• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Sweet Sue on Last GoT post, I promise
    William on Last GoT post, I promise
    Catscatscats on Last GoT post, I promise
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Last GoT post, I promise
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Last GoT post, I promise
    Kathleen A Wynne on Last GoT post, I promise
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Last GoT post, I promise
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Last GoT post, I promise
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Last GoT post, I promise
    William on Last GoT post, I promise
    riverdaughter on Last GoT post, I promise
    William on Last GoT post, I promise
    HerstoryRepeating on Last GoT post, I promise
    Kathleen A Wynne on Last GoT post, I promise
    William on Last GoT post, I promise
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Everyone’s Noticed The Oncoming US/China Cold War
      Horowitz calls it a tech cold war, but it is unlikely to stay that way. Cutting Huawei off from all non-open source Google services, including the play store, and not allowing it to buy US components is a huge blow to Huawei. Huawei is ahead in 5G, and American allies have been reluctant to ban […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Monday: Murphy on Morning Edition today!

Wake up, everybody!  Murphy of PUMAPAC is scheduled to make an appearance on Morning Edition on NPR this morning.  (Or is it Tell Me More with Michel Martin at 7:30 AM today,)  Tune your catchannels to your local NPR station or catch her here.  Audio should be available around 9AM EST. Diane Mantavoulos is scheduled to talk with Susan Estrich and Robert Shapiro at 11:30 AM EST on To The Point on NPR.

More shortly…

Read this passage from the upcoming expose and “analysis” of 200 ill-gotten Clinton campaign memos and tell me which campaign the author is referring to:

He wrote a remarkably prescient memo in March 2007 about the importance of appealing to what he called “the Invisible Americans,” and specifically “WOMEN, LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS”—exactly the groups that helped Clinton beat Obama in key states nearly a year later.

But no one synthesized and acted on the good advice.

If I didn’t know that Mike Allen of The Politico was referring to Mark Penn’s advice to Clinton, which she is supposed to have ignored, I might think Allen was talking about Obama’s campaign.  Is this another attempt to rewrite history?  Is Allen trying to convince us that Clinton didn’t bother to listen to Penn?  Then what the heck was all of that winning all about?

Sometimes, I can’t figure out what it is that the meme generators at The Politico are initiating.  It isn’t always immediately obvious.  Here’s more from the passage:

“The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men,” Green writes. “[H]er advisers couldn’t execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. … [S]he never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel.

“What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make.”

This is just silly.  She whupped Obama’s ass.  She won CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH, FL, MI, AZ, TX, MA, WV, KY etc, etc.  This was a phenomenally successful campaign.  Hillary figured out what she needed to do and did it very well.  What she could not overcome was the DNC’s withdrawal of FL and MI delegates that deprived her of the critical mass necessary to cruise to an easy victory.

But now we see where The Politico is going with this article.  It is designed to make Hillary look like a weak chief executive.  And in putting this argument out, they completely undermine it.  If Obama is the nominee then there’s nothing to see folks, move along, that’s all she wrote.  Why the hell is it necessary to continue to destroy Clinton’s reputation as a potential Chief Executive? Wouldn’t this article seem to confirm her viability?  D’OH!  Count on a stupid, lower class voter like myself to draw that conclusion.  I will obediently wait for one of my intellectual betters to correct me of this notion.

What I saw during the campaign was a relentless attack on Clinton from the beginning, including an attack on Penn.  Now, I wasn’t crazy about the very top down, controlled, risk averse style of the Clinton campaign that was on display before Iowa.  But I was very impressed by the way the whole operation got its act together after that point.  There probably wasn’t any management style that would have been able to overcome the FL and MI problem.  And the way the delegates were awarded in the caucuses also made Hillary’s path to nomination difficult and steep.  But the reason Obama still seems to need boosters like Mike Allen’s article to snag the nomination is precisely because all the delegate manipulation makes him look like an illegitimate candidate.  The voters of those big states were put on mute in spite of their deliberate efforts to move up their primaries this year so their votes could have impact.  They were deprived of that impact.  There is no correlation between the voters pent up frustration with the outcome and Clinton’s management style.

She doesn’t lead like a typical Chief Executive.   I *suspect* she has a more feminine managerial style: collaborative, consensus building and accomplished through delegation. Sooo, what is the point of this article? That it makes men feel oogie?

It’s like reading tea leaves to look at these 200 emails. *200*! That campaign probably exchanged 200 emails in the course of half an hour. Are we supposed to deduce from these 200 emails that she was a lousy manager and she didn’t listen to her campaign people? This is ridiculous beyond absurd. If anything, it tends to restore Penn’s reputation and makes it look like the attacks on Penn were designed to remove his very good advice from her campaign. I really don’t know. But it never struck me that a guy who won his client MI, FL, CA, NJ, NY, MA, AZ, TN by Feb 5 was a failure. The problem is that none of those states counted when the deck was stacked in favor of the only states that Obama had a prayer of winning- the caucus states. And to try to draw any other conclusion this late in the game is really stretching it.

Advertisements

Ah, Jeez, they’re at it again (or who are the SDs more afraid of? Wyoming or NEW JERSEY?)

Both TalkingPointsMemo and The Politico are winding up the “there’s no possible way Hillary can win” crap. Esentially, these guys are trying to make the voters of PA, WV, KY, IN and NC feel that there is no possible way our votes can count so why bother? Before I go off on another post describing why this is just a haka, let me just express how incredibly disappointed I am with my own party.

We were supposed to be the good guys. We were the ones for counting every vote. We were disgusted with voter suppression in Ohio in 2004. We were the ones who hated Rovian tactics of smearing other people’s character. We were apalled when the Republicans tried to control their primaries in 2000 by essentially picking a candidate in advance and defaming John McCain in South Carolina with racist smears and innuendos.

And what do we have this year? We have the DNC disenfranchising what they must have known in advance was going to be a pro-Hillary state- Florida. They didn’t just apply the standard punishment, they completely wiped the voters off of the map. We have a candidate who is just fine with suppressing the voters of MI and FL by passively dragging his feet so their voices don’t get heard unless they don’t count. And by extension, he is robbing NJ, NY, CA, AZ, MA, OH and TX the critical mass it needs for Clinton while at the same time artificially inflating the delegate counts and popular vote of Obama. If it isn’t technically cheating, it is certainly immoral. We have one candidate, Senator Obama, accusing the Clintons, life long advocates of civil rights and healing the racial divide, of being racists. We’ve heard Senator Obama offer an olive branch to Clinton on the floor of the senate and then had his campaign turn around and accuse her of ruthlessness and unethical behavior. And we’ve had the mouthpiece for the DNC, Donna Brazile, go on Sunday morning talking heads programs and threaten to leave the Democratic party if she doesn’t get her way and Obama doesn’t get nominated.

But here’s the kicker. Jim VamderHei and Mike Allen, who are clearly fans of the Republican party, make no mistake about that, write this stupid paragraph in the above mentioned post:

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

How about we do some truthful rearranging? Because here’s the REAL situation:

Unless Obama is able to win at least one large electoral college state or swing state outside of Illinios — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, he has only one scenario for victory. A more qualified opponent and her backers in NJ, NY, CA, MA, OH, AZ, TX, (PA), MI and FL would be told that, even though she won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

And if you think you can haka your way to the nomination and sit on the millions and millions of us who voted for Clinton in the big electoral college states, YOU are the one out of your minds. We are going to swing a big stick. Count on it.

One more thing: I pinched this from Taylor Marsh’s page. She writes:

Don’t look now, but Democrats are in trouble, especially with Obama at the top, which is where we stand today. Superdelegates can sense the general election dangers of an Obama candidacy, but at the same time can also imagine the furor if they decide against him. News flash folks: What makes anyone think Clinton supporters will be any less outraged? Like I said, all signs point to trouble

.

First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama’s pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama’s speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)