Maxine Waters Throws Down

Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.  She's very strong among African-Americans and women, but that could change.  This is a big deal.  

Barack Obama will need another layer of Teflon if he intends to continue talking mush on Iraq withdrawal. Speaking on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Rep. Maxine Waters warned that she and other leaders of the 75-member Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus will soon journey to early Democratic primary states to determine "who is nuancing and tip-toeing" around the issue. Asked directly if she were referring to frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Waters said "they both have to prove themselves."..

"The way to stop this war is to stop funding this war," Rep. Waters told CNN. The Black California congresswoman and other leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, more than a third of whose members are African Americans, are pushing legislation "that would wind us out of Iraq in six months."

Out - not "on the way out." Out.

The "Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act," introduced last week by Rep. Lynn Woolsey and fellow Out of Iraq Caucus founders Waters and Barbara Lee, leaves no room for Clinton-Obama-esque wiggling.

I didn't realize this until I was in Connecticut, but Maxine Waters is a hero in the African-American community.  She is admired, loved, and trusted, and without her, Lamont loses the primary.  Along with Al Sharpton, who may still run in 2008, Maxine is going to make sure that Iraq will be on the table in the primary, and will push both Clinton and Obama to take a harder line.  Right now, Clinton has something along the lines of a 90-10 approval/disapproval among African-Americans, but I saw up close that Maxine can beat Bill with Iraq.  After Maxine endorsed Lamont, whenever Ned said 'We're spending $300M a day in Iraq, and that money should go to schools and hospitals, etc' he got more votes, and this was against someone who marched in the Civil Rights movement in the South.

Hillary Clinton, like Lieberman, is going to counter this with massive quantities of money, combined with a conversation with the elites.  Here's her strategy:

But there aren't, really, vacations in Hillaryland. And the Clintons' time in Anguilla was well spent. For although they weren't hobnobbing with the usual political suspects, they spent much of their vacation with someone more important: Robert Johnson, the man known as the "First Black Billionaire."..

Johnson -- founder of Black Entertainment Television and owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats -- stands at the pinnacle of the black elite and embodies its longstanding ties to the Clintons. He didn't respond to a request for an interview, but three people familiar with the Clintons' Anguilla trip confirmed that Johnson -- an old Friend of Bill -- spent time with the Clintons on the island, where he owns a home. And while Johnson isn't a prominent public figure in American politics, he's a major behind-the-scenes power crucial to a central front in Clinton's campaign for president: a full-court press on the African-American elite.

BET (now owned by Viacom) isn't particularly trusted among progressive African-Americans, and there are huge tensions between elites and activists (much like there are between the netroots and the party elites that support Hillary).  It's a standard Clinton model, going directly to the billionaire/media set.  Robert Johnson is another Rupert Murdoch, and both look like they might be powerful Hillary supporters.

The progressive caucus, the netroots, and leaders like Maxine Waters can together be a potent force against a pro-war Hillary Clinton.  Edwards is positioned well on Iraq (though he's insane when it comes to Iran), and Obama could move to the right place.  The one who can't move is Hillary Clinton, in bed with the DLC's 'let's pretend Iraq doesn't exist' mode of politics.  I don't get it, especially after 2006.  Some commenters mentioned threats to big donors from the Hillary camp, though I imagine it's more of hard-sell ('you won't know anyone in the White House') than an actual threat, but it's clearly an attempt to put all other candidates on a starvation diet.

Hillary Clinton better hope that Maxine Waters/Al Sharpton, the netroots, big liberal donors, and the progressive caucus don't become an informal alliance.  That alliance didn't win the general election in Connecticut, but then, this is a contest for the primary.



Display:


Sharpton is - or will - be in the Clinton Camp (none / 0)

You wait and see.  He has been on 'Hardball' a lot lately and seems to be saying nothing at all negative about her.  In fact he has sounded very positive.   This stuff about meeting with Obama and Dodd and weighing this or that is a cover I think.  


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:33:22 AM EST

If they're going to (none / 0)

"early Democratic primary states" they may want to dismiss the MSM and note that there are three frontrunners: Edwards, Clinton and Obama.

Zogby Iowa Caucus Poll, 15-16 January 2007. MOE 4.1
Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%

Zogby New Hampshire Primary Poll, 15-16 January 2007, MoE 4.6% (No trend lines)
Obama 23%
Edwards 19%
Clinton 19%

American Research Group South Carolina Poll, December 21-23, 2006.
Clinton 34%
Edwards 31%
Undecided 15%
Obama 10%

Oh, and one of those has been calling for congress to not fund the escalation in Iraq: John Edwards.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:38:13 AM EST

Re: If they're going to (none / 0)

Edwards, of course, is the only one not IN Congress. I wonder if he were still there, and still had to deal with vote trading, local constituencies, and behind-the-scenes relationships, would he still be using the same rhetoric?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:17:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If they're going to (none / 0)

If he were running for the presidency and not reelection in NC, for sure.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If they're going to (none / 0)

If he were running for the presidency against ten other people, at least two of whom are considered better front-runners, he'd know he might lose and have to face his home constituency again anyways, so maybe not.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's numbers with blacks are horrible (none / 0)

in the latest polls Hillary gets more than twice the black vote.

If Obama doesn't do better with that there's no way he'll do well in SC


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:55:51 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

Forgive me for a moment but where is the progressive candidate in the race?

MyDD seems intent on trashing all the candidates when there is no progressive in the race (ok apart from Kucinich who is barely on the radar at the moment). How about writing something positive about a presidential candidate?

I'd rather we formed alliances with all the candidates to show them the support they'd get if they adopted our side on the issues rather than blast them on everything they say or do. One of them is going to get the nomination and might even win the presidency.

None of the three heavyweights is a genuine progressive so inevitably they are going to take up positions that we disagree with.


by kundalini on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:00:37 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

Edwards has gotten some love over here despite skepticism from a lot of us if he is improved enough since 2004. Even Obama has had his share of supporters over here including one of the administrators.

I need to look at the history of the suddenly visible (albeit small number of ) Hillary supporters to see if they are long time MYDD readers or just plants.

At this point, if these three are the only ones left standing, you gotta realize none of them are perfect on all the issues, so you do not do a scorecard since all progressive issues are not created equal at any given time.

The Iraq war is the most important progressive issues on which the candidates have varying degrees of opposition. Obama has been the most consistent opposing voice on this. Edwards has confessed to seeing the error of his ways. But Obama, despite his lack of incorrect judgement on Iraq, seems less forceful than Edwards at this point in opposing Bush's actions. So it is upto you which one is better on this issue. No one can seriously argue with me that Hillary is anywhere close to being the honest or even correct voice on this issue.

On the other crucial issues like Supreme Court appointments, all the democrats are probably the same. On trade, you got verying degrees, but not enough to make an impact on the economy compared to the difference in opinion on a costly issues such as Iraq.

You look at charisma and a leadership persona(not to be confused with mere good looks) which is important in a democracy for more than superficial reasons - you need . Hillary who had no charisma before has become a lot more polished lately, even if long time watchers like us can easily see the fakeness in some of her answers and the controlled environment in which she operates. Obama can sound sanctimonious to some of us, but when he reaches into his heart, he is capable of delivering a stirring speech to rally the country for one of his pet causes. Edwards apparently reaches a lot of the Dem women in the heartland and the south. I found him a little glassy eyed and superficial in the 2004 campaign. He seems better now, but he still needs to work on his talking(his wife in contrast has a lot of clarity when she speaks).


by Pravin on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:20:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's plan more aggressive than Waters? (3.00 / 1)

Obama's bill called for no new troops in Iraq and heading out of Iraq in two to four months.

BARACK Obama, a likely US presidential contender, has introduced legislation that would cap the number of American troops in Iraq, joining the debate over President George W. Bush's new war strategy.  Speaking on the floor of the US Senate, Mr Obama said today his plan would also call for the gradual redeployment of US troops from the region "within two to four months"..

That would seem like very similar to what's quoted for Waters' bill:

"African Americans, are pushing legislation "that would wind us out of Iraq in six months."


by BrionLutz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:03:03 AM EST

Yes, indeed (none / 0)

It's sad how this site seems to be a "fact free zone" when it comes to Obama.  It really is not that hard to go to his website to find out what his position is:

That is why I plan to introduce legislation which I believe will stop the escalation of this war by placing a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq. I wish to emphasize that I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator Dodd has crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe, yesterday indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect the money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced his escalation policy.

This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is my belief that simply opposing the surge is not good enough. If we truly believe the only solution in Iraq is a political one--and I fervently believe that--if we believe a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's warring factions, then we should act on that. That is why the second part of my legislation is a plan for phased redeployment that I called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months ago. It is a responsible plan that protects American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos. The President must announce to the Iraqi people that within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates.

emphasis added


by Disputo on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama ahead of Waters on Iraq. (none / 0)

"t's sad how this site seems to be a "fact free zone" when it comes to Obama."

Very true...here was Obama proposing legislation that starts withdrawing troops from Iraq on a faster schedule than Waters' bill but we have Waters claiming she's holding his feet to the "fire".

Looks like Obama was two steps ahead of her.


by BrionLutz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Should Make Iraq His Signature Issue (none / 0)

Make Hillary talk about Iraq. Don't let her avoid it. If he is a smart politician, he will smoke her out, and not let her do the two-step.

Don't let her talk about her issues. Make her talk about Iraq.


by Mister Go on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:07:25 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (3.00 / 1)

kundalini wrote: "How about writing something positive about a presidential candidate?"

Considering that nearly 70% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, and yet in the next Presidential election we will probably be forced to choose between warmonger (A) or warmonger (B), we have no choice but to criticize all warmonger candidates, because clearly democracy has ceased to function as a representation of the general will.


:: www.simpleimpeach.com ::
by lady justice on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:15:59 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

I'm glad that the African American community and CBC are looking into all the candidates, not supporting any candidate without question.  I personally have been juggling the options of Hillary and Obama.  One thing is certain though: both candidates have to talk about Iraq.  It is a political boon too for any Democrat.  A Republican is automatically on the defensive.  A Dem being silent puts that Dem on the defensive too, and that is a wasted opportunity, not to mention leaving out the most important issue of the day.


by John Nicosia on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:19:41 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

It's odd how similar HRC's strategy is to Joe Biden's (who I plan to vote for in the NH primary).

<As he prepares to formally announces his presidential campaign, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) is banking on a boffo showing in South Carolina. Why? Biden figures that, a year from now, Iowa and New Hampshire voters will divide the field, choosing different candidates as winners.</p>

That'll scramble expectations heading into South Carolina, making that state, with its approx. 50 percent African American Democratic vote base, decisive. So long as Biden places third in either NH or IA, the thinking goes, he'll maintain his support in SC and is positioned to pull of the upset.>

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/a rchives/2007/01/the_daily_troik_34.html


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:22:09 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

How long will the netroots wait before they mobilize to back a candidate who reflects MOST of their values and priorities. I fear that with the early start to the '08 campaign, if we don't decide SOON, Hillary's juggernaut of millionaires and money will roll over any truly progressive voices.

Money may not be "everything," but we should be standing up for voices (like Jim Webb's) who "get it;" who understand that 2008 will be a watershed year for the direction of our country.

I simply do not trust those who place their faith in the privileged few to do the "right thing" for the "little guy." THAT'S what we have NOW! We DON'T need more of the same, with the sole exception that they have a (D) next to their name instead of an (R).

"Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, you can't get fooled again."


by randron on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:26:46 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

Re. Hillary: She's not my candidate but we need to have a realistic assessment of what's going on. With the Repub machine branding of Hillary in the 90s as a fire breathing liberal, she's trying to establish a reputation as a moderate - which is necessary for her to win - in her presidential run. Being identified with NY, a liberal state, she has to also be able to shed the NorthEast liberal image in order to appeal to folks outside the 2 coasts.

Her position on Iraq is part of that process. The reason I'm opposed to her candidacy is that the RW smear machine has successfully labeled her in the American psyche & therefore she has to spend all her time countering that image. This would make her a very cautious president even if she won office.

One of the primary mission of progressives needs to be destruction of the ability of the RW to brand our candidates negatively in the MSM. Bill - a shady character, Gore - serial liar, Kerry - out of touch latte drinking liberal.


by carter1 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:35:00 AM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

HRC needs to win the primary before she gets to the general.  She won't win the primary pulling the shit she is now.  If she thinks primary voters will vote for a war monger, she better think again.


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blacks will Back Obama 100% (none / 0)

I just went through a very long, bitter and close race in Maryland between Mfume and Cardin.  Maybe Obama doesn't want to be seen as too black too soon and that's why the poll numbers are fuzzy, but anybody that thinks black voters won't show up in droves for Obama are crazy.  Blacks will turn out at  rates of 90-100% to vote for the first black presidential candidate that actually has a friggin' chance to win.  Any discussion that suggests he won't have the black vote is wacko.


by aiko on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM EST

Amen (none / 0)

Obama had no problem winning election to the IL state senate from an overwhelmingly black district, and yet for some reason white lefties are all freaked-out that Obama won't seem authentic outside of Chicago's southside.


by Disputo on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe we need to draft Maxine (none / 0)

Because right now... I honestly don't feel like voting for any of the jokers posing as our potential candidate.

It is priceless that the Democratic Party, standing here with its best opportunity since Johnson in 1964, can't pull together one decent candidate worth supporting.

There's gotta be someone more worth a damn!

So, how wants to vote for Chuck Hagel?  Fuck it.  At least he supports withdrawl.


by jcjcjc on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:26:41 PM EST

Be more careful (none / 0)

Robert Johnson is another Rupert Murdoch

I think I get your point, but, Stoller, you need to be a bit more careful with your comparisons.


by Disputo on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:47:34 PM EST

Re: Be more careful (none / 0)

Stoller: Hillary's DLC Problems, Maxine Waters Throws Down, blah, blah

We get it you hate Clinton. Just try not to compare her to Lieberman. Lieberman is the ultimate traitor, he has done things which even Ben Nelson would never do. I can't believe he gave Bush a pass on Katrina.
I'll agree with you that she's no Russ Feingold, but few people in the Senate are.  


by bsavage on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

How does Maxine Waters position on Iran differ from that of John Edwards?

Find out more about Mitch McConnell's new 2007 ticket of corruption featuring Anne Northup and Jeff Hoover


by kynetroots on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:15:01 PM EST

Seriously... (none / 0)

This is getting stupid.  You don't like Clinton. We get it. But try not to psyche everyone into disliking her so much that if/when she wins the nomination, we'll have the smallest desire to work for her.


Invest in nature
by NCDem on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:00:30 PM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

Can someone please e-mail me when the Googlebomb Hillary campaign begins?


The truth about McCain
by nstrauss on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:17:31 PM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I can tell you that many people would have suported Obama right now if he had more experience. As for Edwards the first thing that comes to mind is: hasn't he already failed at this once? Democrats never give losers the nomination. Same thing for Gore, this isn't like Nixon losing and then coming back.
Clinton will ratchet up the anti Iraq rhetoric as the Supplemental War Spending bill comes up for Congressional Approval. Technically, none of the Seantors can do anything stop Darth Vader, I mean Bush from his crazy "surge" strategy. Who came up with the word surge for the Iraq escalation anyway?
by bsavage on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:37:19 PM EST

Re: Maxine Waters Throws Down (none / 0)

Matt Stoller:

Nice trash piece by Ben Smith. I thought you were interested in honest journalism!

Here is a link related to John Edwards' speech in Israel a few days ago -- a trip he took with John McCain (of the McCain Doctrine); Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Maxine Waters isn't easily fooled by the way.    

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340, L-3355802,00.html

I advise everyone to read the above article.  The speech was never posted on John Edward's website, by the way. I thought it might be a time factor but his speech on the SOTU address is there for all to read.

Maybe he figured all of his base supporters would be too busy signing up for One Corps and running food drives for the poor to notice that he slipped off to Israel, without letting anyone know.

Two Americas / Two John Edwards


by marycontrary on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:58:12 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.