazile's words are textbook.  When she says "not throw the baby out with the bathwater" she means her "new coalition" does not need Latinos and white, blue collar workers.

    This is some coalition that Obama's primary supporters are building.  His primary supporters have been so caught up in denigrating the accomplishments and legacy of the 90s that they have deluded themselves into believing they do not need the Clinton coalition.

    I'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  I heard him ask for my vote last night -- which is more than Donna Brazile and his shrilly-silly supporters in the left blogosphere have done.

     

    He is not getting my vote... (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    until he is down 20 points to McCain and he comes begging for it.

    Then after he publicly apologizes for depicting the Clintons as racists and admits to the AA community that he hoodwinked and bamboozled them, I may reconsider.

    [ Parent ]

    amen! (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    Then after he publicly apologizes for depicting the Clintons as racists and admits to the AA community that he hoodwinked and bamboozled them, I may reconsider.

    I think I might enjoy seeing that.

    [ Parent ]

    He didn't ask for your vote at all (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    The rhetoric is meaningless. It's the Unity Pony all over again.

    The way to ask for your vote is with policy.

    The way to ask for my vote would be to fix the broken universal health care plan, and send some surrogate out to grovel for the Harry & Louise ads.

    That would help. Of course, the OFB would promptly proceed to piss all that away with more "dry pussy" postings or false charges of racism, but there's no reason that Obama should try to do the right thing.

    [ Parent ]

    should try ->shouldn't try n/t (none / 0) (#171)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here's another of her metaphors (4.88 / 9) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:13:32 AM EST
    for the hopey-changey churchy folks -- a great big  choir loft for Obama, as Brazile said in Time magazine: "Obama must create a new movement and he must create a whole new choir and in his new choir he's the conductor and they are inspired by hope."

    Ugh.  This from the woman who can't sing harmony.

    [ Parent ]

    Mashed potatoes and gravy (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    Did you hear that one?  She needs to just get off my TV with her smarmy pseudo-folksie cooking analogies before I vow to never vote Dem again in my life.

    [ Parent ]
    You know why all the cooking references? (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    She's shilling her book from 2004:  "Cooking with Grease:  Stirring the Pots in American Politics."  Have you ever heard of it?  Me neither.  But, for the first time evah, it showed up in Brazile's writer bio at Ms. Magazine.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw ir in a remainder bin. True story. nt (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I remember it actually getting an excellent (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    review somewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    I also remember a few good reviews of (none / 0) (#141)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    Trent Lott's "Herding Cats" (I might be getting that title wrong).  

    [ Parent ]
    That's the title (none / 0) (#143)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    Truth told, Lott has always struck me as a fascinating character. You always know exactly who and what he is: a Dixiecrat caught in a time warp. Ever seen a picture of him in a seersucker?

    [ Parent ]
    I grew up in his neck of the woods. nt (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:49:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is creepy. I can think of no other (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    word for it.

    This "new coalition" stuff reminds me of "Old Europe" and "New Europe," that kind of grandiose, bellicose, empty self-justification.  

    [ Parent ]

    Movement... Change... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    Why am I thinking diapers?

    [rimshot. laughter]

    [ Parent ]

    Donna Brazile's best attempts to unify (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    Her party is just to make sure nobody else will ever be able to call it their party.

    I completely agree. (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by lilburro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    She sounds as though she is enunciating her own version of the Southern Strategy:  let the Repubs take blue collars and Hispanics.  We'll concentrate on something else.  Yet these people have the nerve to claim these groups should vote for Dems because it's in their economic self-interest.  

    How is the Democratic Party, the party for the people, not the businesses, going to stand for the people if it shoos them away like this?  How can you argue for helping the working class when you "don't need them" in your coalition?  Brazile's talk is very destructive to the Democratic brand.

    We should be moving to embrace the working class of all races and fighting to get the working class into the Obama coalition, regardless of race.  Pushing away the white working class and keeping the black working class just reinforces the notion this is about race.

    Brazile is a disgrace.

    As a blue collar Hispanic, (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by mulletov cocktails on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    I completly agree.  This may be one of the most asinine ideas I've heard in a while.  The disconnect between the "creative class" of the party and those of us with calluses on our hands is as baffling as it is disheartening.

    Though I know a vote for anything other than Dem. nominee is a vote for Mcsame, I cannot justify voting for Obama (TX isn't in play in the GE just yet).  I'm at the point now where I just can't watch the Democratic Party self destruct again and again.

    [ Parent ]

    writing off hispanics (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by sancho on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    would insure the destruction of the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Brazile is a moron (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    People like my husband(white southern working class male in VIRGINIA) will take her at her word and vote McCain. He ned very little incntive sice he already believes hat the Democratic party is full of "nutless wonders who have failed to fight for average Americans time and time again."

    [ Parent ]
    exactly (none / 0) (#192)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    who have failed to fight for average Americans time and time again.

    To me that's what is at stake.

    Obama has indicated that a vote for him = a vote for the "new coalition", the one where ordinary Americans don't matter to the so-called Democratic party.

    And don't think AAs will be any different....they might love him, but he doesn't truly love them.

    McCain is going to win either way - Obama isn't going to win the WH; people are not going to trust him. His own behavior has already guaranteed his defeat. But if he goes down hard enough, it might kill this "new coalition" and destroy all those politicians who quite frankly need to be purged from the Democratic party. Their influence and power will be dead and politicians will be forced to recognize these groups the Democratic party has always taken for granted.

    I guess you could say it's between the two wings of the Democratic party now. If you're okay with the elites marginalizing your power and making it policy to assume you'll vote for them no matter how they treat you, because you would never vote for McCain no matter how badly the Democrats abuse you, then just stick with party unity and vote for O. But to me, party unity does not come from one side battering the other. I think the abused spouse is absolutely apt ... unity comes from putting the abuser's power back into line, not by feeding that power and pretending abuse is ok.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not like Obama isn't (none / 0) (#85)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    going to depend on Hispanics for his southwestern strategy.

    They are not old anything given the map Obama intends to run on.

    [ Parent ]

    Anyone have video of the first Brazille remark? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    CNN transcript has the word "just" before blue collar voters and Hispanics, which is somewhat mitigating.

    However, commenters said they did not hear the word "just."  It's possible it wasn't easily audible -- or it's possible CNN cleaned up her remarks.

    Video of the first remark would be helpful, if audio really good.

    I did not hear just, but (none / 0) (#35)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    I guess she could have said it.  Her tone was so condescending and snotty that even if she said "just" it was still an undignified and passive-aggressive.

    [ Parent ]
    Someone said someone did have this on TIVO (none / 0) (#39)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    But, no name for the TIVO-er.

    [ Parent ]
    I had tivo'd it, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Iphie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
    but I didn't save it -- I'm not prepared technologically to take tivo'd material and successfully get it online -- sorry!

    [ Parent ]
    Looks to me like the Dem Party agrees with Donna (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by rockinrocknroll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    And by that I mean the Party proper (not us Dem voters, who of course have little to no say now over what the elders want).

    Frankly I'd rather know the truth of what they're doing - purging the white working class and Hispanics - right now than to find out further down the road that we had already been dumped on our butts without us even realizing it'd happened. Basically, if I'm going to be fired, I want to know so that I can quit and find someone who does value the work I do.

    the leaders have decided to go for (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by sancho on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    a "noble" loss.

    then they are not responsible for governing and can contionue to blame the repubs for everything.

    i'm not sure the worst revenge hillary voters could get on the dnc would be to vote for obama to win in november.

    then we'd see how "democratic" everybody really was.

    [ Parent ]

    One of the remarkable things (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    that Brazile said, when confronted by Campbell Brown on her obvious bias, was that she was "undeclared" but not "undecided".

    What is this but an absolutely clear admission that she knows perfectly well whom she really supports, but is not going to own up to it?

    Could there be a better reason to strip her of her pretense to being anything resembling an impartial observer, as she does whenever she speaks as an "analyst"?

    The sheer dishonesty of her making that pretense, and of CNN's indulging it, is pretty breathtaking.

    She should never have been (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    allowed to comment on the contest period.

    Her role in the MI/FL fiasco was reason enough for her to be disqualified.

    [ Parent ]

    Pelosi and Donna (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    both absolutely abused their positions in the DNC, feigning neutrality while giving out absolutely biased information to the public.

    Both are disagrace.

    [ Parent ]

    She's not sending us a message? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM EST
    Because it seems like everything else is like that, seriously.

    1. Obama endorsements by Party elders

    2. Brazile disendorsements of party constituencies

    Both talking to the money people.

    Looks more like a good cop, bad cop strategy to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Good for Hillary Rodham Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by hitchhiker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:13:38 AM EST
    I would expect nothing less from her.

    I read Ms. Brazile's comments to say that she's confident the "old coalition" will still be in place when the "new coalition" moves in.

    If she wants that to be the case, she ought to listen to her own remarks and ask herself why all those older white women are going to stick around . . . to be told they're racist?  To be told that no matter how qualified or competent or strong a woman is, she's never going to be in the same ball game as a man?  To be relentlessly and publicly mocked by the very members of the "new coalition" for style of dress, tone of voice, quality of laughter?

    I know what the McCain campaign is doing this morning.  They're asking themselves how they appeal to all those voters Ms. Brazile is assuming belong to her candidate.  Let's hope her candidate is making a similar analysis.

    Bring it on, please.  I'm ready to be convinced.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    the only people who have ever called me a racist were on the site that shall remain unnamed, and I tolerated it because I wanted there to be a voice for Hillary.  After the PA win, I came here.  I no longer need to be verbally abused on beh