Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy

It was a blustery and, at times, rainy afternoon here in Berkeley California but that didn't stop Ron, an avuncular and dapper volunteer with an ironing board from working the corner of Ashby and College Avenue.

When I approached Ron he smiled and explained he'd been doing this, on his own, since he stood up and opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980. Today he was registering voters on the last day to register before the Feb. 5th CA primary. And, as you could tell from the big O attached to his ironing board, Ron was also signing up volunteers for Barack Obama.

Ron had a ton of young people registering to vote today and, from what I saw when I put my name on the list, about 50-60 volunteers signed up for Obama. (He'd given out another 100 home made info sheets to others.)

Now, that doesn't tell you anything about who Californians will choose in the polls on February 5th, but that coincidence of young people, new voters, new volunteers and hard core volunteers like Ron tells you a hell of a lot about the campaign of Barack Obama...

I want to say something simple and clear.

There's one campaign that has been distorting and smearing the record of another's since the results of the Iowa caucuses. There's a reason for that.

When everybody pays attention to the lies and distractions, there's no way Hillary Clinton can't win. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton know that, and that why they are distorting everything they can about the record, integrity and campaign of Senator Barack Obama.

The reverse, however, is not necessarily true. When people pay attention to the actual message and candidates...well, there's a strong likelihood, but no certainty, that folks will vote for Barack Obama.

That's why Ron's out on the corner of Ashby and College in the rain registering voters and signing up volunteers for Barack Obama.

::

Take the fake, engineered, and hyped brouhaha about the comments of Senator Obama regarding the legacy of Ronnie Reagan.  Do you know what Barack Obama said BEFORE he mentioned Ronald Reagan in that interview? Do you know the real context of his remarks?

It's not surprising that you might not. Senator Clinton and President Clinton and a whole bunch of other people simply don't want you to hear them.

Barack Obama was talking about the 50 State Strategy:

I think that we're shifting the political paradigm here. And if I'm the nominee, I think I can bring a lot of folks along on my coattails. You know, there's a reason why in 2006, I made the most appearances for members of Congress. I was the most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn't have any other Democrat.

That was based on their read of the fact that, you know what, this is somebody who can reach out to independents and Republicans in a way that doesn't offend people...I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times.

That sounds pretty true to me. Barack Obama did do that. (But hey what do I know, I only spent the entire year of 2006 following local Congressional races and reaching out to local bloggers in all 50 States.)

However, it was what Barack Obama said next about Reagan being a "paradigm shifting" candidate that bothered alot of bloggers. So much so that they said a lot of ludicrous and presposterous things about Senator Obama that would make you think, for example...that there was no truth to his claim that he "made the most appearances of members of Congress" in 2006 on the campaign trail, that would make you doubt that Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, was the "most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn't have any other Democrat."

Certainly, those bloggers have a self evident case against Barack.

I mean, if you were a fan of Ronald Reagan and thought Republicans had all the good ideas for the last 15 years, why would you spend 2006 traveling around the country, of all things, you know, trying to elect Democrats?

::

When it comes to the 50 State Strategy we know where Hillary Clinton stands. Heck, she's got Terry McAuliffe, a guy who is completely and totally opposed to Howard Dean, the 50 State Strategy and the netroots movement, as her campaign chair.

But that's not what I want to focus on. Bill and Hillary keep asking Barack Obama and his supporters to enunciate an answer to this question: but what have you done?

Now, they don't want you to actually answer that question. To mention the fact that Senator Barack Obama from day one in the Senate surrounded himself with powerful advisors like economist Karen Kornbluh, his chief policy advisor, or Samantha Power, Anthony Lake and Susan Rice, his foreign policy team. They don't want you to mention how Senator Obama reached across the aisle to work on immigration reform with Senator McCain, or his work with Dick Lugar on terrorist threat reduction, or his work with Tom Coburn to pass the Coburn-Obama transparency act (something every netroots person should know about), or his worldwide trips as a member of Foreign Relations Committee focusing on strategies to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Clintons...you know...to fit Barack Obama into their "do-nothing" meme...am I the only one that finds that insulting?...would have you ignore Senator Obama's work with Russ Feingold to pass the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act enacting lobbyist reform in Washington for the first time in a generation. (In fact, the Clintons make fun of this bill on the campaign trail.) They won't mention Senator Obama's work with John McCain on a bill that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 2/3rds by 2050, or his work with Senator Chuck Schumer on election protection issues in the wake of 2006. Or his veteran-oriented amendment to the SCHIP bill that Bush vetoed last fall.

Now, the Clintons don't mention this, because, you know, Barack Obama basically is an empty suit. He does nothing.

And yes, of course, in the process they are also ignoring Senator Obama's service in the Illinois State Legislature, where, once again, to believe Senator Clinton, Barack Obama never voted for anything. Except, of course, he did. In fact, Senator Obama has held elected office since 1996, the longest of the three remaining major candidates. Hell, he's held elected office since the administration of Bill Clinton!

Per Senator Obama's wiki page:

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.

Clearly, Obama's a slacker!

Finally, I do think I have to mention this as "doing something" despite this huge taboo about mentioning the reality of some of our history as a nation. Senator Barack Obama is currently the only African-American in the United States Senate. One person out of one hundred elected officials. That counts as doing something, too, in my book.

But that's not the core message I want to convey tonight. Because "Reagan-loving" Senator Obama...so clearly unfit to be our nominee...did something else that the Clintons really don't want you to know about. He did something so outlandish, so atrocious, that the Clintons and their brigades of enablers on the blogs find it anaethema to mention. So they don't.

In 2006, Senator Barack Obama did more than any other candidate running for President to elect Democrats and win back majorities the United States Senate and House of Representatives. In 2006, Senator Barack Obama embodied the 50 State Strategy. (And...he...still...does....today.)

Far from doing "nothing," In 2006, Barack Obama helped us win majorities in both houses of Congress.

::

Don't take my word for it.

Here's Barack Obama in Colorado in October 2006 campaigning for Ed Perlmutter in his campaign to win an open seat in Congress. (Ed won, btw.)

Here's Barack Obama in Cleveland, Ohio in November 2006 campaigning for Senator Sherrod Brown. (Who won, btw, noticing a trend here?)

Here's Barack Obama campaigning in Louisville, Kentucky for Democrat John Yarmuth in his campaign to defeat GOP incumbent Anne Northup in September 2006. (Yarmuth won.)

Here's Barack Obama in Richmond Virginia campaigning for Senator Jim Webb, November 2006:

Here's Paul Hodes, another member of the class of 2006 endorsing Barack Obama in New Hampshire and using that occasion to talk about Democratic Unity:

Here's Patrick Murphy, another class of 2006 member that Barack campaigned for talking about Barack this January in New Hampshire:

And finally, here's Senator Claire McCaskill, Senator Obama's newly minted national co-chair, talking about endorsing Barack Obama, who campaigned for her in Missori in 2006.

And here's a quote you should not miss from that interview:

Q: Senator, you said in your announcement when you decided to endorse Barack Obama that it was actually your daughter that pushed you in that direction, right?

Senator McCaskill: You know I was actually home the night of the Iowa caucus, and I was laying on the couch and I was crying during his entire speech and my 18 year old daughter looked at me and says, "Mom, how can you look yourself in the mirror, you really believe in this guy, and you're in a position that you should be helping, you know, get up and go do it!"

Sheesh, these folks are just real. And, you know, knowing something about the netroots from my work these last years...that's kind of like us. And, yes, Senator Barack Obama worked his ass off to help elect every last one of them and many more candidates in 2006.

I wonder why these videos aren't being played on all those blogs echoing the Clintons lies and distortions and talking about how Barack Obama loves Reagan and thinks that the Republicans had the best ideas for the last fifteen years? I mean, am I missing something about the 50 State Strategy? Did we just jettison that out of the netroots platform?

I'd like to know.

Okay, I know, people play political football with campaigns. It's just politics. Shit happens.

But if enough people who know better stay silent about Senator Obama's hard work on the ground in 2006 on the 50 State Strategy...there might not be a 50 State Strategy for very long.

That's something to think about.

::

Now, I'm a sucker for local candidates and campaigns. And, all that being told, I'm also a sucker for volunteers standing at ironing boards...like Ron today.

I first registered to vote here in California standing at just such an ironing board on Sproul Plaza at the University of California. Heck, I spend election day every year doing the exact same thing as Ron, campaigning in front of a card table at the West Oakland BART station.

But what I want to leave you with tonight is a powerful message. Young people, volunteers, new voters, grassroots activists...all of that is not enough. It's a powerful sign that a candidate's campaign is moving people to get off their ass and get something done. (To, as the Clinton's say, do something.)

But that's not enough to spell victory in any given election.

It's not enough, but it sure tells you a hell of a lot about the campaign of Senator Barack Obama.

If you support the 50 State Strategy, if you want to send a message that you understand what it meant to mobilize the vote in 2004 and 2006 and elect Democrats, if you want to work on the legacy of Howard Dean, then it behooves you, if you live in a Tsunami Tuesday state or one that comes afterwards, to think about reviving the spirit of 2004 and 2006 where you live.

I'll being doing exactly the same thing.

If you can't do that, I've heard word that Senator Obama could use your donations or your time if you've got some of either to spare.

I don't know what the California results will be primary night, February 5th. I'm no prognosticator.

I also know some pretty powerful powers-that-be are stacked against the guy I support. But when I saw that ironing board with the big O on it out in the rain today...I knew exactly what I was going to be doing come election day.

{This diary oringally published January 22nd, 2008 on Dailykos.com.}



Display:


Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for posting this here and giving MyDD a little balance.  This is a really great diary.  


by howardpark on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:57:14 PM EST

obama (2.00 / 1)

Where can this guy win seriously??

I think these GE matchups are pretty meaningless for the time being, but here's a new SurveyUSA MA poll that should give 'transcending, walking on water' 'Hope', new JFK, MLK candidate a pause...

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=ad723bad-3bee-40ac-9b99-a b9b2043c2b3


McCain 50
Obama 45

This is fuxxxking MA!!! Anybody believes this guy is 'electable' is simply delusional...


by prisonbreak on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:01:47 PM EST

Re: obama (1.00 / 1)

Can all your Daily Kos rejects stop whining?  Seriously?


by Edna Howard on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: obama (none / 0)

Can you cultists stop being so dimwitted?  Seriously.


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

whatever that means (none / 0)


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:22:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about some facts? (none / 0)

Given the margin of error, that poll doesn't show Clinton or Obama beating McCain.


by converse on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (2.00 / 1)

There's no question that Obama did great work for our candidates in 2006.  His star power is a huge asset.

I still want to hear him sharpen his message to be more assertive about the values of the Democratic Party and how the policies of the other side are mistaken.  Sometimes the need to preach unity and bipartisanship gets in the way of that, and makes it seem like the answer is "solutions" as opposed to Democratic solutions.

I think that message would really mean a lot for the Democratic brand.  But working to elect Democrats, and letting them build the brand with their own voice, is important as well.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:03:36 PM EST

Barry is pandering for votes, no news there (none / 0)

Barry doesn't have a 50 states strategy.

He can only win in the south.  Iowa was a 15 million dollar fluke that Barry paid for in cold hard cash.

He can't win Cali, he can't win PA, MI, OH ... the rust belt is a huge problem him and polling shows it.

He underperforms in NY and NJ.

He is NOWHERE in FL.  Any Republican can dust him there.

In states like NV, NM, and AZ the right republican could beat him because Barry does so pee poor with asians and latinos.

Barry Obama is a disaster.   He is the Jessie Jackson of 2008.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:05:47 PM EST

"most requested surrogate" (none / 0)

Is that verified by anyone besides Obama speaking about himself?


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:08:04 PM EST

Hey with due respect (2.00 / 2)

you should know this inside and out, you were a part of it, but for some reason you just don't talk about it anymore.

You'd actually be somebody who could disagree with Obama's assertion in public and have some heft to it.

We both know there's congressional races to be won. Senate races to be won. You worked hard on them last time around. I know it.

But that's not what you're talking about here on the FP most days...why?

People I talk to in swing districts have deep trepidation about Hillary at the top of the ticket.

Most people don't even know who John Yarmuth is. Barack Obama campaigned for him and helped beat an entrenched GOP incumbent, Anne Northup, who sat on Louisville, Kentucky like she ruled it...and made a career out of giving the Democratic party the finger...

until 2006.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "most requested surrogate" (2.00 / 2)

Obama sure was requested in Virginia and Missouri in 2006, didn't he do three high profile events in VA?  They are still talking about a huge event he did in Missouri on election eve in St. Louis.  I don't have the exact figures.  To be fair, Sen. Clinton was running for re-election in 2006 in NY.  


by howardpark on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "most requested surrogate" (2.00 / 2)

I was there in Missouri when Obama campaigned for McCaskill right before the election.  I really don't understand all the hate coming from the Hillary supporters, especially on this.


"Action comes easy; it's the moments just before that are hard." ~Defiance, Ohio~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTD H4
by ScienceTeacher118 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "most requested surrogate" (2.00 / 1)

Is this what you want?  NY Observer, Jan. 22, 2007:

Witness the way that Mr. Obama became one of the single most-sought-after campaign surrogates for Democrats in the 2006 elections.


by Piuma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

utter bs (none / 0)

the vast majority of clinton supporters here, about every single one, say they would vote for ANY dem chosen...but over there at hllary hate club world HQ, poll after poll show close to a third say they will go naderish if we DEMOCRATS dont do as tthey demand. As if.

Its a total disgrace.

Plus, if someone is identified as being from mydd - the insults, attacks and curses are so nerdishly over the top and hysterical it would be hilarious if it wasnt so outright boorish, predictable and dullsville.


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd vote for a yellow dog dead in a ditch (none / 0)

before I'd ever vote for any republican.

so yes, I'd guess even Obama would measure up to my standards.


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:07:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd vote for a yellow dog dead in a ditch (none / 0)

I'd vote the same way...

But here's the thing...

Since 2003 - after more than 10 years of being a reliable Democratic voter - I became something more.

I'm not rich - but I became what the GOP used to have that the Democrats didn't... one of those small donors that wasn't maxing out on day 1 -- but a $20 here, a Democracy Bond there, a $50 now and again.

I started phone banking and canvassing.

I started writing LTEs... calling the alphanetworks... combating lies and smears... I became one of those foot soldiers that brought the GOP into power during the 90s.

I'm NOT a party insider.  I have NO DESIRE to become one.  I'm a Democrat for the simple reason that I prefer Democratic policy over Republican policy--- but I became a Democratic activist because the GOP went too far in how they elected people to enact and how they went about enacting those policies.

Now... I'm watching a Democrat use the same tactics that spurred me into action -- but against another Democrat.

Well... my ideology won't change based on the primary outcome -- but after 4+ years of Democratic activism basically becoming my #1 hobby, my biggest "free time" drain -- if the Clinton campaign continues to employ the tactics they're employing, I'm done.

I'll vote for Clinton, but I'll back to where I was 10 years ago... getting over it quite easily and quickly if "my party" doesn't win.

You're draining the energy from the party - and shouldn't have to do that to win an election.


by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well if Barack joins the GOP (2.00 / 6)

he sure is going to regret all that work he did in 2006 electing Democrats to the majority in Congress!

Hey, friends, everyone here at MyDD who was around in 2006 knows this about the 50 State strategy. Knows it cold.

(There was one other guy who worked his ass off in 2006 and that was Mark Warner. Worked his ASS off...worked the 50 State Strategy hard.)

I would bet half the folks posting the ludicrous crap in the diary sections of MyDD don't even know who Paul Hodes is...or Carol Shea Porter...or Nancy Boyda...or John Yarmuth...or Tim Walz.

We can't be blamed for that. We're just not getting told this story anymore.

Nobody's talking about Partick Murphy and John Hall and Joe Sestak and Heath Schuler.

Hell, nobody's talking about Larry Kissel or Mary Jo Kilroy or Charlie Borwn or Darcy Burner or Eric Massa either...even though we should.

You can't send Senator Clinton to those districts and expect a bounce. You cannot.

Everybody inside the party knows this.

But nobody in the netroots is saying it...and forcefully.

Want to kill the 50 State Strategy? Elect the campaign with Terry Mac running it.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:10:36 PM EST

I guaranfriggintee you (none / 0)

he wont run for reelection.

he'll run for gov of Ill and plan his comeback, which will never come, and he'll hate and blame the clintons till the day he dies.


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:18:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guaranfriggintee you (none / 0)

You guys are pretty over the top with your predictions, but to be serious for a moment, I'd just point out that there is a scenario involving the fate of the present governor of Illinois that would make it pretty hard for Obama to run for that office.  By which I mean, a certain guy under indictment accused of steering millions of dollars in dirty money to the aforementioned governor.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:29:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (none / 0)

Yes, we all know how hard Obama has been running for president since 2006 or even earlier. Too bad his efforts didn't win him the superdelegates he was aiming for, maybe people didn't appreciate that he couldn't show up for work. Clinton was busy running for re-election in 2006 but still managed to raise huge amounts of money for candidates around the country and show up to campaign in a bunch of tight races.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:06 PM EST

Great Diary (none / 0)

Seriously, really really good.  The context that you give for Obama's Reagan comments is so important, yet it hasn't been reported at all.  And it's pretty telling that even now, the folks posting here that dislike Obama still won't admit that the fuss made about that was nothing but cynical gotcha politics.  That's too bad.  


by HSTruman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:13:23 PM EST

context? (none / 0)

he was pandering and posturing to a conservative ed board, showing off his 'post partisan' plumage and the tape of his self obsessed strutting got out -

ad the Clintons are using it to embarrass him.

Sounds like justice to me.


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:02:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (none / 0)

There's something both disconcerting and comforting about the DIY nature of the Obama campaign.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:37:36 PM EST

What a crock, and where to start (none / 0)

First of all, the only "distortions" are coming out of the Obama campaign.  First when they tried to claim his NH loss must have been racial.  Then when they tried to claim Bill Clinton's Fairy Tale comment was racial 'that he was saying an AA couldn't be Pres".  And that was a lie, the media showed his entire speech and it was about Obamas war votes for 2 years after getting elected.

Then was the Hillary and MLK where the campaign was saying Hillary was disparaging MLK, when it was nothing of the sort.  When questioned, on camera, Obama said, 'she's claiming our campaign is doing this, and we're not'(paraphrasing) and then added, no, I don't think her comment was meant to be racial.  RACIAL, no one said racial, the reporter asked about the claims that she was disparaging MLK.  

Then at the debate, Tim Russert points out that he had 4 or 5 pages a lone from his Campaign Mgr in SC with talking points and attacks that he claimed they weren't doing.  

Now, the 50 state strategy?  Don't you worry, Governor Dean had the Presidential candidates sign pledges that they support it and will continue the 50 state strategy.
Aug 2007
ASDC President and Michigan Chair Mark Brewer kicked off the morning by welcoming everybody and discussing the commitment of the state parties to Governor Dean’s “50-state strategy”. He pointed participants to the study done by Harvard’s Elaine Kamarck showing that the 50-state strategy helped boost Democratic victories in 2006. He discussed the ASDC’s efforts to get Presidential campaigns to sign a written pledge to support and continue the 50-state strategy if they are nominated / elected. So far, the pledge has been signed by the Clinton, Dodd, Obama and Richardson campaigns.

And

The Reagan thing.  Oh Please, Obama is on camera saying the stuff.  This is one of the comments he made in Nevada.

Obama:I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure.  I think part of what's different are the times.  I do think that for example the 1980 was different.  I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.  I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Now, when Obama first made these comments, Lawrence O'Donnell, Obama supporter appeared on Countdown and tried to claim it was the smart thing to do.  Because he felt it was a good pander and Repubs to want to support him.  

"O’Donnell shares with us that maybe Obama is really just trying to pander to those Republican supporters that can cross over and vote for him (gee, none of us would have ever thought that).  But the fact is, for him [Obama] to slam fellow Democrats and having no problem to herald a Republican who did so much damage to our country and what Democrats hold of value, does not make it better.  That wasn’t enough for O’Donnell.  He must have gotten upset when Keith questions his frame of thought, that we are talking UNIONS, a man, President, who busted Unions, Air Traffic Controllers, etc,  before the Nevada caucus where he just received those Union endorsements, so Lawrence O’Donnell reached further down and said  [OF THE VOTERS]  "I don’t think they’re that sharp".  WHAT?  The Union workers are supposed to be that stupid not to know what Reagan really stood for, but we are hoping the Republicans who do know better will rally around Obama as some message that he will be the same?  WHAT?  Nice confidence you are displaying in voters Mr. O’Donnell.

He goes on then to take another shot at Edwards and voters.   Apparently only voters that are supposed to remember what Reagan did and stood for, is from the "real left of the Democratic Party" "you have to look at the demographics of the union and their age group, people under 40 aren’t going to be all that sharp about exactly where Ronal Reagan was"(oh, just get the shovel, O’Donnell) . "

Then last night O'Donnell appears on Abrams and tried to change the entire story and pretend he was shouting kudos for heralding Reagan.  And now he actually claims that "they are making more out of it than it was".  

Check please.  


by LindaSFNM on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:20:37 AM EST

You have no links (none / 0)

and you're citing Russert to the readers at MyDD as a trusted source?

Laugh out loud.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:30:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have no links (none / 0)

Obama admitted what Russert charged him with.  Attempting to obfuscate by claiming that Russert is an unreliable source does not impress.

Let's be clear about what happened.  The Obama campaign flat-out denied that they had been pushing the race storyline against the Clinton campaign.  Then at the Nevada debate, Russert confronted Obama with a four-page memo from his South Carolina press office enumerating all the alleged "racial comments" from the Clinton campaign.  Obama then apologized for his overzealous staff.

We all know this happened.  Why try to deny it by citing Tim Russert's credibility?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a link (2.00 / 1)

to the full text of the memo by Amaya Smith, the South Carolina Press Secretary for Obama...published on Huff Post.

I publish the link because the memo is harmless.

The memo does not contain any assertions. It doesn't "do anything." It's a list. It quotes media sources.

It is so mundane as to be...unremarkable. Russert brandished that sheaf of papers implying that accusations had been made. Let's see here is the full text of the memo with my commentary.

Read the full memo:

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

That's true. Congressman Clyburn did take issue with the Clinton campaign rhetoric in NH. It was reported in the NYT. Clyburn has not endorsed either candidate. Conclusion: mundane fact.

SHUCK AND JIVE

Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said "You Can't Shuck
And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press
Don't Work When You're In Someone's Living Room." Clinton-supporting New
York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that's great about New
Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than "shuck and
jive" through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy
your way into it. You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those
moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living
room." [Newsday, 1/11/08]

This did happen. The full quote and context and article is given.  The memo makes ZERO claims about the Cuomo quote other than to say he was referring to Obama.  Cuomo was referring to Obama. It was  an idiotic thing to say.

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK
Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One
Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done." Clinton
rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in
Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther
King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the
one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama's
rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes
as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like John F.
Kennedy and King. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to
get it done." [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Again, memo simply recounts Politico story with ZERO other commentary. Memo is correct that Clinton's answer was to a question about her "false hopes" line.  The Clinton MLK/LBJ is already a part of 2008 campaign history. It will be reported about for years to come. It is mundane that Obama camp would quote a story that was reported in every major newpaper. Mundane.

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton
introducer: "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the
other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of
hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his
work and got the republicans to pass all those measures." [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

Conclusion: Someone introducting Clinton made a gaffe. Mundane story.

NELSON MANDELA

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I
have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the
last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year
and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last
job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life
and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one
other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never
blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would
pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

Bill Clinton said this. Obama campaign quoted him. Uh, once again, mundane.

DRUG USE

Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said
It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter." Clinton's
Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen's Comments
And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He "Deeply Regret[s] The
Comments." The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and
personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama's having been so open -- as
opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use
during his 2000 presidential campaign -- will "open the door to further
queries on the matter. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give
drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so
many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." By the
end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a
statement asserting that "these comments were not authorized or condoned by
the campaign in any way." And Shaheen himself issued a statement: "I deeply
regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the
campaign in any way." [ABC News, 12/12/07]

Well, that happened. Unfortunate. But true.

Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen's Obama Drug
Use Comments, Used The Word "Cocaine," Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser
Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill
Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama's
cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word
"cocaine" deliberately. Mark Penn said "Well, I think we have made clear
that the -- the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the
campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I
think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator." Joe Trippie
responded and said "I think he just did it again. He just did it again. ...
This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again."
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]

Well, this happened too. The memo does nothing but quote a press account of something that happened.

FAIRY TALE

Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale"
And Said "It's An Insult... As An African-American" And That His Tone And
Words Are "Very Depressing." Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his
insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a "fairy tale" and said "I
could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure
out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds
like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that
many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy
tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing.
... I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United
States senator." [Politico, 1/8/08]

This is simply a quote of something that Brazile said. She said "as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing" referring to Bill Clinton's words.

This happened. The memo quotes Brazile. She said what she thought.

That one sentence is what Russert and the "memo myth" spreaders here on MyDD hang their entire "race baiting" meme on. And that one sentene features Donna Brazile expressing her feelings "as an African American." The entire "race baiting" argument hangs on one actual verifiable quote about Bill Clinton's tone and about his words being "depressing" to Brazile.

Conclusion: There is nothing there. There is NO race baiting. There is no memo that tired to make false assertions about the Clintons. The SC memo put a bunch of accurate quotes about words and actions of the Clinton campaign in one place.

Ironically, the Clinton camp plays it both ways.

They make the initial attacks contained in the memo that no one disputes...and when the Obama campaign does nothing more than quote those attacks....the Clinton campaign claims that they are being race baited. Meanwhile, folks come onto MyDD and cite Tim Russert as a source and don't even print the goddam memo.

Why don't they print the memo?

Because everything in the memo is true. The memo makes no argument.

About the only thing that the memo shows is that the Clinton campaign made a bunch of rude and/or politically idiotic statements and gaffes after Iowa and that Donna Brazile got offended "as an African American."

That's it.

There's no there there. That's why no one ever prints the goddam thing.

It's mundane.

I've proved it. I've quoted it. I invite every Clinton supporter to show how that memo "injected race" into the campaign.

You can't.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:30:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's a link (none / 0)

You are a loyal advocate but a very unpersuasive one.

The clear purpose of the memo was to document an alleged pattern of race-related statements.  Your claim that this was just a random collection of "politically idiotic" statements, unconnected by any element of race, is an insult to my intelligence.  I'm not sure why you bother.

When Russert raised the issue of the memo, asking Obama if he regretted pushing the race storyline, Obama's response was not to deny that the memo had anything to do with race.  Indeed, such a claim would have looked as silly as your argument looks right now.  Instead, he offered an apology for his overzealous staff and supporters, and indicated that he took responsibility.  And now here you are, apparently one of the overzealous supporters, arguing that there was nothing to apologize for.  (The apology, unfortunately, turned out to be insincere, since only a few days later Obama refused to condemn a radio ad by a supporter stating that Hillary doesn't respect Latinos.)

The campaign that said Hillary didn't cry over Katrina hasn't tried to make race an issue.  Please, tell me another one.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Man oh man (none / 0)

Obama and Clinton agreed to a truce on race and gender BEFORE the debate after supporters of both candidates (Jackson Jr. / Cuomo) had said idiotic things.

Most viewers of that debate had no idea what the "SC memo" was, all they saw was Russert holding some papers AFTER the truce had been discussed during the debate and all three candidates had tried to clear the air with important words on racial unity.

(I think those words means something, btw. I take them seriously.)

In that context, faced with the Russert push on the memo, Obama chose to be conciliatory and apologized for his "overzealous supporters" to Hillary and put the matter to rest. He decided he had more to gain by being conciliatory and more to lose by trying to score points even if he was being unjustly accused by Russert.

However, you are coming to me now on MyDD and suggesting that moment as prima facie evidence that the Hillary race-baiting charges/Russert memo brandishing ploy are proven...because Obama made the "over zealous" comment in the debate?

That's rich.  You don't even bother to analyze the memo itself, or explain HOW it race baits.  

Why don't you do that? If it's so easy. Explain to us, if it's so silly, exactly how does the SC memo race bait. I'd love to see that explained in terms everyone can understand.

I think it's a mundame memo on attacks made by the other side. (LBJ, Drugs, Drugs, Fairy Tale, etc.)

Finally, maybe you can explain why Senator Clinton's standing among African American voters, one of her previous bases of firm support, has steadily declined.

Could it be that the some in the African American community feel, as Brazile and Clyburn apparently do, sincerely disappointed in the Clintons?

Or does everything in your view come down to "race baiting?"

I personally think that the Clintons decided to attack Obama hard after Iowa.

Given that, whatever they said...and the Clintons, unquestionably said things that will be recorded in the history books as changing the tone of the campaign...there's no doubt of that...I think given that decision to attack Obama hard on the part of the whole Clinton team....that inevitably they hurt their standing within the African American AND libera/progressive communities not because of the particulars of what they were saying but because of a simple fact.

When you attack a promising African American leader who is also the most promising Democrat under 50, when you do so in an all out manner that  has aspects of scorched earth, bringing up charges intended to damage his career as a whole (drugs/slum lords/Reagan sympathiser/questioning his record on Choice etc.)...you HAVE TO take account of the fact that there's going to be some sort of backlash.

Now, the Clintons may well win the primary.

Hillary's comments of LBJ and "false hopes" could have reflected more of a tone deafness than anything else.

But they have potentially grave consequences.

Steve M, it is possible for one candidate to wound the other in such a way that, say, Clinton wins the primary...damages Obama permanently...AND hurts her own reputation with her base so severely that she loses in the general.

That's possible. And the trend lines within the Af Am community show that possibility.

That's a no win situation. And that's a possible consequence not of "race" or "racism"...there doesn't have to be "race" involved at all...but simply a consequence of one campaign deciding to attack another with a policy of scorched earth and destructive smears and ploys.

In a nutshell, Black voters could be disgusted with the Clintons attack tactics on a personal level. (And a feeling of a promsing black candidate being taken down, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK, but because he was in the way.)

If you can't see that possibilty. Well, it's not for my lack of trying to point it out.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:37:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Man oh man (none / 0)

I guess BTD was right.  I used to love your progressive diaries so much.  Now you're just another candidate supporter, tossing out attack after attack, mouthing the same empty excuses.

Claiming that the SC memo was not about race is simply one of the most absurd arguments ever.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:47:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ad hominem (none / 0)

is all you have in response to a thoughtful comment from me. You don't even address the substance of the above. You just attack me and make no attempt to discuss my arguments.

You just slag me.

Let me show you why you can't your argument about "race baiting" is unpersuasive and symptom of the very problem the Democratic party is facing in the Obama/Clinton battle.

The SC memo was about Clinton attacks on Obama AND strong feeling from two black leaders about the tone of those attacks. That's the theme (...if you can actually call it a theme since there's NO ACTUAL editorial comment in the memo.)

Here are the statements and their categories:

Clyburn: Clinton tone on civil rights
Cuomo : "shuck and jive" race inflected comment
HRC on MLK / LBJ: Civil Rights / leadership
WJC on Mandela: Civil Rights / leadership
Shaheen: Drugs
Mark Penn: Drugs
Brazile: Tone / Offended by "fairytale" as an African American

You are calling this a clear attack based on "race"

How?

Is talking about how Obama's leadership has been criticized against a background of civil rights history...race baiting?

Or is it showing evidence for why Clyburn and Brazile feel the way they do about the tone of the camnpaign?

Is talking about civil rights...race baiting?

Is talking about attacks using "drugs"...race baiting?

Is talking about how the press has reported how two prominent African Americans feel about the tone of another campaign's discussions of civil rights and the campaign of Senator Obama race baiting?

Is bringing up Cuomo's comment...race baiting?

(..or...could it also be doing what YOU JUST DID with Jesse Jackson Jr's comment...bringing up a really stupid thing a surrogate said?)

That's the thing.

Where you get into trouble, and where we get into trouble as a party, I think, is when you have to actually back up your argument...

which you don't bother to do by the way...

that talking about drugs, or civil rights/leadership comments, or the opinions of prominent African American leaders equals "race baiting"  and playing the "race" card.

That's really reductive.

Does "drugs" = race?

Does "civil rights" = "race"?

Does anything the House Whip Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House say about the presidential campaign = "race"?

Does anything Donna Brazile say, even when she says it as an African American woman, get reduced to "race"? Or is that how you choose to see it?

I'm telling you something important about this campaign and the Democratic party in 2008 and you're not listening or much interested.

When Hillary Clinton called Barack Obama out with that "slum lord" commment...many, but not all, white people heard a call out...a strong woman making an attack.

Many, but not all, people who live in inner city neighborhoods heard Hillary Clinton talking about "slums" to a Black man who worked trying to make the South Side of Chicago a better place. It rankles. Race is a part of that. Sure. But just one part.

When we say that talking about civil rights equals "race baiting"...or talking about drugs equals "race baiting"...or talking about some stupid comment that Andrew Cuomo made = "race baiting",we are playing into some pretty big prejudices, imo.

We are being reductive at precisely the point where being reductive is being destructive.

Civil rights are civil rights. We should all talk about them, they aren't just a black issue. Black leaders aren't just "civil rights" leaders, that's the point Brazile and Clyburn are trying to make, in part.

Drugs are drugs. They don't have a race.

Cuomo is an idiot. (No comment.)

Clyburn is the House Whip. He happens to be Black. Both things are true. (He's also the leading Democrat in South Carolina.)

If Congressman Clyburn is bugged by something that the Clinton campaign did...the Obama campaign is going to write a memo about it.

But more than that, if Clyburn is bugged we should all pay a bit of attention to that..because what Congressman Clyburn thinks is important to Democrats.

His opinion matters and shouldn't be reduced to race. But it has been.

The Clintons ran strongly in the African American community in the 90s because they took the African American community seriously. They did not come off as reductive and single issue...like so many Democrats do. They talked about the full panoply of issues that all Democrats talk about.

The MLK / Mandela comments changed that tone.

It has had important consequences.

Barack Obama is, imo, the most promising Democratic leader under 50. He happens to be African American.

Something went awry in the tone of the campaign post-Iowa. Clyburn and Brazile said something about that.

An Obama staffer made a memo documenting that.

My analysis and comments have shown the complexities of that.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ad hominem (none / 0)

It's a little late to walk back Obama's "the Clintons are race-baiting" theme.

I'm glad to see you make the case that they were not, though I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around the idea that Amaya's memo vindicates Clinton.


by souvarine on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Russert is Obama's fluffer. (none / 0)

or have you forgotten how he propped Barry up on
Oct 30?

After he loses, their roles will reverse.  


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

take this back to hll haters world HQ (none / 0)

"It is unfortunate that people have tried to distort what Mrs. Clinton had to say about Dr. King," "I think there has been a deliberate and systematic attempt by some people in the Obama campaign to really fan the flames about race and to really distort what Senator Clinton said.  I understood and I think most right thinking people understood what she said.

  "President and Senator Clinton have a record, a history, a very long history of bringing people together.  No right thinking American would ever think that Senator or President Clinton would ever do anything that would use the race card"

  "I must tell you...I'm trying to set the record straight...the Obama camp is doing something else, theyr'e sending out memos to the media trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card."

  -Rep. John Lewis on News Hour 1/14


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

nicely done (none / 0)

odonnell is a snob harvard-nantucket-la punk who unforgivably slimed gore in 2000.

notice all those gore haters now just luv that barry?

hmmm?


Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!
by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (none / 0)


Seymour good you posted the Rep. John Lewis's
comments. B Clinton said it best, if someone has
doubts about the credibility of Clinton's they
can argue with Mr. Lewis and Rev. Young.

Case closed.


by BlueSea on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:55:11 AM EST

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (none / 0)

I do focus on lies and inconsistencies, especially those uttered on television.  In fact, I decided to support Clinton after Obama misrepresented his ethics record in Springfield to George Stephanopolous.  He also distorted his checkered past with Antoin "Tony" Rezko.


by truthteller2007 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:07:05 AM EST

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (none / 0)

Former Clinton supporters see it differently


by Drummond on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama and the 50 State Strategy (none / 0)

If the Democrats choose Hillary after what she's pulled, who could blame him if he did leave the party?


by Drummond on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:38:11 AM EST

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (none / 0)

(1) Maybe when you are all grown up, kid, you will realize that more is not always better. No one wants to read million word diaries and hundred thousand word comments. What you have to say is not so important as to warrant the great length it takes you to say it. Learn to self edit.

(2) As Paul Newman said to Robert Redford in "The Sting," you don't play your friends like marks. The posters on MYDD and other intelligent left web sites are not likely to fall for your sloganeering, electioneering, distortions, sound bites, and buzzwords. You insult us when you come here and try to con us on a regular basis. Save that kind of garbage for Daily Kos.

(3) What purpose does it serve for you to deny reality about the Obama campaign's race baiting and Obama's worshipful comments about Reagan? Everyone here has already seen the original documents and videos. Everyone here has already heard the Obama excuses and spin. Your repeating them ad nausium may give you some satisfaction, but does not change history and does not fool anybody on this web site.

(4) All three top candidates have given speeches for and otherwise helped other Democratic candidates. So what, exactly, does your copious collection of videos prove? That Obama can give a good speech? Everybody already knows that.

(5) Obama supporters already dominate Daily Kos and many other web sites. Why is it so important for you to come here on an almost daily basis and try to convince committed Edwards and Clinton supporters that they must change their minds and vote for your golden boy? Does it bother you so much that somewhere, someplace, in a small corner of the left blogosphere, there exist people who have the temerity to not bow down and worhip at the cult of Obama?


by freemansfarm on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:29:37 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.