None of the above

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:21:17 PM EDT

What the FU&%$ is this?






If anyone is still there that worked with Howard Dean they ought to hang their head low.



Screw Mark Penn and the dept of debt that he rode in on.



I'm too busy trying to defeat Terry McAuliffe in the VA primary to blog much lately (its a sort of karmic payback for the '08 primary experience); you'll thank me later.

btw, this video was shot from the driver seat of a UAW/American-built Chevy Traverse recently, and expresses a glimpse on the race I'm too close too for any sort of analytical reflection, but none-the-less:

Tags: 2009 (all tags)

  • 20 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

20 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: None of the above

IS there anyone still there who worked with Dean?

by Josh Orton 2009-04-21 05:25PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: None of the above

Surely, they would have walked out over this... I know I know someone who would have.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-04-21 05:36PM | 0 recs
Partido verde
Re: None of the above

In hindsight, Hillary may have lost the primary the day she signed that contract with Mark Penn. My appreciation for Senator Clinton does not extend to Mark Penn.

by Charles Lemos 2009-04-21 05:35PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: None of the above

You say it kinder than I would.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-04-21 05:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Two questions

The latest Rasmussen poll shows all three Dems trailing by double digits to McDonnell.  While McAuliffe does the worst, this (I hope Jerome will agree) is an underwhelming group of Democratic candidates.  And Hillary made two blunders in the primaries besides hiring Mark Penn:

a.  Not stating a purpose for her candidacy.
b.  Her response to that debate question on illegal immigrants.

Would she govern any better that Obama?  Would she hire a different treasury secretary?

by esconded 2009-04-21 05:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Two questions

She wouldnt be governing better than Obama.  She would likely be in worse shape, since I dont think she would have had the coattails that Obama had.  

by Kent 2009-04-21 06:02PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
They also show Moran the best candidate

I'm working for Brian Moran. I know him personally, and he's terrific.

Clinton's main weakness was not having:

A) a caucus turnout-strategy for the homestretch
B) a consistent strategy for MI & FL

I said all along that there was little difference in regards to your questions.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-04-21 06:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Some responses to esconded......

I was an Obama supporter all along, and I'll be the first to admit that had Hillary waged a delegate-based strategy like Obama did, she would have won.  We'd be worse off as a party going forward because Obama really did change the electoral map for Democratic presidential candidates and Hillary could not and would not have done that.

And regarding your final two questions, "no" and "not really."  Hillary and Obama are on the same page ideologically in their hearts, with Obama I think very slightly to her left based on a few things he's done so far that I don't think she would have done (but of course I can't prove that).  But Hillary's heart is tempered by her and Bill being a cautious bunch, having become gun shy from their experience in the 90s, and even though it's misplaced to apply those lessons today I think they're hard-wired emotionally to be ultra-cautious and scared of being tagged "liberal."  So she wouldn't have pushed for such a huge stimulus (Bill's modest one failed) or remaining FY09 budget (Bill's modest deficit reduction package barely passed) or released the torture memos (they would've considered it an ill-advised "distraction").  I have to think Bill is jealous how much more Obama gets away with going left than Bill could being much more in the middle, and he must marvel how while he had to run from the "liberal" label nowadays that's got no bite and rethugs have to go "socialist!" or "fascist!" and still don't really land a punch with the general public.  The times have changed, and I think recognizing that is what always distinguished Obama from Hillary and why I supported him.

On Treasury Sec in particular, if not Geithner, then she picks Summers, or someone else in that same circle of financial industry acquaintances and basic school of thought.  That's one area where Obama isn't departing from what Hillary would have done, and I'm not sold he's wrong...I'm not sold he's right, either...but I'm not sold he's wrong.

by DCCyclone 2009-04-21 06:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Some responses to esconded......

I was a Hillary supporter because as a candidate I thought that she was to the left of Obama. I also think that she was and is to the left of her husband.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the direction that Obama has taken since assuming office. He is more to the left than I expected him to be. I expected more of a centrist -- similar to Bill.

I would have loved Hillary to win, of course. But I am pleased with how things have turned out. I am still teary when I hear "US President Barrack Obama." Just as I'm sure I would  be if I were to hear "US President Hillary Clinton."

by carrieboberry 2009-04-22 02:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Some responses to esconded......

But she did wage a delegate-based strategy.  Harold Ickes was on a conference call yelling at reporters to stop saying "so-and-so wins such-and-such state" because as he insisted, "it's about delegates".  This was all the way back in January.

Also they worked really hard on getting her a bunch of superdelegates locked up early.  They never took their eye off the delegate ball - later on they started making all sorts of arguments OTHER than delegates, but that was because that was all they had.

by Jess81 2009-04-22 08:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not true, Jess81, they did NOT do that......

Ickes WANTED to do a delegate strategy, he was an expert on the subject.  And of course that meant contesting every state, primaries and caucuses alike, the latter with organization much more than media.  It necessarily meant planning to fight for delegates in Super Tuesday caucus states and in all states beyond Super Tuesday, rather than assuming she'd be the de facto nominee with a few early wins that she took for granted.

But Ickes got overruled.

Mark Penn ruled the day, and he and some others took nomination victory for granted right up until the night of the Iowa caucuses.

Ultimately Hillary's defeat was Hillary's fault, she showed a lack of leadership in her own campaign.

I think she would've been a better President than candidate, but then had she survived the primaries with the strategy she actually followed, her campaign's dysfunction would have sabotoged her in the general, and she might have lost in spite of all the Democratic Party's advantages last year.  And of course the flip side of that is that McCain ran such a bad campaign that he might have lost anyway...but then he would have run a different strategy against Hillary against whom there was more of an established playbook since she was disliked by far more voters than was Obama.  So there are a lot of variables and it's hard to know how the dominos would have fallen.  But there's no question at all that she would have fared worse than Obama, both in the electoral college and the national popular vote.  I count 40 electoral votes that Obama won and that Hillary with certainty never had any chance to win.  And when you add in her closer margins in some blue states where Obama won easily and spent little or no time or money, that ends up putting in jeapordy for Hillary some more states Obama won.  Hillary would have been forced into the Gore/Kerry map whereby she had to hold all the Gore/Kerry states, not an easy task in some of them, and then manage to pull out two of the three between PA, FL, and OH.  Obama had up to a dozen realistic scenarios for 270 electoral votes, and of course almost all of them came true which ended up giving him 365.

by DCCyclone 2009-04-22 05:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
do you live in Virginia?

any Republican will lead any Democrat in Virginia, it will be a long hard slog to November, and very uphill. Tim Kaine trailed Kilgore, a Republican candidate so weak you had to hear him to believe it, by 10 points all the way until Katrina. And even after Katrina it was very hard for Kaine to pull ahead. I will always think that the Scooter Libby indictment elected Kaine (that and Kilgore's unbelievably underwhelming performance in the debates, you really had to hear Kilgore to understand how bad he was).

No one should be surprised or downhearted by McDonnell's lead this early in the year.

by Alice Marshall 2009-04-21 07:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Correct VA is tough, but those issues don't matter

Issues like Katrina and Libby didn't affect the Virginia Governor's race.  There is some down-ballot effect from some national issues sometimes, but 2005 the anti-GOP sentiment had NOT completely gelled, and Kaine's win really came down to a combination of a superior campaign and changing state demographics.

If you want to point to any ONE issue that "decided" the race, as misplaced as that is, it was Kilgore attacking Kaine for what for voters was a non-issue, the death penalty.  Voters that year didn't care much about the death penalty generally or viewed Kaine as a threat to its existence or application particularly, and they responded to the attack by punishing Kilgore for NOT focusing on issues VOTERS DID care about at that time.

But all that said, you're right that in the big picture Virginia still is a tough slog for us in state races.  The demographic changes have made us so far only purple, not blue.  We'll need more white liberal and minority population growth over a few more years before we can be in the driver's seat.  McDonnell is a wingnut but is a skilled candidate who deftly obscures that fact.

And just as importantly don't underestimate the problem of our having lost the Lt. Gov. and A.G. races 4 years ago, that's biting us now.  Had Deeds pulled it out over McDonnell, he'd be in McDonnell's shoes right now and be in the driver's seat.  So now that A.G. is an open seat it's really important we win it.

by DCCyclone 2009-04-22 05:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Two questions

"a.  Not stating a purpose for her candidacy."

I think that about covers it.  Of course when she finally did find one she started winning, but it was too late.

Of course that can be laid on Mark Penn's shoulders too.  The inevitability theme wasn't accidental.

by Jess81 2009-04-22 08:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I agree with Charles that my support for HRC

did not extend to Mark Penn and his idiotic microstrategy. I think Penn and Co should eat their loss and forgo Hillary's debt. As much I like the Clintons I cannot see any reason to subsidize arrogant fools like Penn.

by louisprandtl 2009-04-21 06:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: None of the above

Here's hoping you help kick T-Mac's ass.  That'll ought to put you in good shape karma wise no matter what your past sins.

by HSTruman 2009-04-21 07:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: None of the above

As I pointed out in Singer's post this is probably a quid pro quo for Bill Clinton signing DNC appeals. The DCCC ran a similar set of emails a few weeks ago.

Dean left the DNC with barely a quarter million in cash after debts and a declining fund raising base. Somebody's got to help them get back on track, and Barack Obama is kind of busy.

by souvarine 2009-04-21 07:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: None of the above

This is absolutely quid pro quo for both Clintons' speeches at the DNC.  I was told so in June by somebody in the circle.

by lojasmo 2009-04-22 03:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is the deal with Shad Planking

There's a sign war. It's a tradition. See also Warner, Mark and Kaine, Tim. The surprise is not McAuliffe's signs, but the absence of signs for Moran or Deeds.

If this was your first trip to Shad Planking, it seems a little silly, sure... but over the years, you see that he who dominates the sign war has a tendency to win in the voting booth, too.

by BlueVirginian 2009-04-22 08:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: None of the above

It's so stupid to blame Mark Penn for Hillary's loss. SHE WAS THE CANDIDATE! Yeah it was all Mark Penn's fault. Help Hillary pay off her debt.

by whothere 2009-04-22 11:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------