Obama's Takeover Of Democratic National Committee Continues
The Obama camp has installed yet another staffer in a high place at the Democratic National Committee.
WaPo has the scoop on the latest: It's operative Brad Woodhouse, who will now join the DNC's communications staff and help coordinate the DNC's message with that of Obama.
The message control that the Obama camp is trying to achieve at the DNC largely eluded John Kerry, whose advisers feuded with the DNC and even tried to muzzle then-DNC chief Terry McAuliffe when he wanted to aggressively attack Bush's war record, or lack thereof.
Woodhouse is close to two top figures in Obamaland, having worked at different times with Obama top advisers Steve Hildebrand and Robert Gibbs.
And Obama's remaking of the Democratic Party in his own image continues apace.
But I thought the Democratic Party was divided! At least, that what the dead-enders want me to think.
No more circular firing squads. Huzzah!
June 20, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
June 20, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've apparently missed how Steny Hoyer has placed Obama on the horns of a civil-libertarian vs. "national security" dilemma by forcing a vote on the hideous warrantless wiretapping/telecom amnesty bill.
The Dem Congress could have taken any political hit for this by tabling the bill, but I'm assuming that sweet, sweet telecom lucre was too good to pass up, even if it hurts Obama in the fall.
Jimmy Carter may have had his faults, but the way his own party cannibalized him was a poltical crime. Hell, even Bill Clinton got things done mostly by working with Republicans.
Don't ever underestimate the capacity of the Democratic Party to undermine one of its leaders, even a politican as gifted as Barack Obama.
June 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bill is bad, for sure, but not acting on it would also have been bad for the Democrats as well, because they would have been freshly tarred with the "weak on national security" theme.
June 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
All's I can say is: "That's Politics."
I would love to see a Senate debate on the new bill where Obama tries hard to force the issue. As it is, it's not gonna happen. Too bad.
But it sure would be nice....
June 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that not passing the bill would have been bad for some Democrats, not because of seeming 'soft on terror', but because certain Democrats knew they could face getting exposed for colluding with the Bush administration and the corporate telecom giants several years back when this domestic spying began. Those Democrats just bought themselves some insurance against an election year expose...... they hope.
June 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but Steny didn't place Obama on any dilemma horns, as Obama's statement later Friday made it clear he was cool with the bill.
June 23, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good deal.
June 20, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg? It may have been lost in the white hot heat of the Democratic nominating process, but did McCain exert any sort of comparable influence on the RNC when he became the "presumptive" nominee?
And I second Angry Vet's "no more circular firing squads" comment.
And the huzzah, as well!
June 20, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though Bob Shrum and John Kerry were wrong and the hated Terry McAuliffe was right.
Lux Veritas....I was unable to comment on your usual vicious comments about Hillary Clinton yesterday...and there are dead enders because of small minded, petty, sexist Obama supporters like you.
June 20, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, and please, I beg of you, point to a SINGLE example of me being sexist.
Pretty please?
Kiss my ass, talk about small-minded and petty. I'm assuming you are referencing my comment on the post about how McCain is using Hillary's attacks against Obama now, just as I and everyone else predicted he would. I'm sorry if you find something "small-minded" or "petty" about my disapproval of Hillary putting herself before her own party and attacking the person who at the time was almost certainly going to be the nominee, essentially doing McCain's dirty work for him, for months. I don't see how that is at all "small-minded" or "petty", but what is small-minded and petty is idiots like you calling reality "vicious" and accusing everyone who disagrees with you or Hillary of being sexist, with absolutely no justification.
What a hypocrite. Get over yourself.
June 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is banking on the netroots maintaining its enthusiasm for GOTV, regardless of the positions he takes this summer.
Senator, you are playing with fire.
June 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if the netroots don't like what Obama does, then what? Are you suggesting they are going to vote for McCain or Nadar or Barr? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Those of us who are liberal need to fully understand Obama cannot get elected with our votes alone and will have to do things we don't like to attract votes from those who are less liberal. That is reality. Get real. Sit back. Stay quiet. Give Barack the room he needs to succeed in November.
June 20, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm getting a little more than annoyed with all the people on the left constantly bitching about everything Obama isn't doing liberal enough of strongly enough or whatever enough for their liking. Seriously, I'm a hardcore progressive, but I'm sick of it. It is no constructive, it is not useful, it is tiresome. It's been nothing but underestimating him from the beginning. People need to unbunch their underwear and calm down. They need to realize Obama can't fix everything on his own, and they need to stop holding every goddamn decision over his head, especially with idiotic "he's playing with fire, if he isn't progressive enough we'll screw him over!" crap.
Let him do what he is doing, I'm sure he has a plan. Quit bitching, save it for the Republicans who actually deserve it. I'm a fan of putting pressure on Democrats to be more progressive, but I swear the majority of the attacks on Obama I read are from progressives shooting themselves in the foot.
June 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, lw
Amen, Lux
Though I know Barack voted against the Senate approved version of the FISA bill I would like to have seen some sort of statement on today's vote. Perhaps a statement to the effect that "if elected this will be revisited"
June 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, LuxVeritas. Change often does come incrementally. So it goes.
Yes, Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer sometimes had to support more centrist House/Senate candidates in 2006 (e.g. Heath Shuler in NC, Bob Casey in PA). Would you rather they'd picked more hard left candidates who would've lost, and meant we didn't take back control of Congress?
Obama can't change everything we'd like, right away. But I think he has the best chance of any Dem to do so this year. The party made the right choice.
June 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, meant to post on the thread about Obama's silence on FISA.
June 20, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
either hes a control freak or hes the smartest person ever. i say smartest person ever because the DNC wasn't good at doing their job before
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/dwc-checklist-4-change-part-2/
June 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
i will wager on smart...and being a bit of a control freak is not a bad thing....obama will and can be swiftboated by both republicans and democrats alike and he has to work 3 to 4 times as hard as any other conventional candidate to make sure it doesn't happen....
i daresay, he better become a control freak or someone else will take the reigns and do us all in...i read the blogs here and i can see already that we do a good job of bashing him and secon-guessing him...i wonder if the republicans need even bother...
the man is not perfect...in fact he has said in the past that he will do things to disappoint us b/c he is fallible..all he ask is a chance to have an honest dialogue with the american people and he is begging us for a chance to serve us....his service will entail taking a stab at changing the way things are done in washington..
what is so hard to understand? a change candidate has to represent just that..."change"....he will buck against the conventional, but there are times when he will to compromise...he cannot please everyone on everything...to express dissatisfaction in and of itself is not wrong, but to lay into him as if we are the enemy is not cool...to lose sight of the big picture and act as if all is lost is not cool...
god help us all...god help america...
June 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello moderators....can we get an edit button here??? geesh!
June 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink