Skip to main content

1. He'd be in the South Bronx, rural West Virginia and South Texas and every place like it. On foot. Every single day. Even in red states. NOT in Berkeley or Santa Fe or the Upper West Side. Or any other place in any way similar.

2. He'd never do an interview with the Washington media on any topic at any time for any reason whatsoever. I'd have him on local radio, community newspapers, and neighborhood blogs. And a freight train load of social media. Like totally live off social media. Especially Tumblr.

3. He'd be the oldest person in every photo op. By like double.

4. I would never give him a script. Just put him out there.

5. My ads would run during "Empire" and "Sons of Anarchy" not "Meet the Press" and "Morning Joe." And I'd deep into Hulu.

6. I'd get him some tailored suits and new glasses.

7. Church. Be a guest there. As often as possible. Poor people who vote go to chuch.

8. Ignore all pundits. Especially when they offer praise.

9. Create a 'help fund me' or something like that so that when he encounters the painful stories of the American people he can have his much more affluent financial supporters do something about it. You know, from places like Berkeley, Sante Fe, and the Upper West Side.

10. Delegates, Delegates, Delegates. To both state conventions and the national one. That's what the goal is.

Why? Because I wouldn't expect to win or get elected. But I would expect to do some good for this party and the people its supposed to represent. To give those folks a voice and some real power. And to school a new generation on what America is supposed to be all about. What Democratic Socialism is all about.

That's a campaign for president folks who will never see or read this post could support.

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004
Let me count the ways. Refute them if you can.

1. Timing.

Barack Obama would not have even thought of challenging Hillary Clinton were it not for two extremely fortunate circumstances: A. George W. Bush was an unpopular incumbent leading an unpopular war.  B.  His two potential opponents for the nomination supported Bush in getting us into that war. He was against it from the start, positioning him perfectly. The timing could never have been as good as it was in 2007 when he jumped in. The war was going terribly. Bush was terrible. He just cornered the market for 'change.'

Bernie Sanders enjoys no such circumstances now. Unless of course he plans to campaign hard against the incumbent president of his newly adopted party... which (lol)  would clearly indicate he's lost his mind and isn't serious about winning.  

2. National political success.

After the successful cycle of 2006 for Democrats, Obama could benefit from a national network of political operatives and party apparatchiks who would certainly give him a serious listen. These things are important, like it or not. Governors, Mayors, country chairmen, and of course Congress critters will only give an ear to a heavyweight contender. Obama had proven himself prime time worthy from his 2004 keynote speech, had a huge warchest to draw on from the Chicago Democratic fundraising circuit, his wife was close to the Daley Administration (thus comforting the Establishment), and he was the most in demand surrogate from the 2006 cycle, drawing big crowds around the country for Democrats. In an election they won. That's some serious shine for an on the move up and comer. Even if they couldn't commit to him, although some did early, they had seen enough to stay on the fence. This man might be president. Better to wait it out and see what happens.

Bernie Sanders enjoys no such advantages. Going to be very difficult to get those Mayors Governors and the like to peel away from Clinton without the profile young, fresh blood Obama had in 2007.

3. The issues.

Despite running an unconventional campaign, on the issues Barack Obama was a run of the mill centrist Democrat. There was little difference between him and Clinton on the issus of the day, except of course for the Iraq War. Postioning himself there was not only a smart political decision (to reduce the sense of a risky bet) but as we have now seen it is basically where he is policy wise (to my and I'm sure your consternation). To the extent he gained support from the left wing was primarily a benefit of his opposition to the war and being a viable alternative to Clinton. He got that support basically gratis, offering nothing in return for it in the form of a more leftist policy agenda.  

If there is anything Bernie Sanders is NOT, its a centrist Democrat. Hell he's not even a Democrat! He's an honest and committed socialist. He's even to the left of most progressive-leaning Democrats. Which is probably why he isn't one. He's got integrity. But as Nate Cohn pointed out, he's far to the left of the rank and file Democratic voter, especially working class women and people of color. Yes, affluent white liberals will love him and support him, but they arent even close to a majority of Democrats. A key element of our coalition for sure, but not enough for a majority.

4. Demographics & Style

By the time the 2008 primary was drawing to a close, Hillary Clinton was explicitly tailoring her message to white people. I don't think for one minute this had anything to do with racism, but rather political reality. She had been leading by big margins with black and Hispanic voters who were the core of her base. Then Barack Obama won Iowa. The campaign took on a double historic dimension, of either the first woman or the first minority president. I remember in my household this made for a tough decision for the missus. But when you combined all the other advantages he had, plus the fact that he was able to go out and win in a lily white state like Iowa, the situation was pretty clear. Clintons core left her and now she had no choice but to get those working class white women especially to turn out for her, and they did. But it was too late and not enough. And there was the youth, with whom Barack Obama was able to develop a cultural affinity and a message that went beyond the campus class presidents or debate team and scored with the basketball team (he's a long time jock), sorority princesses (he's handsome) , and aspiring yuppies (Columbia, Harvard, snappy suits). And there's that photogenic winning smile and young beautiful family. Trust me, this stuff matters to low info voters. Barack Obama used all these tools to his advantage in the primary, but especially did in the general election.

Bernie Sanders. Well. He's an old disheveled white guy. And I love him for that, beleive me. As  a Brooklynite I couldn't be prouder seeing him out there. But I do know our Brooklyn style wears thin on folks outside the five boroughs. And as far as old white guys, we had have plenty of those as president. So there's that. But more importantly, I dont know if you all have seen Bernie give a speech but he tells it like it is and it is depressing. Because it is. But a presidential candidate just can't say it.

I, for one, feel its about time Democrats had a woman leading the party and running the country. Hillary Clinton is an exceptional woman, to say the least.

5. Hillary is much stronger now than in 2008.

Finally, even after you combine all these advantages a young Senator Obama had going into that campaign, HE STILL BARELY WON the nomination. There was less than a point worth of votes separating him and Clinton. All that, just to eek out a razor thin victory. So he had a lot to overcome, even when there was just 15 points between him and Clinton when he announced for president. Hillary is a lot stronger now. As I've said before, she has numbers approaching that of an incumbent president seeking renomination. You gotta be Bobby Kennedy to beat these kinds of numbers. She did two things: she reconciled the party beautifully in 2008 and was a forceful advocate for Obama, and she served in the highest capacity in his administration. That core that left her after Iowa of 2008? Its back. And the way she has been running, she intends to keep it this time.

Bernie Sanders, God bless him, has none of these advantages and a 55 point deficit. Boy, it will literally take a miricle or something terribly unfortunate because I'm not seeing any path for him to the White House. Especially not the Barack Obama path.

I don't expect to, nor want to dissuade anyone from supporting and voting for Bernie. He's a good man and plus he's from Brooklyn. Give him all you got if you're with him. But, there is no need to wage war on Hillary Clinton to try and damage her because she will be the nominee, like it or not. Or to use his candidacy for that because you hate her. Just be FOR BERNIE and not against Hillary. He's got plenty to offer with the platforn he will be given. Encourage him to make the best use of it. Because he will not be our nominee nor will he be president. That's reality. For a reality based community.


Jack Shafer has spent his most of his 40 years of adult life as what passes for a journalist these days. Those two facts alone should give you a clear understanding of why he writes for Politico, the US Weekly of the decline of the American political press. Yes, like most successful Washington political writers, he too was caught up a ridiculous hoax as actual news, didn't do his job as editor, and like the politicians he covers just failed right on up the ladder.

Mr. Shafer has some advice for Hillary Clinton on how she can improve her coverage guessed it...people like Jack Shafer. In his piece which he trumpets as a guide to winning over the political press in 14 easy steps, he pours the Washington on nice and thick:

Psst! Mrs. Clinton! May I chew on your ear for a minute? I have no business giving you advice—unsolicited or otherwise. It isn’t a journalist’s job to help politicians improve relations with the press or otherwise assist them in winning elections. If anything, journalistic duty commands us to find the most revelatory material about you—and run with it as fast and far as we can.

Still, the press corps owes you something for the mountains of high-grade news ore you’ve dumped into our smelters over the years.

Typical of the kind of people who are the press corps, he then goes on to do what he says he has no business doing. I'll save you the sickened stomach of reading it by giving you a quick summary:
  • Be sincerely nice to us, emphasis on sincere because "above all, you must be sincere, because if there is one thing the press can’t tolerate, it’s a phony." I swear that's a quote.  
  • Get a hobby we find interesting. He recommended she become a home brewer. I kid you not: “ 'Hils for Pils'  would be an excellent 2016 slogan."
  • Buy us food. "Menu: craft beers, pork rinds and canapés. If you don’t feed the press, the press will feed on you."
  • Do yoga. "Embrace it. Make it the golf of your presidency—should the campaign gods look favorably on your candidacy."
  • Be a dear to Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. "Make yourself a Fox regular: You won’t lose any votes and may actually win a few. Besides, potential voters can be found via Fox News!"

Yes, it is going to be a very, very long election season for everyone outside of the male dominated, lilly white, circle jerking press corps. During that time, a few of them might even get around to covering Hillary Clinton the way a journalist ought too. But if you have any suspicion that that head you see babbling on your TV is a decent human being and a real professional, just read this. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Washington Media Establishment. Vapid. Self-centered. Dumb. Completely uninterested in journalism of any kind.


We had visitors in from the Midwest (Kansas City) this weekend, folks we hadn't seen in many years. This was their first trip to New York and they wanted to do touristy things, which was fine. Now we almost never find ourselves in Times Square and do not go to the City all that often. However, being hosts, we didn't mind doing things I would generally never even think of doing. Like going to Top of the Rock.

It was all rather eventful for them, and me and the missus of course beamed with understated pride as our friends marvelled at our mighty City. Of course there were lots of tourists. But what was really crazy was overhearing a couple of obviously American males from somewhere say something to the effect of they 'couldn't understand how Americans could live here.' That and that its 'not a good place to raise your kids.' 'Nobody speaks English. 'And too top it all off something about high taxes and liberals.

Now I held my tongue and didn't tell them what I was thinking, which basically amounted to get the fuck out. But after we were back downstairs I told me friends that he sounded just like a Republican. To wit they responded they knew the type well and my one friend made it clear:'Im proud of having a city like this in America. But they hate America. They like the symbols of America, but not actual America. '

So true. Conservatives love the symbols. The flag. The military parades. The blad eagle. But actual America, its people and the things they do, they hate those things. They don't want to see gay people making art, or black people making music, or jewish people making literature. Those things are liberal, alien, foreign. Not America. But to me, these things are what makes America what it is. Including them and their backward, provincial ways. I love all of it, including the parts I'd rather flyover than visit. I'd never call them un-American just for being who they are. Yet Conservatives feel like if you aren't exactly like them, you don't get to be a part of it. Symbols of America matter more than its people.

Yes, Conservatives, America is also big city, high taxes, people of all nations of the world, and yes, even liberals. Its really a shame you hate it.


Sat Apr 18, 2015 at 04:48 PM PDT

Scoring the Campaigns Week 1

by brooklynbadboy

How are the presidential campaigns doing?

Hillary Clinton: C+

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with local residents as she campaigns at the Jones Street Java House in LeClaire, Iowa April 14, 2015. Clinton, who announced on Sunday that she is running for the 2016 Democratic presidential nominatio
Hillary Clinton
The Clinton Campaign decided on a slow rollout, leading with an upbeat, positive announcement video. Nothing in the way of political combat so far. The campaign offered a light touch on positioning as the campaign seeks to gather up support on the Left. Clinton made income inequality a central issue rhetorically, but offered little on policy. Clinton did little in Iowa sans meeting a few voters and some scripted made for future ads comments.

In my view this is a campaign that knows it has a lot of kinks to get worked out as the team finds a way to work together. Appropriate and wise. Yet, despite the caution, no major errors were made which I'm sure has Downtown Brooklyn breathing a sigh of relief. But, it isn't unreasonable to expect a little bit more next week in New Hampshire.

Ted Cruz: B-

Texas Senator Ted Cruz speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Maryland  February 26, 2015.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque  (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR4RBW7
Sen. Ted Cruz
The Cruz Campaign went into full swing and raised an impressive $4.3 million in the final nine days of March. His small dollar donors were significant, showing a potent fundraising apparatus. However, being Ted Cruz, he simply couldn't open his mouth and sound like a president. Nutcase fringe is his game and his hope is that it will be enough. So far, his message is highly targeted at the people who already support him. His televangelist style of operation is smart for now. TV preachers know their customers well and suspect they will be a potent source for Cruz in the form of volunteers and money.

I think the Cruz Campaign is doing well as can be expected from people like them. His campaign is off to a good start, but not good enough so that he can keep Huckabee from eating into his base. In other words, he didn't scare Huckabee off so his long term fortunes look bleak at this point.

Rand Paul: F

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks with Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity during an interview after he confirmed his candidacy for president during an event in Louisville, Kentucky, April 7, 2015. Earlier on Tuesday, Paul initially announced his candid
Sen. Rand Paul
The Paul Campaign basically bungled everything, from his lackluster announcement speech, ridiculous media interviews, and lack of agility on the hustings. I think the campaign figures the candidate is smarter than he really is. I expect they will push him back into more controlled settings as he does not have the charisma of even his father.

I dont expect Paul's expansion of the electorate strategy is going to work. Mainly because so far he sucks as a national candidate and can't deliver the goods like the true Ron Paul devotees want. Seems to me he is moving as quickly as possible into the GOP mainstream, but without the backing of the Establishment. He will end up losing both if his campaign continues like this.

Marco Rubio: C

UNITED STATES Ð NOVEMBER 17: From left, Sen.-elect Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen.-elect Marco Rubio, R-Fla., leave the Mansfield Room during a break in freshman orientation on Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2010. (Photo By Bill Clark/Roll Call)
Sen. Marco Rubio
Rubio won the Washington Media Establishment seal of approval for a. giving them a reason to go to Miami and b. giving them plenty of access. I expect they are going to lavish love on him and he is likely to get good press for the foreseeable near future. His announcement speech was well delivered and well staged and he positioned himself well.

However, Rubio did not deal with the lingering problem of being the immigration Senator who failed and the GOP hasn't forgotten it. That's not a minor issue, but a big problem in a party where old rural white men are the dominant vote. By choosing to wait to deal with it by contrasting himself with Clinton, he is clearly scared of this issue. He's got to figure out what to do about this and his campaign so far has offered no indication they have a clue.

Continue Reading
Dr. Ben Carson quote saying Obamacare is worse than slavery
May 4th, this man will make Democrats smile.
May 4th will be the day that this Democrat raises toast to Ben Carson, certified batshit crazy nutjob,  as he declares his candidacy for the presidency :
Dr. Ben Carson is expected to officially declare his decision on whether to run for president May 4 in his hometown of Detroit.

The event at the Detroit Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts will be ticketed, though a time hasn’t been set, officials said Monday.

I'm going to take a guess and assume the amount of graft to be gained here will be irresistible. Ben is in.

That's one ticket I'd love to get my hands on, frame, and place right up on my "wall of id" next to my autographed poster of the number 999.

I now know with certainty that there will be a stage. On that stage will be a bevy of Republican white guys in suits, all trying to out-Hun each other for the love of a crowd of very old misters. But sticking out like, well...a black guy at a Republican political rally...will be old Uncle Ben. He will be there all smug and superior. Whipping them into a frenzy in ways that he, and only he, could ever do. But that's not the best part.

The best part will be all the other guys on stage agreeing with him, praising him, and hoping he will make an excellent gnome in the Rose Garden. They'll be falling over themselves to make nice with a man who is in no way qualified to be president. But only because the frothing at the mouth GOP base is so insane that they want to hear every psychopathic utterance from his mouth repeated. But by the other guys. Because lets face it, Ben Carson has no chance of being nominated. For obvious reasons.

That will put the eventual GOP nominee exactly where Mitt Romney was in 2012: caught between a rock and whomever gets the Carson People. Beautiful.

So on May 4th I will raise my stein and wish Dr. Ben well. May his mouth froth, his feet shuffle, and his applause lines be plentiful and completely insane.


I have a very simple theory, which I will quote here to save time:

Chances are were going to lose. (3+ / 0-)
Even with the bestest most progressivey campaign ever. It is going to be difficult to hold on after two victorious cycles. So my theory of the case says play the strongest card you've got and hope for the best.

The way I see it, the strongest position to be in when running for a third term is to be the sitting vice president. Very rarely does a candidate come out of nowhere and sieze the white house for a third party fact, im willing to say it has never happened, certainly not in the modern TV era. But when it has, it was the sitting VP who won. Nixon failed to do it and so did Gore. Truman did it and so did Bush. But nevet has some Governor or Senator come out of nowhere and siezed a third term for a party. So the idea that O'Malley, who isnt exactly a political dynamo to be charitable, can do it strikes me as foolhardy.

Hillary Clinton, however, being a global icon and huge personality, just might be able to pull it off. Maybe. Like I said, she is a quasi incumbent  running for a third party term. Which historically has been the best shot to win three cycles.

Gore, Nixon, Truman, and Bush dispatched their challengers with relative ease. I expect Clinton will as well. But will that change the general election dynamic one way or the other? Nope. She'd be in the same position with no challenge at all... likely to lose.


by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 02, 2015 at 11:52:08 AM EDT

I did some digging around and found that there was only one case where someone who was not the incumbent Vice President has ever won a third term for the party in power. You literally have to go back to the time of the Founding Fathers to see frequent examples of this. But in the modern era, you've only got Herbert Hoover, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Coolidge Administration. Well, and Taft. And that's it. In the post war era it simply has never happened.

As Adam B has pointed out, recently the closest thing we have had to the current situation is 2000 where Al Gore was a sitting VP running for a third cycle for the Dems. But he had a challenger in the form of Senator Bill Bradley. Bradley was running as the liberal alternative to Gore and was a strong challenger. He had a slew of high profile endorsements, a big campaign warchest, and sufficient name recognition to make a go of it. By October of 1999, Gore and Bradley were in a dead heat in the national polls and Bradley was up slightly in New Hampshire. Looking back at polls I cant link because of pay walls, Bradley had been competitive all year long, never more than 10 points behind Gore. But in the end, Gore routed Bradley in both Iowa and New Hampshire and that was that.

Now I understand there are a lot of folks here who do not like Hillary Clinton. And some who just would like to see some competition in a primary. For you latter folks, I agree with you. Competition is always good. And I'd like the anti Hillary people to have a place to vent. But make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is far more dominant than any presidential primary candidate in recent memory who was not a sitting president. She is absolutely far and away ahead of anybody else, by huge huge margins. More dominant than even recent sitting Vice Presidents who ran. It would be a political miracle of the historic kind to see someone come out of nowhere and build the organization and fundraising to defeat her. Even Robert F. Kennedy wasn't this strong in his 1968 bid. Bobby Kennedy!  She is about the closest we can possibly get to having an incumbent President seeking another term. The history of that is much better odds.

Now I don't see anybody out there now, or even talked about, who even has Bill Bradley stature at this point in the cycle. But I sure would like to see some names and some good cases. Nothing I've heard so far is even remotely convincing. Until I do, Hillary Clinton is it.

New WaPo ABC news poll has Hillary Clinton in an absolutely dominant position among Democrats.

My take:

If you lump in the Warren and Sanders votes, its conceivable that Martin O'Malley could get to 16% if those two people don't run and he gets second choice dibs. Still, that leaves him 50 points behind. 50 points! Hillary Clinton, and indeed no Democrat who was not an incumbent, has enjoyed this kind of advantage. None that I can remember. She's enjoying the record support of an incumbent president.

O'Malley, at this point, is simply not catching fire out there. At this point in 2007 WaPo had Clinton at 37 and Obama at 22. He already had two months in as a declared candidate of course and O'Malley has not declared. A 15 point spread is doable. A 65 point I don't know what mix of luck and political acumen its going to take for him to get in the game, but so far he's had little of either.


The big problem with 'populists, ' which in the context of this diary means white guys,  leaving the Democratic Party has absolutely nothing to do with cozying up to Wall Street. Or neo-liberal economics or any of the usual economic issues cited by today's populists. No. Very simply put, the Democrats' problem with working class white folks has nothing to do with economics at all and everything to do with cultural issues.

While I would agree that the differences between the parties on economic issues is not very big, the difference between them on social and cultural issues is vast. Not just on race and sexual orientation, but also on rural vs. urban,  guns, and even choice of music and entertainment. The cultural gap between the two parties is huge. No amount of economic populism is going to bridge that gap.

Working class white voters vote GOP because the GOP is the party that identifies with their culture. They are the party of white people, Christians, guns, women who know their place and men who keep their gay a tightly protected secret. Even if it means screwing themselves economically. These folks are afraid of the America they see emerging and their fear leads to anger and tribalism. Barack Obama was exactly right. The run to their guns and religion as a safety blanket from the modern world. Its completely understandable.

But not tolerable.

So the Democrats are just going to have to leave these people behind because the future will keep on coming. There is nothing we can do to bridge the cultural gap between the parties. One party is going to have to break the other. I, as one Democrat, am not willing to abandon our beleifs in tolerance, diversity, and equal protection of the law for everyone just for a tax increase on the rich or some Wall Street regulations. Sorry, no deal.

If working class white voters want to vote for a Democrat, I welcome that. But if the price for that vote is giving up on the way of life that my children and grandchildren want, that so many of my ancestors sacrificed for,  then they can keep their votes. I'm willing to wait it out.

Continue Reading
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listens to answers during a testimony while sitting on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in Washington February 14, 2013.  U.S. lawmakers pressed financial regulators on Thursday on their efforts to cr
Go for it!
I say she should go for it! Even though Schumer is my home state Senator and has the seniority. We need a fresh voice for Democrats. I say she should make a convincing case for being Leader and leading Democrats back into the majorty. In both houses of Congress.

Thank you Harry Reid. Now go Liz!

Continue Reading

Here is the crux of the Boston Globe's argument for why Elizabeth Warren should run for president:

She should not shrink from the chance to set the course for the Democratic Party or cede that task to Hillary Clinton without a fight.

I read the whole thing. Then I emailed the Boston Globe asking them if they are endorsing Warren for President. Nothing back so far.

Nowhere does the Boston Globe say Elizabeth Warren should BE the next president of the United States. They didn't even endorse her for the nomination. They did not articulate her readiness for the job, her experience to be a good leader, her judgment, her mind. That this is her time. Nothing. They didn't praise any of her work in the context of why it would make her a good president.

In short, they are quite clear in telling Mrs. Warren that she should merely be sparring partner for Hillary Clinton, because this would be good for Hillary Clinton's championship fight. They're saying, 'cmon Hillary a solid and spend the next year or so not doing your life's work, but instead blowing a bunch of time and money on a job you don't want, we don't think you're going to get, and aren't endorsing you for.'

Yes, I'm sure Senator Warren must be very grateful for such 'support.'

If the Boston Globe thinks Elizabeth Warren ought to be President of the United States, then they should woman up and say so. They should tout her views on foreign policy, national security, and military force.  They should present her legislative agenda to the public. And they should introduce her personal history, biography, and her family. These are things the American people expect of their president.

But to simply use Elizabeth Warren's carefully built up credibility, her life's work which is finally giving her some influence,  in order to gin up conflict for the establishment media to get their big presidential payday is pretty insulting. Not only to Warren personally, but all those who support her.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a press conference at the United Nations in New York March 10, 2015.   REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR4STJ4
We've got to do better than this, folks.
I think Armando raises a good point. A contested primary would be good for Hillary Clinton and Democrats generally. Not only to ensure that real issues, rather than this email foolishness, are discussed. But also because we're going to need to see a first class campaign operation capable of securing victory.

It is fair criticism that this email BS hasn't been handled the way a serious, nimble, agile campaign operation of Obama caliber would do so. I've brought up several times here that questions about Hillary Clinton's ability to manage the sprawling Clinton tentacles are fair. Last August when they fumbled the ball, I wrote this:

Which brings me to my point: if this is the kind of amateurish, stumblebum, Washington centered campaign message the Clinton camp proposes to take into a general election in 2016, then surely we are headed for defeat.
When we last saw them on the hustings, I don't think there was any doubt about her abilities as a candidate. But the folks under her, the folks who have to do the things that make a winning campaign succeed, weren't up to the job. A real, serious, well funded and determined competitor might help expose any weaknesses in the team before we send them forward into the general election.

The only question is who can field such an operation? I don't see anyone at the moment who could do it.
The clock is ticking. By this time in 2007, Barack Obama and his people were already in the field hustling. I mean HUSTLING. Certainly the best rollout of a new campaign I've ever seen. The bar is now set quite high as we have been fortunate to have a top flight operation and a superbly capable candidate for two cycles.  

It is too early to judge Clinton 2016 having no announcement as of yet. We need to see what they have planned and how they execute before we can make any serious judgment.

Nevertheless, we know damn well we had better see something much more professional than what we saw from Clinton in the 2008 cycle and more assertive than what weve seen this week. Contested primary or not.

Also, someone please tell Lanny Davis to shut the fuck up. You've got to do better than that. Please.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site