In 2011 We Must Face Reality Or Suffer The Consequences--Part One

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/alters-the-promise-epilog_n_802866.html

All,

Like I've been saying for well over a year now, it's way past time for all of us to get our heads out of the clouds and shut down any more silly and useless adolescent dreaming about who or what Obama "could be/should be." More than ever it's time for all of us to be fully committed adult citizens and take some serious responsibility for honestly dealing with the blatant REALITY of who and what this man and his wayward administration actually is and isn't. Our watchword for 2011 must be: No More Excuses! We must incessantly hold both this President and ourselves fully and equally ACCOUNTABLE for what by any objective standard is a simply awful and obviously failing national economic policy. What this means is that if we truly want real reform--and not just some halfass token version of same-- we are going to have to organize on a national level to put immense political pressure on the White House and Congress. Needless to say the Republicans will absolutely refuse to do anything but destroy this Presidency and all the rest of us in the bargain so the real WEIGHT is gonna be on the President and the Democratic Party to actually deliver on their promises or at the very least FIGHT LIKE MANIACS against the inevitable rollbacks that are sure to come if the President and the Democrats in the House and Senate don't fiercely stand up to the additional 69 Republican rightwingers who were elected to the House and Senate during the November, 2010 midterms. While we obviously must continue to generally support the President vis-a-vis and in opposition to the Republican right and their corporate sponsors this fundamentally provisional political and ideological support MUST BE PRINCIPLED AND CRITICAL at all times to be of any real use or practical value to either him or us. If we don't do what is necessary to change the direction of this economy now during 2011 you can rest assured that Obama will be a one term President and go down to ignominious defeat in 2012--and most importantly of all WE will be wiped out and decimated by an intense and unrelenting national rightwing backlash that will absolutely destroy everything and everyone in its path in the aftermath of that defeat. Mark my words...

Kofi


Jonathan Alter's 'The Promise' Epilogue: Obama Team's Dysfunction Prompted Lack Of Focus On Jobs; Bill Clinton Annoyed At White House
by Marcus Baram
December 30, 2010
The Huffington Post \


Some revelations about the Obama administration detailed in the new epilogue to the upcoming paperback release of Jonathan Alter's bestseller, "The Promise," probably won't please too many folks at the White House. Alter claims that a dysfunctional relationship between top White House aides hurt the administration's policy on job creation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was almost dropped from financial reform legislation and was only reinstated after complaints by Elizabeth Warren, and Bill Clinton continually grumbles about being disrespected by the administration.

The Obama administration's perceived failure to take laser-like aim at the unemployment crisis was partly due to the dysfunctional relationship between White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, top economic adviser Larry Summers and senior adviser David Axelrod, specifically the intransigence of Summers, according to Alter:

"The inability to pivot in 2010 to a single-minded focus on jobs was a by-product of what one senior aide called "dysfunction" between Emanuel, Summers, and Axelrod. Rahm had always admired Larry, but he was becoming exasperated with his failure to give him a jobs plan he could sell. 'Week after week, Rahm would say, 'Let's explore this' or 'How about that?' and Larry would slow-walk everything,' recalled one senior advisor. 'He basically doesn't believe in the government helping small business'."

Alter writes that the CFPB survived certain death only because of Warren's commitment:

"The most popular provision of Dodd-Frank almost didn't happen. In late 2009 Elizabeth Warren learned that a proposed bureau of consumer financial protection had been dropped from the bill. She went to the White House to object, and the bureau, to the dismay of predatory lenders, was reinstated."

Obama's relationship with the Clintons remains strained and Bill Clinton constantly complains in private about how he's been disrespected by the administration, writes Alter.

Though they talk frequently, the former president was annoyed that Obama didn't give him credit for helping to negotiate a spy swap that led to the release from Russian jails of four Russians who had been working for the CIA (in the wake of the bust of Russian spies living in American suburbs six months ago), Clinton's aides tell Alter. In addition, Clinton was miffed that Samantha Power, who insulted Hillary during the 2008 campaign, was chosen as an emissary to Bosnia in July. ("Bill Clinton might not have accepted the job, but he wanted to be asked," Alter writes.)

"An old friend compared him [Clinton] to a big puppy dog who just needed some attention to be happy and helpful."

Clinton felt dissed because, after negotiating the release by North Korea of two imprisoned American journalists, he was told to travel on a separate plane so as not to overshadow the arrival of the women. "Some of these guys in the White House act small," one aide told Alter.

And Clinton's team was angry that former protégés like Rahm Emanuel didn't show the former president proper respect. After Clinton "worked like a nerd" to prepare a detailed 30-page memo on how to incentivize banks with loan guarantees to spur job creation, the White House ignored the memo for a few months, and then treated Clinton like a "prop" during Obama's meeting with CEOs. When a Clinton aide complained to Emanuel, "Are you serious?", the chief of staff replied that Clinton should be grateful he was on the president's schedule at all, writes Alter.

"Clinton felt better disposed toward his 1992 opponent, George H.W. Bush... one senior aide described Bush as a 'father figure' to Clinton, who never knew his natural father..."

African American Voters Reject Billary, Inc.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-trice-24mar24,1,6032953,print.column

All,

I said back in early January that if the Clintons (Billary, Inc.) decided to race-bait Obama in any way they would pay dearly for that transgression and live to regret it. I knew that the masses of black people would never stand for it on any level whatsoever and that we would then do everything in our collective power to see to it that the offender(s) were seriously punished politically. After voting in whopping margins of 9-1 for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 and then openly defending and supporting him during the Lewinsky scandal and opposing the Republicans bid to impeach him the black voting bloc showed the Clintons tremendous loyalty, respect, and trust. Now to have that compassion and support thrown right back in our collective faces and have the Clintons turn on us-- their most loyal and supportive base of voters in the entire country-- by engaging in the most opportunist and sleazy race baiting imaginable is justly considered a major outrage by black voters nationally who historically are not only the most sophisticated and savvy ethnic voting bloc in this country but also the one with the longest (and strongest) memories. By "fronting" black folks off in public through a vulgar and demagogic display of condescension and indifference and by taking black votes for granted the Clintons have committed a monumental political gaffe that frankly they may never recover from. But there's no need for pity on anyone's part. Billary, Inc. EARNED and thus thoroughly DESERVES their comeuppance in this situation. So if black voters have anything to do with it (and trust me--we will!) Hillary Clinton will NOT be the second "black (minstrel) president" of these United States. We're looking for the REAL DEAL this time around...

Kofi


www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-trice-24mar24,1,2106298.column

Clintons lose luster with black voters
Dawn Turner Trice
Chicago Tribune

March 24, 2008


An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken this month found that former President Bill Clinton, the so-called first black president, is falling out of favor with African-Americans.

More of the poll's respondents view him negatively (45 percent) than positively (42 percent). Compare this to his ratings just last year—a positive of 48 percent compared with a negative of 35 percent—and it's a pretty big deal.

Beyond scientific polls, anecdotal evidence reveals that his wife also is losing support from the Democratic Party's most reliable constituency.

A lot of black people are furious at Sen. Hillary Clinton in part because of the actions or infractions of her surrogates. They're angry at Bill for the dust-up he created after the South Carolina contest comparing Sen. Barack Obama's win there to that of Rev. Jesse Jackson's when he ran for president. They're angry at Geraldine Ferraro for suggesting Obama is mostly an affirmative action candidate.

They blame the Clinton camp for circulating the picture of Obama in Somali garb, an attempt to incite anti-Muslim fears. Some even blame the Clintons for initiating the controversy over the inflammatory sermons made by Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Nevermind whether these last two examples are true.

What's striking for me is the number of black voters who tell me they could never bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton, even if by some miracle, she became the Democratic presidential nominee.

Some have said they would sit out the general election, and risk a win by Republican Sen. John McCain. And these are people for whom not voting is anathema.

Indeed Clinton has her share of detractors. But, until recently, not too many blacks were counted among them. In fact, until South Carolina, a lot of black people felt heartsick about having to choose between Clinton and Obama.

Now folks' hearts are hardened and the resentment is visceral. Blacks didn't expect the Clintons to play the race card. You could argue that the Clinton strategy is just politics. It's not personal. It's not really racial. But this year voters of all stripes are rejecting the same old, same old.

Black people in particular (and others too) are rejecting this brand of politics that plays on voters' worst fears. If Republicans use race-baiting (think: footage of Mexicans scaling border fences) to stir the base, who is shocked by it? But it is shocking coming from someone who always has been considered an ally.

For years, blacks appreciated Hillary Clinton's work at Yale, tutoring black law students; her work at the Children's Defense Fund; her efforts on behalf of public education and health care. The list goes on and, frankly, her civil rights roots may run deeper than Obama's.

But in just a few months, the Clintons may have squandered a lot of goodwill capital. Black voters expected a spirited debate between the Clinton and Obama camps. But on the issues.

In New Hampshire, when Bill Clinton called Obama's Iraq war position a "fairy tale," that was in bounds. The Jesse Jackson comparison—out of bounds. Not because it wasn't true, but because Clinton was slyly playing the race card.

Of all Obama's moves, the most brilliant has been making unity and hope fundamental campaign themes. You look pretty mean-spirited slinging mud on a guy who is reluctant to get down and dirty. You also look profoundly clueless next to one who can deliver an eloquently nuanced speech on transcending racism.

At any other moment in history, Clinton would be the IT candidate for many black Democrats. But life is complicated. Race is complicated. So are feelings of betrayal.

If the Clinton strategy has been "win at any cost," it appears to have cost a lot.

dtrice@tribune.com

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

Governor Bill Richardson Endorses Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206184082-TgQIByIjdYPKRv2BQJzPzA

All,

What Governor Bill Richardson says in his surprise endorsement of Obama speaks volumes about the fierce battle within the Democratic Party over the negative and divisive role of the Clinton Machine in the primary race and about Governor Richardson's own considerable political integrity and independence in embracing Barack despite the fact that he is a longtime friend of the Clintons and served with them in important cabinet positions in both of Bill Clinton's two administrations from 1992-2000. Finally what Richardson says about Obama indicates that he fully realizes what Obama's actual strengths are as both a man and a politician and that he knows Obama has the right stuff to make a decent President. Whether Richardson's endorsement will help Obama at this point with the national Latino vote is anybody's guess and probably problematic given the Clinton's tight political rein on other national Latino leaders but it does indicate that not every major national Latino politician is for sale to the Clintons and that ideas, values, integrity, and vision do count more to Governor Richardson than cynical slavishness to political cronyism. Thank you Governor for having the guts, honesty, and the vision to fight for what you know is right instead of just "going along to get along" in the Clinton camp.

Kofi

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21text-richardson.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all


TEXT
Richardson’s Endorsement of Obama

Published: March 21, 2008

The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Governor Bill Richardson's speech endorsing Senator Barack Obama in Oregon.


My friends,
Earlier this week, an extraordinary American gave a historic speech.

Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him.

He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths.

Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.

Senator Obama could have given a safer speech.

He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party's nomination.

He could have just waited for the controversy over the deplorable remarks of Reverend Wright to subside, as it surely would have.

Instead, Senator Obama showed us once again what kind of leader he is.

He spoke to us as adults.

He asked us to ponder the weight of our racially-divided past, to rise above it, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

Senator Obama reminded us that cynicism is not realism, and that hope is not folly.

He called upon us not just to dream about a less racially-divided America, but also to do the hard work needed to build such an America.

He asked every American to see the reality and the pain of other Americans, so that together we can rise above that which has divided us.

He appealed to the best in us.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words.

I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country.

Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences—and place blame on others not like them.

We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race.

He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And, after 8 years of George W. Bush, we will desperately need such a leader.

Our national security and our global standing have been gravely damaged by the divisive partisanship of recent years.

We need a President who can bring us together as a nation so that we can face urgent global challenges and repair the damage done in the last 7 years.

Barack Obama will make the historic and vital investments into renewable energy, to help create clean energy jobs and fight global warming.

Barack knows that the safety and future of every American child requires that we restore our shared sense of national purpose, so that we can then set about the hard work of rebuilding our alliances and rehabilitating our image in a dangerous world.

By uniting our nation, we can reverse America's global decline.

We need a realistic, principled, and bipartisan foreign policy again.

We must restore our international reputation, our influence and our capacity to lead others.

America must become the beacon for the world again.

We need a foreign policy based upon American ideals, and not upon the mere ideology of a President.

A foreign policy of diplomacy and respect for international human rights.

We prospered and prevailed in the Cold War because both our friends and our enemies knew that containment of the Soviet Union and the promotion of democratic values was not a Democratic or a Republican policy – it was an American policy--the very essence of what America was.

Senator Obama understands the importance of realism, principle, and bipartisanship in foreign policy.

He opposed the Iraq war from the beginning because he knew that, despite what the Administration claimed, this war would not be easy.

He also opposed the war because he saw President Bush's rush to employ military force, and to do so without the support of most of our allies, as dangerous and unwarranted.

And he saw the war also for what it so quickly became – a terrible source of partisan political division -- and a catastrophic distraction from the war that had united us against the real threat posed by Al Qaeda.

Now, I trust him to do what is so long overdue—End the Iraq war and bring our troops home!!

I know Senator Obama well.

I first got to know him when I chaired the last Democratic National Convention, where he gave that wonderful keynote address.

And then, last year, as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, I came to fully appreciate his steadfast patriotism and remarkable talents.

I also felt a kinship with him because we both had one foreign-born parent and we both lived abroad as children.

In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

Barack Obama, you are an extraordinary leader who has shown courage, sound judgment and wisdom throughout your career.

You understand the security challenges of the 21st century, and you will be an outstanding Commander in Chief.

Above all, you will be a President who brings this nation together and restores American global leadership.

You will make every American proud to be an American, and I am very proud indeed to endorse your candidacy.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to say that we are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President.

My great affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver.

It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the Fall.

The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward.

Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

I know that all Democrats will work tirelessly to get him elected.

It is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce to you the next President of the United States, my friend, Barack Obama.



First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama

Senator Barack Obama accepted the support of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico on Friday in Portland, Ore. Mr. Richardson ended his own bid for the Democratic nomination in January

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

Published: March 22, 2008

PORTLAND, Ore. — “I talked to Senator Clinton last night,” Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on Friday, describing the tense telephone call in which he informed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that, despite two months of personal entreaties by her and her husband, he would be endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.


Senator Barack Obama at a rally Friday at the Memorial Coliseum in Portland, Ore. The Oregon primary is May 20.

“Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations,” Mr. Richardson said.

The decision by Mr. Richardson, who ended his own presidential campaign on Jan. 10, to support Mr. Obama was a belt of bad news for Mrs. Clinton. It was a stinging rejection of her candidacy by a man who had served in two senior positions in President Bill Clinton’s administration, and who is one of the nation’s most prominent elected Hispanics. Mr. Richardson came back from vacation to announce his endorsement at a moment when Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of winning the Democratic nomination seem to be dimming.

But potentially more troublesome for Mrs. Clinton was what Mr. Richardson said in announcing his decision. He criticized the tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. He praised Mr. Obama for the speech he gave in response to the furor over racially incendiary remarks delivered by Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And he came close to doing what Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have increasingly feared some big-name Democrat would do as the battle for the nomination drags on: Urge Mrs. Clinton to step aside in the interest of party unity.

“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”

In many ways, the decision by Mr. Richardson, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, was as much a tale about his relationship with them as it was about the course of Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Mr. Clinton had told his wife’s campaign that he had received several assurances from Mr. Richardson that he would not endorse Mr. Obama. One adviser who spoke to Mr. Clinton on Friday said that the former president was surprised by the Richardson endorsement, but described Mr. Clinton as more philosophical than angry about it.

Mr. Richardson looked anguished when asked in an interview if his relationship with the Clintons would withstand endorsing Mr. Obama. In doing so, Mr. Richardson was not only taking sides in the most bitter of political fights, but rejecting the candidacy of a close friend.

“There’s something special about this guy,” Mr. Richardson said of Mr. Obama. “I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.”

Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.

But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.

“It was cordial, but a little heated,” Mr. Richardson said in an interview.

Mrs. Clinton had no public schedule on Friday, and spent the day at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, played down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.”

Mr. Richardson called Mr. Obama about two weeks ago to tell him that he was “99 percent with him,” Mr. Obama’s aides said. The announcement was delayed because Mr. Richardson had been scheduled to go on vacation in the Caribbean. Even though Mr. Richardson had promised Mr. Obama that his mind was made up, Mr. Obama’s aides said they grew worried that the furor over the racially inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s former pastor might lead Mr. Richardson to reconsider.

But Mr. Richardson, who had sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president, pointed specifically to the speech that Mr. Obama gave in Philadelphia on Tuesday in explaining why he endorsed him.

“Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him,” he said. “He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.”

He added: “Senator Obama could have given a safer speech. He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party’s nomination.”

Mr. Richardson said he was dispirited by the tone of the Democratic nominating fight, reflecting a sentiment that has been increasingly voiced by party leaders. Unlike many others, though, Mr. Richardson placed the blame on Mrs. Clinton.

“I believe the campaign has gotten too negative,” Mr. Richardson said, speaking to reporters in Portland. “I want it to be positive. I think that’s what’s been very good about Senator Obama’s campaign — it’s a positive campaign about hope and opportunity.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson appeared together on stage of the Memorial Coliseum in Portland on Friday morning. Mr. Richardson was still wearing the beard that he grew during what he called a period of decompression after leaving the presidential race.

On their own, endorsements in contests like this — with two such well-known candidates — do not necessarily move votes. Mr. Obama won a boost of publicity after he was endorsed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; Mrs. Clinton, however, then won the state’s primary.

But the audience now is less primary voters than superdelegates — uncommitted elected Democrats and party leaders — whose votes will be critical in helping Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama get the 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Mr. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton’s column since then.

The move by Mr. Richardson could give license to other superdelegates who had been holding back, at the request of the Clintons. His endorsement could prove particularly potent with this group because of the way he chastised Mrs. Clinton for the tone of the campaign, and his call for the party to unify around one candidate.

It also came at a moment of vulnerability for Mr. Obama, in which he was dealing with questions about his former pastor. Mr. Richardson’s decision to step out was a signal to primary voters and superdelegates that he did not believe Mr. Obama had been hurt politically by these events — or at least that he was willing to use whatever influence he has in the party to limit the damage.

At this point, the number of Democrats whose endorsements could shake the race is down to Al Gore, the former vice president and presidential nominee; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who dropped out of the race last month; and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker. Aides to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gore said that they did not expect either man to endorse anyone in the immediate future, if at all. Aides to Ms. Pelosi said she was unlikely to endorse at all.

Adam Nagourney reported from Washington, and Jeff Zeleny from Portland, Ore. Pat Healy contributed reporting from New York

NYTimes on Avoiding Convention Rift

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?ei=5070&en=6a66c9ae5c3e72c6&ex=1203829200&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1203205732-GRmyy9OSmq6+AK9GW+PIQg


Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift

By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and JO BECKER
Published: February 16, 2008

Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.

She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.

“We can’t ignore the rules which everyone else played by,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Few figures are being more closely watched by Democratic insiders than Mr. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who associates say has been lobbied hard for an endorsement by allies of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama.

Although it is not clear what role their past may play in his decision, Mr. Gore and the Clintons have a complicated, sometimes intense history, and Mr. Obama’s strength in the presidential race could make it even more complicated.

Some of Mr. Gore’s allies have complained bitterly that Mr. Clinton concentrated more on Mrs. Clinton’s Senate run in 2000 than on getting Mr. Gore elected president. For his part, Mr. Clinton was surprised and hurt that Mr. Gore did not enlist him on the campaign trail in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Although Mr. Gore has expressed concerns to some associates about the damage a brokered convention could cause, several associates said he was hopeful that one candidate would soon break through, sparing the party such an outcome. He told a close friend recently that his decision not to endorse “feels like the right thing” and that he remained optimistic the race “is going to tip at some point,” the friend said.

Another close ally of Mr. Gore’s, however, said: “He recognizes the need for a few party elders to stay on the sidelines to ensure, if needed, that the process is fair and honest. It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now.”

Kalee Kreider, communications director for Mr. Gore, said that he “has no present plans to endorse a candidate,” though she added, “He has not ruled out that possibility prior to the convention.” Ms. Kreider declined to discuss Mr. Gore’s private conversations with party leaders.

Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

Donna Brazille & the Clintons

February 12, 2008

An email to one of my sisters in response to her email below:

OF COURSE Donna Brazille is talking out of both sides of her mouth! THAT'S WHAT FLUNKIES AND CONMEN DO. Didn't I tell you just a few days ago that YOU CANNOT TRUST HER? Yes, I did. This means, among other things, that she (as media mouthpiece for the Clinton machine AND the DNC--which as I also pointed out the Clintons CONTROL AND DOMINATE) is making all these contradictory pronouncements on CNN so that she (as Hillary's media surrogate/representative) can give the FALSE impression that she 1) Cares about 'justice, fairness, and democracy' WITHIN the Democratic Party (thus the bullshit claim that she would "quit the DNC" if this election was decided by the Super Delegates; and 2) That she would be "just as happy" with Obama winning the nomination as she would if Hillary won (Note: This bullshit media congame is also being run by the national Latino political leadership--like the Latino Mayor of Los Angeles--who keep falsely claiming that they are NOT trying to defeat Obama necessarily and that they too would be "satisfied" no matter who won). THESE ARE LIES. Brazille is intentionally sending mixed signals via the media because she knows (as do the Clintons obviously) that people--and especially BLACK PEOPLE-- are listening to her. They also know that many people/votersj in the U.S. who have not done their POLITICAL HOMEWORK will be CONFUSED and this confusion will help keep some of the political heat off of Hillary and her campaign. It's a CLASSIC POLITICAL TRAP that mercenary political operatives like Brazille set for unwary, naive, and/or ignorant voters that far too often works--precisely because many voters/citizens ARE NOT PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION to what's ACTUALLY going on as opposed to what they THINK is happening. This is why CONSTANT STUDY of the political terrain through CRITICAL READING AND THINKING are so much more important than watching TV news pundits for information and insight. In fact most TV coverage of politics today is notoriously bad, ill-informed, unreliable and BIASED. In other words: Pay NO attention to Brazille and people like her when you make critical, informed judgments about this election. READ NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, AND MOST ESPECIALLY BOOKS TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS. The Internet is also an excellent source of information and knowledge.

The Clintons took over the DNC in the late1980s after the huge debacles of the failed campaigns of Walter Mondale in 1984 who was crushed by a massive reelection landslide for Ronald Reagan (remember him?) in 1984 (Mondale won only ONE STATE in the national election--his home state of Minnesota!). In addition there was the equally devastating landslide loss just four years later of Michael Dukakis who ran against Bushwhacker # 1 in 1988. Dukakis's campaign is widely regarded by many political historians and scholars (AND ME!) as the worse, most incompetent, and inept Democratic Party campaign in history. As a result of 12 straight years of Republican rule and domination from 1980-1992 Bill Clinton and his political cronies and partners--like Al Gore and many other Democratic senators, Governors, and various mayors throughout the country--took over the DNC for good in 1990 and began to appoint its own people to the committee (like Brazille). In fact one of Clinton's biggest supporters (he was also Clintons campaign manger in 1992 when Clinton won the presidency for the first time) was a brilliant black man from Harlem named RON BROWN (who had previously been Jesse Jackson's campaign manager in 1988!) [Click on this link for more important information on the late Ron Brown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Brown_(U.S._politician). ]

In 1989, a year after Brown ran Jesse's campaign, Brown was elected Chairman of the DNC. His election of course was vigorously backed and supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rest is history. Brown ran both the DNC and Clinton's successful 1992 campaign and in 1993 was appointed to Clinton's cabinet as Secretary of Commerce--the first African American in that position in history. Ever since the election of the late Ron Brown to chairmanship of the DNC by the forces within the Democratic Party led by the Clintons (i.e. the still very active and powerful Democratic Leadership Council or DLC that Bill Clinton and Al Gore co-founded in the early 1980s) the Clintons machine via the DLC--which by the way is now run by still another black political official--36 year old Harold Ford, Jr.--has dominated the DNC (which is why Donna Brazille who was Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000 is serving as the Clintons media proxy in this election).

NOTICE how consistently SLICK and SHREWD the Clintons have been in MAKING SURE that many of the major appointments within the DNC and DLC alike go to BLACK POLITICIANS like Brown, Brazille, and Ford. This of course is precisely how the Clinton machine ENSURES that many high profile/prominent black politicians remain supportive of and faithful to THEM (like--unfortunately--Maxine Waters in L.A., James Clyburn in South Carolina, John Lewis in Georgia, and Charles Rangel in Harlem, NY)> These are MAJOR black politicians who are working for and supporting Hillary in this campaign and it just goes to show ONCE AGAIN that if you don't exercise genuine political independence and SELF DETERMINATION in who you align yourself with politically you will become a mere servant/flunky/lackey for others whose primary agenda and loyalty is reserved to and for THEMSELVES first and foremost. The Clintons have MASTERED this "divide and conquer" game and as Malcolm X once, brilliantly pointed out that unless we develop and maintain an agenda of our own "blackfolks become nothing but well paid mouthpieces for others." As usual Malcolm told the real and unvarnished truth and this is why Obama is having such a tough time getting the Latino vote (which is also being manipulated and exploited by their own versions of highly compromised and sellout Latino political leadership). Ironically enough the only major black politician of the last 30 years who is NOT allowing himself to be pushed around and bought off by the Clinton machine this year is JESSE JACKSON. The reason that is so ironic is that AFTER Jesse ran for President in 1984 and 1988 (and was bitterly attacked by the DNC, the Clintons, and the DLC for doing so) he too finally caved in to this clique and allowed himself to be used politically by the Clinton machine from 1990-2004 (with obviously disastrous results for his own INTEGRITY). So Jesse's support for Obama this year is obviously Jesse's way of giving the Clintons THE FINGER after nearly 20 years of kissing their political asses (AND HATING EVERY MINUTE OF IT). But the bottom ugly line is that Jesse STILL DID IT. The fact that Jesse has finally decided to reclaim the political BALLS he lost or rather GAVE AWAY in 1990 by actively endorsing Obama this time around tells me that at least SOME black politicos over the age of 50 understands and appreciates what the Obama campaign means and signifies.

As for your question about how Hillary wound up on the Michigan and Florida ballots and Obama and Edwards didn't--it's a little too complicated to explain in this email so I'll hold off on explaining that until later. But you should know for now that it largely happened because of the Clinton machine's control of the DNC--which sets the rules for primary elections in the Party...Stay tuned...

Kofi

On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Regina wrote:
Kofi,

1. How did the Cinton's get a stronghold on the DNC?
2. How did Hilary end up on Michigan's and Florida's ballot and not Obama or Edwards?
3. Last night, Donna Brazille said she will quit the DNC if the SuperDelegates decides this vote - I'm confused, I thought she said last week that the SuperDelegates should be able to vote however they choose to vote - sounds like she's talking out of both sides of her mouth!

===========

Regina,

Donna Brazille is just a FLUNKY MOUTHPIECE for the Clinton campaign.
YOU CANNOT TRUST HER. She was the CAMPAIGN MANAGR for Al Gore's
failed bid for the presidency in 2000 when the Bushwhacker (via the
Supreme Court and especially that sniveling, pathetic UNCLE TOM
Clarence Thomas cast the deciding vote for his Massa the Bushwhacker
II) STOLE THE ELECTION AND THAT COWARD GORE REFUSED TO FIGHT THE
DECISION ABOUT FLORIDA (remember?). Donna Brazille HAS ALWAYS BEEN
IN THE CLINTONS HIP POCKET AND ALWAYS WILL BE! The Super Delegates
are a super CORRUPT backdoor attempt by the Clinton machine to STEAL
this nomination election if Obama goes to the convention this summer
either ahead or in a deadheat tie with Hillary (as seems highly
likely). WATCH OUT!! The bullshit has just begun and these
muthafuckas ARE GOING TO TRY TO PULL A FAST ONE. Read the email I
sent you earlier tonight on the Super Delegate scam and pay attention
to my comment about it. The reason Brazille is calling for the
Super Delegates to simply "vote the way they want" is so the Clintons
can CIRCUMVENT the process if (as also seems highly likely) the
majority of delegates vote for Obama at the DP (brokered) convention.

As far as the Michigan and Florida primary votes go: Check out what
I sent to Rayfield Waller back into Detroit today (see article below)
about the Michigan scam by Hillary. Remember: The DNC (Democratic
National Committe)--the main governing body of the Democratic Party
is DOMINATED by the Clintons. You hear what I'm saying to you
sister? THE RATS ARE IN THE CHEESE FACTORY AND TRYING TO DEVOUR
EVERY MORSEL THAT CAN STUFF THEMSELVES WILL. Which is precisely why
WE AND OBAMA are going to have to bring some SUPER DEADLY RODENT
REPELLENT QUICK, FAST, AND IN A HURRY!

TRUST ME: Obama is not going to give in ONE INCH to the Clintons
machine bullshit attempts to STEAL this election from him. His
people are gonna be READY TO FIGHT THESE MUTHAFUCKAS TO THE FINISH
LINE AND WE--HIS SUPPORTERS--HAD BETTER BE FULLY AWARE OF EXACTLY
WHAT'S GOING ON AND HOW TO COMBAT IT AT THE CONVENTION. I HAVE NO
DOUBT WE WILL--NO MATTER WHAT THE CLINTONS AND THEIR FLUNKIES (like
Brazille) SAY OR DO...STAY TUNED...

Kofi

(Here is the piece on Michigan that I sent Ray earlier today--read it
carefully). PROFESSIONAL THIEVES ARE ALWAYS VERY TRICKY...

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/

Newsweek: Dems Tell Bill to "Pipe Down"

MEANWHILE....Back at the ranch...Looks like "Bully Bill" (aka 'Slick Willie') is being taken to the political woodshed...LOL...


http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385


POLITICS
Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down

By Jonathan Alter | NEWSWEEK
Jan 28, 2008 Issue | Updated: 1:43 p.m. ET Jan 19, 2008


Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.

On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary still see Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama—even if some of those doubts are distortions. But there's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons' circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."

During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated Clinton called Obama "a roll of the dice," as aides tried to end the interview. Then, in New Hampshire, he argued angrily that the story of Obama's principled position on the Iraq War was a "fairy tale," a charge few reporters bought. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking African-American in Congress and officially neutral, found Clinton's tone insulting and said so publicly.


When the former president called Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat gave Clinton an earful, telling him that he bore some blame for the injection of race into the contest. In any event, both Hillary and Obama made peace on the race issue at the Las Vegas debate. The Clinton camp now fears that Kennedy is leaning toward Obama, according to the Clinton source, though Kennedy's office says he is making no endorsement "at this time."

Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off script. Obama officials say this itself should be a campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

There is little precedent for a former president's engaging in intra-party attacks. In 1960, Harry Truman criticized the idea of a Roman Catholic president and tried briefly to stop John F. Kennedy's nomination. "I urge you to be patient," he told JFK publicly. But in 2000, former president George Bush declined to attack his son's GOP primary opponent, John McCain.

Clinton is undeterred by the criticism and will likely keep hammering Obama if he thinks it helps Hillary. "History will judge the impact on the Clinton legacy, not daily or weekly political reporters," says Matt McKenna, Bill Clinton's press secretary.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.