DCCC Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel endorsed Hillary Clinton's potential candidacy in 2008. He said on Real Time With Bill Maher "I'm Supporting Hillary Clinton, I've Been Very Public About It."

For more info: http://www.votehillary.org/CMS/

Tags: 2008, dccc, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, rahm emanuel (all tags)

Comments

55 Comments

Re: DCCC's Rahm Emanuel Endorses Hillary Clinton

Another reason to oppose Clinton! Now she's not only the wet-finger-to-the-wind non-leader, she's also already in cahoots with the worst political boss in the Democratic Party, a lowlife who promises to do for the Democrats exactly what DeLay did for the Republicans.

by DownWithTyranny 2006-04-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: DCCC's Rahm Emanuel Endorses Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has the power with Spitzer in New York to pick up as many as 6 seats for House Democrats. We would be a third closer to taking back the House from that state alone.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:18PM | 0 recs
She also has the power to make

the Democrats' number 1 partisan issue -- the Republican culture of corruption -- into a bipartisan scandal, thereby ruining our chance to take back the Congress:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/22/ 22836/4229 ("Hillary taking $ from DeLay's sweatshop buddies")

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: She also has the power to make

Whatever. I dont remember a time when Friends of Hillary hasn't returned money thats no good if they took it and there is reason they shouldn't have. Just like Walmart. How many donations did she have last quarter? Like 50,000 or something totaling over 6 million.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:23PM | 0 recs
You're comparing Hillary to Walmart?!

Fine by me!!!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: You're comparing Hillary to Walmart?!

I will talk Hillary and Walmart anyday. She has come out against them. You may want others to thing differently.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:36PM | 0 recs
Oh, so you're saying Walmart tried to give

her money.

Well that speaks volumes for her good character, now doesn't it?

It's good that she gave it back. But it would be better if her triangulating actions didn't lead Walmart (and others) to think they might get a sympathetic hearing from her in the first place!!!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 09:45PM | 0 recs
Whopee!

Six House seats! Wow! Six more votes in the House and $1.35 will get you a bus ride in Los Angeles.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

It's only March. Do you want to compare her contributions to some of your other favorites?

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

Of course! It's all about the money. Silly me. I thought issues that affect the lives of all Americans had something to do with it. What was I thinking?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

and it'll get you 6 seats closer to the majority, bringing the margin needed down to 9.  Are you seriously suggesting that six more votes in the House is worthless?

by Fran for Dean 2006-04-22 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

This post is unbelievable. Sad actually. We are working hard to elect people like Kirsten Gillibrand and Eric Massa. It is not a joke.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

The Democratic Party needs more of Hillary and Rahm's positive message and less of Jim's cynical rhetoric.

by PeterVa 2006-04-22 08:37PM | 0 recs
Please elucidate

What is the "positive message" you are referring to? Name three pieces of fascist GOP legislation that either Emanuel or Clinton have tried to stop.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 11:57PM | 0 recs
Bravo

That was a great impression of a GOP attack on uppity Democrats who ask too many questions.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

That is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that even ONE House seat does not matter.  What happened to Howard Dean's "50 state" and "contest every seat" strategy?  If you got some qualm take it up with him.

To say that six seats don't matter demonstrates how out of touch you are with political realities.

by jkfp2004 2006-04-22 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Whopee!

Thats exactly right. EVERY seat matters.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:53PM | 0 recs
Why?

What's the point of taking back the House or the Senate if the Democratic Party is being run by DLC Democrats?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

WE ARE ALL DEMOCRATS GARY! There is plenty of room for differing viewpoints in our party, unlike the GOP. I'm proud of our party's diversity of opinions, why aren't you?

by VoteHillary 2006-04-22 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

I guess diversity of opinion is limited to DLC Democrats who agree 100% with Emanuel and Clinton. You're either with Hillary or you hate America. Is that about right?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 11:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

The dlcers make it impossible to come out against the war. The majority are against the war now.  The war is shitty and should be stopped.

by Dameocrat 2006-04-23 09:13AM | 0 recs
We are not all democrats

If I had to vote for a lowlife like Hillary, don't call me a democrat. Everyone explained her support for the Iraq war not as a pesonal belief but as a political strategy. This excuse actually puts her in a worse light - a politician who sells out many american lives and lots of money to further her own personal ambitions. How does that make her better morally than your average republican?

I have posed this many times and have not gotten ONE SINGLE ANSWER from all you Hillary supporters. But what exactly are her major accomplishments in the last 15 years? And if you find a couple, are they enough to negate her support for the IRaq war?

And considering it is no longer dangerous politically to be sane about going to war against Iran, why does Hillary continue to do the same pro war grandstanding? Explain this. If her personal principles support her pro war crap, then she is one dumb moron. Either way, she is coming across terrible on the middle eastern issue.

Where is her courage? Other than improving the environment because you cant really get any worse than what you got, what does Hillary offer? She is still going to shamelessly shill for useless wars because she is a tool of the neocon type people.

by Pravin 2006-04-23 12:16PM | 0 recs
Which is why I thought raising $1 million

to defeat a Democrat with grassroots support (money raised by Hillary and Rahm, among others) in IL-6 was a terrible waste of resources.

What the #$%@#$ is cynical about that?!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 09:19PM | 0 recs
The Captain Goes Down With The Ship

Why not? Emanuel and Clinton are both yesterday's news. For some bizarre reasons of their own they have chosen to march to the beat of the Conservative Reactionary Wing of the Democratic Party.

Out with the old. In with the new.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Captain Goes Down With The Ship

I disagree. Hillary does so much for the Democratic Party. She is always working to elect democrats. In the last week of March alone she gave out $213,000. You can see more about that here: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/4 11049p-347708c.html If you check out her report on the FEC site you can see some of the new folks shes supporting like Joe Sestak in PA.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 08:16PM | 0 recs
But where does Hillary get the money from?

see the link in my post below...

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Captain Goes Down With The Ship

Whoo...and took in how much?

Old story...The Clinton Dynasty sucks up money better used on 2006 races, and its a good thing.

Donate to anyone w/out Boss Rahm's stamp of approval and you're "ruining the party, helping Reps get elected, etc..."

So, when exactly did you turn off your brain and just abrogated democracy for quasi-noble families?

by ElitistJohn 2006-04-22 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Captain Goes Down With The Ship

When Dean was getting savaged by the MSM and rigfht wing politicians, Hillary did nothing to shgow some moral support to Dean. Dean would not have been treated like that in the media if he wasnt backstabbed by idiots from his own party. Bush continues to commit many stylistic gaffes in public appearances and yet he is not as big a laughing stock image wise, for one reason - his party backed him up.

So other supporting her usual group, what has Hillary done to support different factions in the party? Dean has not even attacked Lieberman publicly after the primaries were over. He has shown support for people he differed with in the name of party unity even before he became DNC Chair. I see Hillary standing by waiting for her chance and nothing else. What did Hillary do in 2004 to support Kerry? Not much.

by Pravin 2006-04-23 12:22PM | 0 recs
Yesterday's News?

Tell that to Christine Cegelis!

And as for Hillary, check this out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/22/ 22836/4229 ("Hillary taking $ from DeLay's sweatshop buddies")

Far from yesterdays news, these people are a cancer on the face of the Democratic Party, and one with which people like Kos now often play ball or at least try to dissuade people from opposing (see reference to Cegelis above).

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Yesterday's News?

The party bosses of the DNC and DCCC didn't force Cegelis out of the race, the voters of Illinois did.  Cegelis may have been a great candidate but the people didn't seem to think so.

by jkfp2004 2006-04-22 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Yesterday's News?

I'm calling Bullshit! The Cegelis/Duckworth primary proved that the Democratic Party leadership is more committed to corporate donors than the grass/netroots. Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and the DLC are the enemy of progressive reform.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yesterday's News?

As opposed to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Santorum, DeLay, and Noe....ya THEY are the enemy...

by jkfp2004 2006-04-22 09:29PM | 0 recs
Shouldn't we support Democrats

who are as far different from that cabal as possible? Not ones who think it's okay to emulate them in some ways because "the ends justify the means"?

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Shouldn't we support Democrats

Clearly your candidate just didnt have as much support

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-22 09:51PM | 0 recs
Cegelis had plenty of support

among people who were paying close attention to the race. The $1 million bought casual voters who were swayed by TV ads.

Cegelis had people who really CARED about her becuase she had fought for the district for 3 years. Duckworth spent as much time raising money on the East coast to buy those ads as she did in the district. Even with all that money, she won by a very thin margin.

Now instead of running against a true progressive with grassroots support, the Republican gets to make his campaign about running against the Chicago and DC Democrats who are trying to buy the district.

If Duckworth loses in November, will you make the same snide "she didn't have much support" comment about her?

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis had plenty of support

Nah...they'll blame people like you who didn't fall on their knees crying "Thank you for carpetbagging us a candidate!".

by ElitistJohn 2006-04-22 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis had plenty of support

Tammy Duckworth is going to win in November.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-04-23 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis had plenty of support

If she is, she might want to start campaigning and holding events in the district.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-23 06:25AM | 0 recs
Nah, all you need to win is money

lots of money.

Didn't you know that?  /snark

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-23 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis had plenty of support

and let's not forget, cegelis lost by such a narrow margin, 2 votes per precinct, that vote fraud should be suspected.  Unfortunately it cost a hundred thousand dollars to contest an election in illinois. That is a corrupt rule that will always favor corrupt politicians.

by Dameocrat 2006-04-23 09:16AM | 0 recs
Clearly

What exactly do you base this insulting statment on? And what exactly are you referring to when you say "support"?

She didn't have Rahm's support. That was the key.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-23 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Yesterday's News?

Comments like this just continues to make me laugh. $700,000 plus lots free national media sure helped those voters make that choice. The question you've got to ask it where did that money come from, as it sure as hell didn't come from the voters in IL-06. Quite a sizable percentage from NY and Chicago though.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-23 06:20AM | 0 recs
Priorities, please

Let's remember a fundamental truth of all political candidates: they go where the votes are. Whoever the candidates are, both Republican and Democrat, they are going to modify their positions to match those of their most influential constituents.  

So we need to become the most influential constituents! Organize, show strength and push the issues.  If it becomes clear that the grassroots are willing to show up (which is 80% of success), press local elected party officials to support their views, (another 10) and provide volunteers and funding through large numbers of small donations (another 10), then the grassroots will determine the platform.

And if we are strong to control the platform, all we need to do is wait for candidates to come to yus, then pick the most competent and electable.  

On the other hand, if make this about candidate without first establishing what we are opposing and supporting, we have no guarantees that the candidate will stick to our issues.  

I think the platform writes itself: this administration and its allies have been so incompetent and corrupt that the best campaign will be the one that attack the most.  And not with a laundry list of proposals, but with a promise to sweep away the secret, insider crony government that makes failure inevitable.

Once that is the battle cry, then the best candidate is the one who can yell it the loudest.

by Mudshark 2006-04-22 08:59PM | 0 recs
A Little Backbone Please

The Democratic Party doesn't have a backbone, because it no longer has a heart and a soul. The Democratic leadership has sold out to corporate America, right along with the GOP.

The Democratic Party doesn't need a platform or priorities. What the Democratic Party needs is a clean sweep of DLC and Blue Dog Democrats. We can't [Take Back America https:/secure.ourfuture.org/tba06] until we Take Back The Democratic Party:

My answer is that only a political party as large and resourceful as the Democrats could have the power to re-institute exit polling, and catch scams like the voter-list purges Jeb Bush used to steal the 2000 and 2002 elections for himself and his brother.

And the Democratic Party can only do it if we, in massive numbers, join it, embrace it, and ultimately gain a powerful and decisive voice in its policy-making and selection of candidates.

We can only take back the Democratic Party by opposing Democrats like Lieberman, Emanuel and Clinton.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-22 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A Little Backbone Please

That is nonsense Gary and you know it. You're talking about a political eugenics movement to get rid of those that you don't find pure enough.

We do not need that.

What we need to do is work together to build a stronger progressive movement and a stronger Democratic party.

by PeterVa 2006-04-22 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: A Little Backbone Please

I'm talking about a simple matter of opposing fascist Republican legislation. Remember back in the good old days when there were actually naive fools who thought the Democratic Party was capable of genuine political disagreement with the GOP?

What has Hillary or Emanuel done to demonstrate they are capable of acting as an opposition party?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-04-23 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: A Little Backbone Please

They can always run as republicans.

by Dameocrat 2006-04-23 09:17AM | 0 recs
Gonna disagree a bit

Let's remember a fundamental truth of all political candidates: they go where the votes are. Whoever the candidates are, both Republican and Democrat, they are going to modify their positions to match those of their most influential constituents.

They go where the money is to get the votes. Fundraisers that draw $2,100 checks and phone time trump going to the voters and campaigning. This is our current political system.

But this leads to an electabiliy argument based on that first FEC report showing the grass roots bein outspend 2 to 1, with only 5K COH. Money is the isses, and drives your operation, media and net reach programs. It excites your volunteer, raises more money quicker, and provided the legitimacy early candidates need.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-22 09:46PM | 0 recs
I'm absolutely stunned!

Or not.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-22 09:38PM | 0 recs
Who is next?

So now that Rahm Emanuel has publicly backed Hillary in 2008, who is next? Rahm is a great leader and it can only be assumed that where he goes, other major league hitters will go too.

by VoteHillary 2006-04-22 10:06PM | 0 recs
HOWARD DEAN!

I'm beginning to suspect that Howard Dean is working for Hillary inside the DNC. Just look at all these primary calendar changes benefitting her!

by PeterVa 2006-04-22 10:08PM | 0 recs
Howard Dean working for Hillary???!!!

Could you run that one by me again? Exactly how would that work and why?

I take Howard at his word that he will be a neutral referee when it comes to the Presidential candidates. Please show some evidence to the contrary if you're going to make the assertion that he's not.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is next?

If I was in a battle I'd sure want Rhambo in my foxhole.  

by howardpark 2006-04-23 05:50AM | 0 recs
Why the love affair with Hillary?

No matter how much she runs to the right, adopts "cultural" issues like video games, and tries to moderate her image, she will NEVER capture the "Bubba" vote. In fact, she has the unique ability to turn off culturally conservative swing voters AND the Democratic base, no matter how much money she raises and spends.

If you think the party needs to moderate its image to win the next Presidential election (and it very well might), then you should support a candidate like Mark Warner, who can actually appeal to rural and other swing voters nationwide, as he did in Virginia.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-22 10:35PM | 0 recs
Re: DCCC Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel Endorses Hillary

Not surprised.  He is a war hawk, like Hillary.  They are an unrepresentative minority in congress, and they monopolize both parties.  I think we should run a primary challenge against him, so the parties become more representative of the people.

by Dameocrat 2006-04-23 09:22AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads