Mutiny of the Clinton Democrats?

By now, one must wonder what’s going on.

In recent weeks the following Democrats have gone off the Obama reservation, at times directly challenging Dear Leader in ways that regurgitate for days in the news cycle much to his horror:

Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, who is now “dead” to the Administration for having the utter honesty to tell a TV reporter that he was nauseated by the attacks on Bain;

Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor, who, while making the rounds promoting a book and promoting Hillary Clinton, appears to savor opportunities to challenge Obama;

Artur Davis, former Alabama congressman, who proclaimed that “this is not Bill Clinton’s party” as he announced that he’s becoming a Republican;

Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democratic Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has excoriated the Obama Administration for sensitive security leaks; and of course…

Bill Big-Dawg Clinton, who has had to walk back so many Obama digs in the past week, aids are now suggesting he’s senile. (Oh, sure. If Bill Clinton is senile then Barack Obama really is the smartest president evah. Whatever).

There are more. There are so many Democratic critics speaking out so often that I’m losing track: Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts; former Obama “Car Czar” Steve Rattner; former Obama advisor Van Jones (of all people!); former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford; Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware — all of whom have publicly defended Mayor Booker. Fearlessly, I might add.

And now Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel to Bill Clinton, today said this:

“We’re both (speaking of Clinton and Davis) concerned about the tactics (Obama’s) campaign is employing….(He should) talk about his record rather than going negative on Mitt Romney…

“This is how bad it is….Koolaid drinking people — meltdown!”

Surely I’m not the only one who’s noticed that most of these rogue party poopers are Hillary Democrats. What on Clinton’s Earth is going on?

Shout out to Bud White!

Read Full Post »

Romney Plants Should Shout “Hillary! Hillary!” at Dem Events

Nothing drives Alinskyites crazier than using their own tactics against them….”Hillary! Hillary! Hillary 2012!”

The other day I read on Gateway Pundit that Mitt Romney retaliated against Obama with his own use of a Dem tactic:

Last week Barack Obama sent his campaign supporters down to a Romney event in Philadelphia to protest. In response to this, Mitt Romney promised reporters today, “If the president wants to send his supporters to my rally, we’ll show him that we have the same capacity as he does.” And Mitt delivered. Romney supporters met Obama senior strategist David Axelrod at his anti-Romney event in Massachusetts.

The Romney plants heckled and shouted down David Axelrod on the steps of the Massachusetts statehouse. LOL, I am sure Axelrude was seething.

Brilliant, Mitt. Fight thuggery with thuggery.  The only way to prevail is to bring a gun to the Chicago street fight. Romney should elevate this tactic by placing  plants at every Obama campaign event, and especially every Bill Clinton event, who shout “Hillary! Hillary! Hillary 2012! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary 2012!“

Then sit back and watch the meltdown.

Idea borrowed from Althouse commenter with a h/t to Hillary is 44

Read Full Post »

SHOCK POLL: 50% of Blue Collar Democrats Want Someone Other Than Obama As The 2012 Nominee…..

….”26% of (ALL) Democrats would prefer the party to nominate another Democrat for president next year, up from 18% in October.”

CNN strains to assure readers that the poll results are irrelevant because even though the percentage of Democrats who want someone else to be nominated has increased from 18% to 25% in ONE MONTH….

“….the changes are strictly hypothetical, since there is no indication that Obama will face a serious challenger in any primary next year.”

Okay, CNN, okay. (*snicker*)

Read Full Post »

On Behalf of Women In Politics

Bitch. Whore. Stupid. Hot. Disabled. Shrill. Mean Girl. Hag. Diva. Ice Queen. Slut.

 

The midterm elections of 2010 brought back a familiar rage and sick, queasy feeling as I watched women on both sides of the aisle being devalued with sexist diatribes. The hateful rhetoric that defined much of the 2008 presidential campaign was not an anomaly. When debating the merits of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy detractors could no longer say, “I don’t mind electing a woman – just not that woman.” Such a phrase was nonsense after all. Plenty of women seem somehow to be that woman. Though not seeking political office, even Michelle Obama did not escape. Once called angry and emasculating, she now tills a victory garden in designer jeans and Lanvin sneakers.  Sarah Palin, derided as reactionary and “disabled,” seems a terrifying prospect to the left and even some on the right.

 

But none can compete with the twenty years of skewering Hillary Clinton has endured. In 2008, the breathtaking atmosphere surrounding Hillary and Obama’s first solo debate captured the imagination and hopes of millions, but my joy in watching a qualified woman vie for the presidency was marred by newsmen and pundits calling Hillary Clinton a hellish housewife, Nurse Ratched, she-devil and bitch.

 

Not content to take the word of the pundit class on Hillary’s character, I sought the reality under the damaging “divisive and polarizing” label that had long haunted her. Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments and tireless work ethic proved that she was not the harridan of pundits’ fantasies. I ignored my scattershot but steady career as an actor to work on Hillary’s campaign. That career was nothing fancy but I’d made a living in the business for many years. The only calling I have ever had or loved became an inconvenient distraction.

 

Did I want Hillary to win because she was a woman? No. Did I want her to win because I thought she had the best chops for the job? Yes. She was my candidate. But the long knives were out for Hillary, the media bias appalling. Her party turned a deaf ear and stood by as her policies were misrepresented, her character maligned, her womanhood degraded. The net result was to make me work harder.

 

Through my passion for Hillary’s candidacy, I evolved from actor and fearful news junkie to determined campaign grunt and citizen pundit. If you told me I would immerse myself in this effort, become a blog writer for the first time in my life, build a following on various political websites under the name “Ani” and write a book on the subject that I am currently working to get published, I would have said you were potzo.

 

In 2008, my reluctant odyssey into the world of politics forced me to examine the way women are treated in a post-feminist world. Especially women with high aims and hard heads. I questioned the bias against women in authority, the limitations women placed on themselves, my own preconceptions about party, my choice of career, and even some of my friendships.

 

The fever of that campaign is still with me for one reason only — as a society, we have learned nothing. We still practice the same behavior.

 

Speaking out on the internet, I raised my volume well past my comfort level. At the time, hiding my real name felt like a necessity. While I didn’t want my politics to interfere with my work as an actor, far more worrisome were the threats leveled at some of Hillary’s supporters. One friend received internet death threats. Another had someone vandalize her garage door painting “Hillary hag” on it for having a Hillary lawn sign in her yard. I read that a woman with a small Hillary sign in her car window was followed by a man in another car for blocks. When the man caught up with her, he screamed, “You can put up all the signs you want. That bitch will never be president.”

 

Read Full Post »

Wow: Sunday WaPo Editorial Calls for Obama to Step Aside in 2012

I don’t know how much credibility  Schoen and Caddell have as Democratic advisers, but the very fact that the Washington Post is publishing this  proposal is odd at minimum, if not stunning.

One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012

By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Sunday, November 14, 2010

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock, at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

~~

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment – or of the 2012 campaign.

Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president’s political prospects.

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

~~

Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.

Should the president do that, he – and the country – would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the unifying figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly – and so will the public.

It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.

I can’t imagine the Post publishing such an “opinion” without cause. Ideas anyone?  Do you think this is related to the WSJ’s bizarre suggestion a couple of weeks ago that Obama had not yet decided whether to run for re-election?  Why Would Donors Be Wondering in Nov. 2010 Whether Obama will Run for Re-election

Read Full Post »

Democratic Pollster: “Hillary Voters Abandon Democrats”

© 2010 TexasDarlin/TDBlog

“….It will take a sustained effort to recapture the blue-collar voters that backed the Republicans’ takeover of the House.”

We told you so:

The blue-collar voters who supported Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run deserted the party in droves on Tuesday, according to a new poll.

Democrats’ support from white, non-college-educated male voters dropped 12 percent from 2008, according to a survey Greenberg Quinlan Rosner conducted Nov. 2-3 for Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future.

Only 29 percent of blue-collar men support Democrats in 2010, down from 41 percent last cycle, according to the survey of 1,000 2008 voters, of which 897 voted on Tuesday.

“These are gigantic losses,” Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, whose firm conducted the survey, said on a conference call with reporters Friday.

Shocking, right? The “Hillary voters,” everyone will recall, are mainstream moderate Democrats, in the lineage of “Reagan Democrats.” These are the voters who Donna Brazile dismissed in 2008 when she boldly declared on CNN in her role as an “impartial commentator” that the new Democratic coalition was younger, more urban, and less blue collar. In other words, “F**You Hillary Democrats!”

It’s so amusing, in the aftermath of Tuesday’s mid-term slaughter, that political reporters have dialed up the chatter about a 2012 primary challenge to Obama from the far-left wing of Democratic Party (as if Obama weren’t liberal enough for them, lol). Reviewing the results of Greenberg’s poll showing a gigantic exodus of blue-collar Democrats, how do the brilliant pundits think a more liberal candidate would re-capture Hillary’s white working class voters? They know that Deaniacs are the high-income elites who already support Obama.

The Politico set is in denial. They refuse to articulate the obvious: It will take a more centrist Democrat to win back independents and the lost coalition, the “unwashed” middle of the country who turned out 18 million strong to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. So, Hillary may insist that she’s not running — that is no doubt true — but if the Democratic Party is truly interested in holding onto the presidency for a bit longer, it would be wise to correct course and draft her.

Read Full Post »