Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Activist Base of the Democratic Party in PA Shocked Over Clinton Tape, Media Blackout

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:19 AM
Original message
Activist Base of the Democratic Party in PA Shocked Over Clinton Tape, Media Blackout
"Activist Base of the Democratic Party" in PA Shocked Over Clinton Tape, Media Blackout

By Dean Powers

From Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, Democrats voiced surprise and then anger over comments that Senator Hillary Clinton made at a private fund raiser that were caught on tape. Surprise because the media has largely blacked out coverage of the comments; anger because of their nature.

The Huffington Post published those comments and the clip of the audio sound bite on Friday. At the event last February, Clinton told those in the audience, "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Although the left had flagged numerous warning signs, the release of the tape provided, for the first time, an unadulterated glimpse at Clinton’s feelings for the “activist base of the Democratic Party.”

The truth is: many people don’t know that Clinton disagrees with the “activist base of the Democratic Party.” In fact, Clinton has largely defined herself in contrast to George Bush, and she opened her campaign with a pledge to listen. “I’m not just starting a campaign… I’m beginning a conversation; with you, with America, because we ALL need to be part of the discussion if we’re going to be part of the solution. Let’s talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and restore respect for America around the world. Let’s talk about how to make us energy independent and free our dependence on foreign oil.”

As an activist in the base of the Democratic Party, I’m pretty enthusiastic about this candidate. She wants to end the war—or at least it sounds that way—and make America energy independent! Clinton for president!

She goes on, “You know, after six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the promise of America.” Therefore, she says, “Let’s talk, let’s chat, let’s start a dialogue about your ideas and mine, because the conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately.”

Exactly! They aren’t listening to the “activist base of the Democratic Party!!!!” Maybe you’ve heard its message: “Get us out of this disastrous war!!!” No? Well it’s not for a lack of trying. So, let’s vote for another candidate who doesn’t agree with the activist base of the Democratic Party. Let’s have that “one-sided” dialogue for another four years.

So we know that Clinton doesn’t agree with the “activist base of the Democratic Party,” so then, who does she agree with? Activism is what defines the Democratic Party. We’ve opposed this war early, if not from the beginning. We’ve signed petitions and called our representatives, and donated to political campaigns, and volunteered around elections, and attended protests and bought hybrid cars and switched to organic foods. Democrats are activists. Hillary Clinton means that she agrees with the 27 Democrats who vote Republican periodically. She agrees with James Carville or Chris Matthews or any of the so-called “Democratic strategists” who turn up on Fox News and bash the Democratic Party.

In over three dozen conversations with folks in Pennsylvania, a clear consensus emerged. Only one of the registered Democrats supported Clinton’s opinion of the “activist base,” and he seemed too intoxicated for a public appearance on these pages. Nobody wants a citation.

Linda Smith, a letter carrier in Philadelphia, said she was still undecided about who she would vote for. She opposes the war and says that she is angry when somebody puts her into a category for her opposition to the war. In reference to Clinton’s comments, Smith said, “It doesn’t bother me, but it upsets me.”

April Davis, a nurse in Philadelphia, said she is tired of feeling like Washington doesn’t care about popular opposition to the war in Iraq and doesn’t want another four years of it.

Arlene Roberts, an office manager, felt the same way, and took issue with the “activist base” label. “Everybody has a right to their own opinion,” Roberts said, “and just because they oppose the war doesn’t mean they should be categorized into a lump of people.”

Asked about her feelings toward Clinton, in light of Clinton’s remarks, Roberts said, “It really shows me what type of person she is. She says what she needs to say to the crowd she’s speaking to.” Roberts was also concerned that the story is receiving no attention from the same mainstream media that attacked Obama for an entire week over a couple of words.

Annelle Davidson, a stay-at-home mom from Pittsburgh, said she felt Clinton shouldn’t even be running as a Democrat. “There’s too many soldiers dying over there,” she said of the Iraq War, frustrated that it continues. “The president is supposed to represent the will of the people and he’s not listening.”

Lavera Brown lives in Pittsburgh, and she’s retired. “I’m uncomfortable with someone who would push away that many people,” Brown said. She felt that the activist base of the Democratic Party was in large part responsible for many of the advances in civil rights over the last 50 years. As for the media blackout of the story Brown said, “I’m always for equal coverage, and I don’t know why they ignored that quote, but I think it’s wrong.”

In contrast to the controversy over Obama’s statements at a fund raiser in San Francisco, which the books of Geoffrey Nunberg and Thomas Frank have largely validated, and the media had to dry spin to arrive at an interpretation of elitism, Clinton’s comments clearly articulate a world view that’s shockingly out of sync with the persona she has presented to voters and 90 percent of the Democratic Party.

The blackout is not a result of a saintly conversion in the corporate mass media in response to the protests against the manipulation and “gotcha” tactics in the ABC debate. In fact, the New York Times, though toned down, is still arguing the Obama-as-elite case.

“Whatever Senator Barack Obama meant by his less than artful remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians ‘bitter’ over lost jobs,” wrote Louis Uchitelle in this Sunday’s “Week in Review,” “he certainly turned a lot of attention last week to the decline of the American worker, bitter or not.”

Less than artful? Where is the attention for Clinton’s “less than artful” opinion of the Democratic base?

In contrast to the headlines declaring “Opponents Call Obama ‘Out of Touch’” that sprouted up in major papers and cable news immediately after the publication of his comments at a San Francisco fund raiser, major newspapers have relegated the story largely to their blogs, or have tucked it away at the bottom of substantive “news” articles with headlines announcing something else.

Until Clinton clarifies her feelings about the “activist base of the Democratic Party” publicly, there is a serious question mark surrounding her campaign. While the media continues to black out the tape’s revelation, an effort will continue online to spread word of its discovery.

The activists who are ready to vote for Clinton in Pennsylvania ought to know that she has different priorities when it comes to national security and foreign relations. They are looking for an end to this war, a de-escalation of American-led conflict throughout the world, and cooperation with the UN in its peace-keeping priorities. Clinton doesn’t agree. Either that or she’s talking about the fence in Mexico. I don’t know which would be more alarming as an indicator of her priorities.

If I’m wrong, I invite her to clarify exactly how and on which issues she disagrees with the “activist base of the Democratic Party” because she isn’t being clear about it in her campaign.




Authors Bio: "I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech, to stir men's blood: I only speak right on; I tell you that which you yourselves do know..." Shakespeare, Julius Caear

Link to article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dean_pow_080420__22activist_base_of_th.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. too bad the "base" did not support a real progressive democrat instead of obama/clinton eh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. True. But now they are stuck with two timid corporate centrists
so they have to try to convince themselves that one of them is something other than a timid corporate centrist, which is where the ugly and personal nature of this campaign comes from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. Well said
I have nothing to add. You said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I hate to change the subject but what would you call Ron Paul?
Edited on Sun Apr-20-08 10:26 AM by Zachstar
It has been on my mind lately because of supporters of his causing a mess in the republican party.

A progressive republican? I cant figure it out but he got little attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Libertarian, if we are being polite.
Nutcase, otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well the "Nutcase" we need to thank because he is wrecking support for McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Paul is a moron. I could go on and on about how screwed up his policies are..........
starting with his isolationist view of foreign relations to his love for guns to his covert racism. The man's a mess and shouldn't be elected to dog catcher, much less a member of the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Well I disagree but the question was not about details.
Besides he is wrecking McCain's chances. And his views about money are causing MASSIVE problems for the spend and cut republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. He's not wrecking the repugs, you're giving him to much credit......
The man couldn't even capture a million votes. Paul supporters will break down to the party that falls in the line closest to their view of the world. The gun nuts and tax cutters will go rethug, those against the war and for Constitutional rights will go Democrat.

Shrubeney are the ones tearing apart the rethugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. I wouldn't really call Ron Paul a Progressive
rather he is the defacto Standard for the traditional Republican Party base prior to the neo-Republican movement brought forth by folks like Newt Gingrich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chascarrillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Are you talking about the guy with the mansion or the anti-abortion guy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. All of them have mansions, except for the anti-abortion guy.
And we see how long his campaign lasted.

Unfortunately, the mansion class are the only people who can run for president anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. I think the base was behind Edwards. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. and Kucinich n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Edwards had other problems. He talked a good game, but he lacked in many areas........
Edwards heart was in the right place, but his politics were questionable at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. His politics only lacked because he was serving in a state that elected Jesse Helms
The true Edwards showed up in the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Those Edwards' have to be seperated and it eats up a lot of resources...........
that could be put to better use.

One problem I notice on these boards is that people think that everyone in America follows politics as close or has as much insight. Even the people on this board resemble a collection of PoliSci 101 students who understand mechanics and like to parse candidates statements, but very few have any true knowledge of political strategy or the internal workings of the party in relation to voters. Many have done grassroots work of operating phone banks, canvassing, fund raising, or possibly even working as a delegate, but I highly doubt anyone on here has been a paid member of a major campaign. Going through older posts, most didn't even know that super delegates existed much less what their role is.

If the people on this board don't know the basics of their own party, how can you expect a casual observer to understand that there are two types of Edwards? This was one of the problems Kerry ran into. He had to spend to much of his time explaining how he voted against something before voting for it, or what happened to his medals, or how he really won his Silver Star. All of that should have been time and money spent beating down Bush and the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. But he wasn't even the same Edwards as he was in 2004
My frustration is that he did have a great platform in 2008, but he never spoke of the transformation from 2004. His 2008 platform was more similar on healthcare and the environment to where Kerry was in 2004 - positions he said were too expensive in 2004. Now, moving because you learn more and see more is great - and it should be seen as a sign of intelligence, flexibility and openness to ideas that differ from yours. However, Edwards had a tendency to simply rewrite history and pretend the earlier position was not there.

Here are 2 examples:
In Elizabeth Edwards otherwise great comments recently when she spoke of how even before she had cancer, universal health care was important ... so when JRE started to develop his plan .... Now, given when she got cancer that has to be the 2004 healthcare and he covered kids only and attacked Kerry's plan as too expensive to be paid for in Feb 2004. Now, the Edwards could have said that either her experiences or seeing people in 2004 made them aware that people needed this.

On funding the war, JRE claimed that his "no" after the "yes" on the bill that would have paid for the funding by rolling back the tax cuts was an antiwar vote. This was blatantly untrue as there are interviews at the same time that show he was still for having invaded at that time. His answer then that dealt with lack of oversight (the other difference in the Democratic bill) was a good one. In fact, in 2008, it was likely politics because he wanted to get the antiwar vote. The fact is that Kennedy has voted for the funding bills that Obama voted for.


Now, there are many things where he has had these transformations - he was a Conservative DLC Senator for his only Senate term and he had no previous service. A politician can get away with gradually moving on one issue - many did, including some of the best. The problem is when it is hard to see a consistent philosophy over time at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. The media has been giving it a tiny bit of attention but nowhere near the amount of bittergate.
What is surprising is that with the limited coverage it has already gotten attention in PA. Which is bad news for the Clinton Campaign which Obviously wanted to wait to deal with it in a big way after PA.

The media barely reporting on it is only causing it to fester. When they realize it actually means something they will likely pick up the pace on it and screw em gate. Which will cost the Clinton Campaign badly in Indiana and North Carolina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. It seems that this may have been an intentional leak by the Clinton camp
so do you think the lack of media coverage is working for her or against her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R. Thanks for posting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. I think her hawkish "big tent" military agression stance should get more attention!
She would attack Iran if they moved to attack other countries in the region also? Does that mean Iraq? And doesn't that correspond with her vote on Kyl/Lieberman? The measure that gives the OK to attack Iran from inside Iraq if the Quds force or Iran takes overt action on Iraq? (real or perceived as the Bush administration is currently pushing?)

Come on HRC supporters. Wake up to what your candidate is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. Keith Olbermann dedicated a good segment on his show
to this topic. I also recall Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow discussing this issue as well. While there has not been the degree of coverage that is warranted, given the past 8 years of our media coverage I am thankful that it is at least out there for some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaptBunnyPants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. Good. The tape was an intentional leak in the first place.
This is the best of all worlds. Not only does it expose her as a two-faced right winger, the story failed to get the saturation coverage she was hoping to get to sista-souljah the entire Democratic movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. There's A Blackout Because No One Cares. There Was Nothing Really Controversial About Her Comments
and they were also accurate.

I can't find a thing wrong with her statements, her assessment of the caucuses is largely accurate, and she's allowed to disagree with moveon.org. So this should be some big story why? Simple answer is it shouldn't be. It is largely a non-story and one that 99% of people just simply wouldn't give a rat's ass about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I don't agree
Hillary saying she fundamentally doesn't "agree" with the Progressive base of the Democratic Party while at the same time out there campaigning as a Progressive and a reformer seems at the very least a bit disingenuous don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Apparently, Hillary supporters like OMC don't care about Hillary's two-faced nature
Her phoniness, her lies, her finger-in-the-political-wind style don't bother them a bit...Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. So she can pander to move on one day and trash them the next and that is OK
Every one has their own oppinion I guess..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. The media will fight to keep this story down.. Their jobs depend on it,..
MSM has always been influenced by the Clinton's.. Notice how Hillary's gaffs get 2 seconds worth of attention compared to Obama's weeks worth of media attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. and absolutely zero coverage of McCain gaffe's with the exception
of Olbermann/Maddow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yup, why exactly would these TV millionaires want their tax cuts removed?
Edited on Sun Apr-20-08 02:00 PM by Bensthename
I think this is the reason the MSM is so RW biased..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D23MIURG23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
32. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC