- BIG NEWS:
- GOP
- |
- War Wire
- |
- Michele Bachmann
- |
- Senate Races
- |
Where are Dem "Leaders" While Barack Twists and Hillary Burns the Party Down?
Read More:
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mayhill Fowler, Obama Bitter Pennsylvania, Obama Calls Small Towns Bitter, Obama Pennsylvania, Obama Small Town Comments, Off The Bus,
Politics News
For four days now Barack Obama has stood all but alone, valiantly defending himself against charges of elitism from multi-millionaires Bill and Hillary Clinton and dozens of their surrogates, untold numbers of Republicans, and the bulk of the media.
Where has the leadership of the Democratic Party been during these relentless attempts to slander and destroy the electability of their likely presidential nominee? About the only Democrat to publicly step forward to defend Obama is Bob Casey. Where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is John Edwards? Where is Al Gore? Where is Ted Kennedy? Where is Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, Jim Webb, Chuck Schumer, Wesley Clark, and untold others.
It's not a matter of whether a Democratic leader has endorsed Obama, Clinton, or is still officially neutral. The son of an absent father and a single mother -- a man who, despite massive student loans, graduated from one Ivy League college to take a job for $8,000 a year helping unemployed steelworkers in Chicago; who chose to go from Harvard Law Review, not to a Wall Street law firm where he could soon earn millions advising corporation on how to offshore jobs and avoid taxes, but to a small civil rights firm in Chicago; who has devoted his entire adult life to helping the underdog -- stands accused by the wealthy and powerful of elitism while leading Democrats stand silently by.
Democratic "leaders": If you want to save the party, now is the time you must stand up and tell the truth. You can support Obama for the nomination, support Hillary, or remain neutral, but you must defend Obama from the slings and arrows of these outrageous charges. John Edwards can continue to maintain his neutrality as to an endorsement but he must say that he knows Barack Obama and Barack is a man who stands with John Edwards in fighting for the rights of the middle class and poor. Same for Al Gore. Even Clinton supporters like Chuck Schumer, Wesley Clark and Ed Rendel must stand up and say that they may back Clinton as their first choice for the nomination, but Barack Obama is no out of touch elitist. Stand up and speak to the media one by one. Better yet, hold a mass press conference with dozens of leading Democrats, regardless of which candidate they may endorse.
If Democratic leaders fail to come to the defense of one of their own, one of their best and brightest whether they support his nomination or not, then the Party will be torn apart and there may be little left of the Democratic Party to defend. We can all look forward to four or eight more years of McSame.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
oorPJfV0Gi4OhYkQmZQvuR7B54yBWrNvHJT5JVurmpERt40sMUkVHad51HbI6aNoLGYnkBBuJRoCTvOjlIaSTQ%3D%3D
Ww1OT32PfuCjtR98Ayw2brgUDdEum2b%2ByAX8XCYQ%2BawXC1asI1zYXZfGGPj35mhCUmgWFKQ0JmOMKgkdNbTkQA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
QxsOnLRcyJVWl05VKD0Sb%2FPi0m2nQL7z
ndawRVSpKDMtJCQ5zsUokZ05IC1cy05T
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is John Edwards? Where is Al Gore? Where is Ted Kennedy? Where is Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, Jim Webb, Chuck Schumer, Wesley Clark, and untold others."
They can't say a word because deep down they all are part of the nation's elite
either through power, money, connection or education.
Take Ted Kennedy or John Kerry, both strong Obama supporters; they'll support him on most topics but not elitism because Ted and John are members of the elite, so what can they say about Obma? "No, h'es not one of us"?
Maybe they are wise enough to stay above the fray.
“I find that with any endorsement, you get half of their friends and all of their enemies.” Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Picture Edwards endorsing a guy who says this kind of stuff? That's a hoot! Now, perhaps the Obama supporters understand what made Edwards refrain!
He knew.
AnninCA Get a life. I am embarrassed for you.
The term "elitist," when used by the Clintons in context, is coded language for black racism. The Clintons are trying to persuade whites that Obama's remarks were an example of how blacks really view whites: gun-toting xenophobes with one tooth.
Just ANOTHER ploy by Bill & Hillary to tap into the visceral racism that they hope will help them steal the nomination from Obama. It hasn't done so, so far, but hell, they'll do ANYTHING to get what they want.
Tear the party apart over race and gender? No problem.
Divide the country along rigid party lines? Done!
Help guarantee an easy win for McSame in November? Why not?
If they can't have the nomination, the party deserves to be destroyed! That should teach everybody a lesson -- don't mess with the Clintons . . . or else!
2012 should be very interesting.
Shame on you. Accusing Hillary Clinton of Racism is as obsurd as accusing Obama of anti-Semitism.
I remember the first time in this primary season when the Media and Obama supporters began labeling Hillary Clinton as a racist, it was in New Hampshire when she said "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"
Bill Moyers called Hillary Clinton's statement "an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious." Moyers went on to chide the NYTimes for publishing a deceitful editorial which stated Hillary Clinton was guilty of "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change."
The term "elitist," when used by the Clintons in context, is coded language for black racism.
===============
And anyone who critisizes Obama in any way, or does not vote for him, or says they dont like his comments is also a racists...
You know, when you do that, you demean peopel who are ACTUAL victims of real racism....
Oh baloney...
AnninCA All those men abandoned you because you are a very negative person. All you posts, note one positive post. Ann, what happened to that little girl who had so much joy in life? What happened to that happy girl?
Oh yes..... I almost forgot...
Someone who has not invested heavily in the military industrial complex while they vote for the war..
I understand we have 200 Congress members who are making money hands over fists with those
investment
And no, they are not all republicans.
Well, I'm not sure we have Democratic Leadership
It would have to be someone who didn't vote for the war.......
Someone who is not a known Hillary supporter.
Someone who is not known for being in the pocket of the real elites in this country that move companies overseas and cancel pensions and medical coverage.
See how the field is narrowing.
You only have to look at the strong-armed tactics used against Pelosi to see where the fear lies and what power the lobbies and PAC's have over our leadership. It's about the MONEY. These guys have to get re-elected and don't have the populist support Obama does. Obama is up against the status quo in his own party, the republicans, and big business. Just take a look at the Wall Street Journal.
I hope against hope he can win it because it would provide a model and hope to others who are interested in making a difference for others not just their own pocketbooks. Then we might have some decent choices.
Susan
The silence of the Democratic leaders makes me wonder why they are so seemingly terrified of the Clintons. What exactly could the Clintons do to them? Do they have dirt on some of these guys they would be prepared to leak to the media? Whatever the case, shame on them for not standing up for Obama. Obama has shown himself capable of handling HIllary's attacks, but the Democrat leaders need to let Hillary Clinton know that her smear tactics will not be tolerated. So far, the only leader who has shown any guts is Bill "Judas" Richardson.
Oh my.......y
AnninCA, Obama can and has been winning votes. That is why he, an unknown, has bested the Clinton machine. Wake up Ann. Is there any rational bone in your body?
He's kicking your candidate Ann...
Time to go apply for a job with McCain...y
HuffPost's Pick
I completely irrevocably agree with you Miles.
The lack of support from the democratic leaders is absolutely stunning. Huckabee & McCain were more supportive when the Wright issue surfaced. Huckabee held a press conference. Now the 'elitist' charges & not a pep from the so-called "leaders." Chris Matthews asked John McCain if Obama was elitist, McCain answered, "no, but his remarks were." Even that was more decent than the dems silence. Nevertheless Clinton surrogates go on cable TV to keep her idiotic story going.
Rachael Maddow, Keith Olberman and others on cable news at least put the story in context. Where are Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Reid, Pelosi? If McCain were attacked his party would be out in large numbers protesting and complaining.
In pursuit of the presidency HRC has done everything to make sure if she is not elected, Obama will not be either. No matter how much she tries to make him appear unelectable it will not make her more so.
Obama is electable and could easily win against McCain if she was not on his case day after day.
Hillary has not convinced voters she can win on her own merits so she attacks. It is one thing to go after an opponent, but if this ruins the dems chances of recapturing the WH it will be because the so-called leaders failed to support one of their own.
Shame on the "democratic" leadership.
Damnit stand up for your principles.
Rachael Maddow, Keith Olberman and others on cable news at least put the story in context
===================
LOLOLOLOL.
These OBAMA SUPPORTERS didnt put the story in context, they tried to "re-do" his comments, and portray them as something much bigger than what they were...
Maddow tried to say it was some larger comment about voters who vote agains their economic intersts..
Sorry, Rach, but Obama was not asked that question, he was asked why HE, OBAMA, cannot get ahead of fellow democrat CLINTON...
These pundits are in OVERDRIVE trying to "explain" obamas commetns, when they are infact crystal clear.
To the point, you are exactly WRONG! Obama was making the same point that Bill Clinton made when he was campaigning for president.
Obama has, unfortunately, now convinced the Democrats that he may not be able to win, either. We already know he can't reach the required number of delegates. He, like Hillary, needs the super delegates to put him over the line.
Alas, he's still THE major story this morning. That's 5 straight days of non-stop coverage on his remarks.
Hey, cheer up. There was one editorial which completely agreed with his characterization of people in rural America as clinging to guns and religion: The SF Chronicle. :)
"Obama has, unfortunately, now convinced the Democrats that he may not be able to win, either."
AnninCA, speaking to yourself in a steamed bathroom mirror about what Democrats are convinced of doesn't carry much weight.
well said!
agreed.
well said on all counts.
Hillary is the suicide bomber of the Democratic party. Her supporters should be ashamed for not deserting her in droves in response to this crap. It's an embarrassment to the democratic party and sowing the seeds for a possible loss in what should be a landslide year.
It's the spinelessness. Period.
Democrats had a good chance at winning the white house. However, it has become clear that they are too afraid of insulting anyone, especially the Clintons, to do what's necessary. This inability to stand up to reckless stupidity from within shows a lack of guts that is astounding. It also explains why Repulicans get votes. They may not be bright, but at least they'll fight , and keep some order in the ranks.
It seems that everyone is afraid of what Hillary and Bill will do if they aren't given until next February to figure out that they have lost by every measure. From pledged delegates, to states won, to money raised, to the size and swiftness of the machines they've made, they have been out-done, and no one wants to tell them that openly.
It's the same old situation of Democrat leaders waiting and hoping for the masses to wake up, see they were right, and agree with them. What they don't seem to get is that although this does happen, it takes anywhere from three to seven years for it to happen, and by then it is always too late. Same thing this year. We gave them a shot in 2006. They're still waiting, and so are we. Obama gave them a shot for 2008, and we all see how that is going.
Why they are busy stopping Michigan and Florida voters from having primaries so the Dems can lose the election in the Fall. Busy, busy, busy. But not to worry, you have Reid a Pelosi getting on the hope train.
a poll came out this week in Michigan that showed that Obama would eek out a win Michigan against McCain, but that Hillary Clinton would get creamed.
http://www
The fact that the super delegates have not stood behind Barack when the obvious is that he cannot be beat unless he quits the campaign. When Hillary has lied they stood back. When she has endorsed John McCain several times saying he was more qualified than Barack they stood back. When she has thrown the kitchen sink and has been running as a republican in dem clothes they stood back. Is it because they expect Hillary to steal the nomination somehow and they want to stand with her just in case or is it that they know they will vote for Barack and do not want to face the nastiness the clintons will throw at them. Or is it that they know anyone who crosses the clintons will pay in big ways that will not make it onto our radar but will be very hatefull and nasty without a doubt. Maybe they are playing the stupid game. I have heard it said several times that the democrats are estatic because of the new democrats Barack is bringing to the polls. But all the while the nasty hatefull degree of lies and lisreprentation that causes greater harm to Barack the longer it goes on that he will be seriously handicapped by the crap the republican Hillary has given the republicans as sound bites and issues so that they just have to cue them instead of finding their own crap to fight for the president job?
They are in the same place they were when the Obama campaign and his surrogates were trashing Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton -- not to be heard from.
Frankly, it is not for them to step in. It is for the voters to decide.
By historical standards, this has been a fairly nice primary. In 2004, for example, one dem candidate ran an ad comparing dean to osama bin laden. and this was in a post-9/11 world.
"They are in the same place they were when the Obama campaign and his surrogates were trashing Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton -- not to be heard from."
When did this happen? You mean in Ohio were he called her out on her Nafta fabrications were she said she never supported it despite many, many witnesses saying she did and records indicating she did. Oh yeah that attack, er truth bomb.
Or maybe you mean their laughter at Hillary calling Obama an elitist. I mean his first job was for 8,000 a year as a community organizer in Chicago. With all his connections now he is still barely a millionaire mostly from owned property. He and his wife only recently paid off their student loans. But I guess to the 109$ Million dollar lady they are the new elite.
To quote Bill, Give me a break.
Exactly what I was thinking - Edwards and Gore are the two, who need to stop the Rovification of the party by Billary. They have nothing to loose - the Clintons can not get them whatever the outcome of the primary.
Hillary sounds exactly like one of the republican attack dogs - Gingrich, DeLay or Rove - there is no place in the Democratic party for such mean people.
If I were a Hillary supporter right now I would be ashamed to admit it.
HuffPost's Pick
Thank you for this.
It has been bothering me all weekend that they have stood by and said and done nothing.
Its not about defending so much as party unity. He is almost certainly the nominee, he Is the people's choice. They need to stand behind him and tell Hillary that character assassination is not acceptable.
They need to do it now to forcefully state and restate that it was taken out of context. Why? Because it will diffuse it when the GOP tries to use it, you know? They publically smack Hillary's hand, tell the inane and brainless media that it WAS a deliberate smear, well maybe enough people might get it. But saying nothing like this is cowardice.
But for now, the media are STILL using only the one sentence out of context, gleefully fapping off while they crucify they guy unfairly. SOMEONE needs to take a stand.
What I wonder is if anyone notices that
A) Penn still works for Hillary
B) Penn's business partner works for McCain
C) The attacks on Obama are almost word for word between the campaigns and seem to be coordinated.
Interesting that.
Well, the "boy" could trot back out and start bullying her to quit again. That would really rally her women voter supporters.
Dem leader is an oxymoron if you're looking to Washington. Look for leadership outside the beltway. I live inside and see the quality of leadership every day. It's a rare as a candidate like Barack Obama and his movement driven campaign. The Clintons and their claque are (and always have been) about self aggrandizement and personal power. The rest of the party "leadership" has been back on its heels for decades and won't lean in unless forced by the voters. Note to DC Dems: Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Not on our watch. That's what the dem party should be saying. Do they need anymore evidence to convince them that Hillary & Bill are concerned about themselves alone
The party remained silent during the manufactured Wright controversy, they remained silent during the lapel pin idiocy and now they are remaining silent as the likely nominee gets slimed and labeled as an elitist. Am I surprised? Nah! This is the same cowardly party that allowed Bush/Cheney to bull-doze over them and manhandle them into giving him whatever he needed. Cowards (or worse)!
They should have remained silent during Reverend Wright. Because if Obama wants to be the leader of the party, he had to prove his ability to handle crisis. Obviously he did.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
