I received this email today from ClintonDems.com. As you know, I have officially terminated my membership in the Democratic Party. But for those of you who are still IN it, I am reprinting the email I received. You can go to the above link to have access to all of the suggestions they have for dealing with this exceedingly troublsome development from the Obama Camp, including contact information for Howard Dean:
Dear Clinton Dem,
Yesterday's revelation that Barack Obama is planning to move a large portion of the DNC operations to his home town of Chicago has set off all kinds of alarms at Clinton Dems.
This is disturbing on so many levels. Chicago is widely known for corrupt "Machine Politics" and stokes our worst fear that "The Chicago Machine" is going national. Four of the last seven Governors of Illinois have been indicted for corruption and an effort is already underway to impeach current Governor Blagojevich for activities uncovered during the trial of Obama's long-time fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
The Rezko trial has uncovered a complex network of cronies, and patronage -- and a shockingly large number of them have had relationships on some level with Barack Obama. Do we want the appearance, real or imagined, that these corrosive elements will be influencing our party at the most fundamental levels?
A good number of us already suspect that this has been taking place. Please contact Howard Dean and especially all representatives on the Delegate List in your state and tell them that you strongly oppose this move. Express your concern about the direction of the Democratic party.
Pam Hamilton
Clinton Democrats
8 comments:
Of concern to me, that in moving staff to DC, staff can be working for the campaign via funds donated to the DNC which has a much higher per person cap than the campaign does, and seems designed to get around the campaign donation laws. The DNC is supposed to help Democrats all over the country, not just a campaign arm of the Democratic presidential candidate.
Exactly, though I have heard that the DNC's staff has been pared back, and they are relying on OBAMA for the funds. That could be sheer conjecture or rumor. Regardless, it is incredibly telling - he is a FIRST TERM SENATOR - how in the hell did he get this much power??? Heck, Bill Clinton was a pretty good fundraiser, too, and HE didn't move the DNC to Arkansas. Kerry didn't move it to MA, either. And you are QUITE right - it is SUPPOSED to be for Dems nationwide. But hey - it's ALL abt Obama, right??
Thanks for dropping by!
I spent the entire weekend morning Tim Russert. I have been waiting anxiously for you to contact me to begin the dialoge that we started here in your comments section to have a real and articulated conversation regarding this election. I have not heard from you thus far. I left my email addy in the hopes that you would take my invitation seriously. I think that it is sad that you would not even bother to reply to my heartfelt posts to your blog. Call me what you will...I am a democrat, my heart and my blood bleeds blue.
Moving the DNC staff is exactly what should have been done in the last two campaigns to align them with the candidate. Whether you agree with it or not the last two nominee's failed. Moving HQ to the same location only makes sense.
Traveling Man -
If you recall, I was on vacation. I told you that I would get back to you after I returned from vacation. It was not a slight to you in the least. It is unfortunate that you took it to be so.
I completely disagree. The Fix is in with the DNC. Moving an entire organization smacks of long-term planning. The RBC, when it allocated votes and delegates not won by Obama TO him made it quite clear the fix was in. What this is, TravelingMan, is a HOSTILE TAKEOVER of the DNC. There is no reason in the WORLD why it should have been moved to CHicago, or why it should have been moved int he previous elections. The DNC is supposed to represent the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just one man.
Frankly, this whole mindset that anything Obama wants, Obama gets, and that he is above reproach is getting a bit tedious. A critical eye is what politics and politicians require, no, it is what a DEMOCRACY requires. Blind acceptance and acquiescence is a dangerous path to walk...
And btw, Traveling Man, I really don't appreciate negative implications abt ME because I did not respond PERSONALLY to you in an email. I made it crystal clear I was on vacation, and I DID respond to your last comments at my post. I cannot help it if you don't go back and check to SEE if I responded or not. That's up to you.
It is just this kind or response that makes me INCREDIBLY wary of engaging in a more private manner- not the least of which is because my email address contains my last name. Frankly, given the responses I have gotten here and at NoQuarter from Obama supporters does not make me feel comfortable allowing that kind of information out. I hope you can appreciate that concern on my part.
Oh, and the last two nominees failed because the DNC did not stand behind them fully. Nor did the two candidates stand fully for themselves OR their voters. Kerry PROMISED he would make sure all the votes were counted, and caved two days after the voting was over, even though Ohio AND Florida were a MESS. Gore conceded when he actually WON the election. And had he not listened to Donna Brazille, one of the WORST political consultants EVER, and had Bill Clinton stump for him, it would not have even been CLOSE. SO, the DNC and the two candidates shot themselves in their collective feet. Moving the DNC would not have stopped that. And again - it is the Democratic NATIONAL Committee, not the Democratic - WE STAND WITH JUST THIS ONE CANDIDATE - Committee. Just saying.
I did come back and check, once again let me say you only posted your comments you refused to email me. I asked for a personal dialogue that was not on your blog, at the very least you could admit that.
You have an interesting way of stating your positions when you refuse to acknowlede any of the posters postitions. You only attack me and feign indignity for me asking for a real dialogue that is not broadcast for the world to see.
It would have been nice if you had taken 10 minutes out of your life to actually address me personally via email without doing it in public.
I would love to chat with you, unfortunately you have already made up your mind...that is your choice. It is impossible to have a dialogue with someone who refuses to even have a conversation.
That you will only do it in public says much more about you than it does about me. READ all of my posts...not once have I ever attacked you personally.
Not once in your post did you even acknowledge anything that I said other than to disagree with me aboout one point. You could not even find the decency to acknowledge my pain over the death of Tim Russert or my personal sadness over the state of the party.
You are so consumed with how everything is a conspiracy that all Obama supporters are evil, that he is evil and everything has some hidden adgenda that it makes having an reasoned discussion with you impossible.
The saddest part about all of this is that I actually think that if the two of us were to meet we would have far more in common than we would differences (excluding politics).
My motives for posting here are genuine regardless of how you wish to interpret them. As always you have my email addy and I will be happy to explore this conversation in private.
FYI: Anyone who is the nominee is the defacto leader of the party. Obama does not need DNC funds, he has more than enough from donors like me. Any nominee has the power to do this. Also Clinton did very limited campaigning for Gore, look it up. There was Clinton fatigue at the time and Gore did not want him out there campaigning full time for him.
Warm Wishes and best of luck to you...regardless of our differences we have more in common than separate us.
Traveling Man, knowing Amy as well as I do, I must say that you have her completely wrong. You presume some right to her time and attention when you are merely a commenter on her blog. She does not know you, she does not owe you anything, and from the comments I have seen posted, her responses to you have been on point and not personal at all.
She, like all of us, deserves to take a break now and then, and you should be complimented that she took ANY time out of her vacation to post a response.
Get over yourself.
Traveling Man -
Wow, you have taken this all WAY more personally than the situation warranted. That is unfortunate. And this response from you merely confirms what I already said - you are making insinuations abt me without cause, seeing insult where there was none, yet attacking me and expecting me to ENGAGE you on a more personal level. Why would I do that when in this very post you have made a number of inaccurate assessments and accusations??
I said, very clearly here, that my email address contains my last name. Because a number of pro-Hillary bloggers have been attacked personaly, with Obama supporters working to discover their true identity to go after them, I am not comfortable sharing that information with someone I do not know. I would hope you could understand that. And it is not personal to YOU - it is the reality of the current climate, and not a "conspiracy theory" I have dreamed up. Had I not already been attacked here, and at No Quarter, I may have been more willing to do so. But that you continue to attack my character does not make me want to have more of a personal dialgoue with you.
And if you are saying that my responses to people who disagree with me is to acknowledge the disagreement but allow them the space to have their own opinions, that is precisely my intention. I do not have to agree with everyone to allow their comments to remain at my blog. I could just as easily delete evey single one from the comments section, but unless they are blatantly sexist, homophobic, racist, etc., I will allow people to have their say.
And I completely disagree with you - the nominee is NOT the defacto head of the DNC. The CHAIR of the DNC is the HEAD of the DNC. If there is a Democratic president, he (since it has always been men) is seen as the figurehead. But DEAN is the head of the DNC, not OBAMA. That glorification of this inexperienced, unquaified man is a continuation of the entire problem with him, and his supporters - it is like Bush ALL over again.
And Clinton, Bill, that is, was HUGELY popular at the end of his term. Donna Brazille pushed Gore to not use Clinton, which meant Gore could not focus on all they achieved TOGETHER.
I would urge you to please read my comments to you more carefully before attacking me. I acknowledged SEVERAL times abt the email piece. No offense was meant to you by not acknowledging Tim Russert's death. I am sorry for your pain. Again, I actually was pretty BUSY yesterday, and no slight was meant to you. As it is, I am SPENDING TIME writing you back when I have SOMETHING else I was supposed to be doing right now. Rather than appreciate the time and effort I have already put into this dialogue with you, even while on vaction with my family, you have chosen to cast it in the most negative light possible. I would suggest an attitude adjustment if you wish this dialogue to continue.
And I am dismayed by what the DNC has become, too. When fair play, respect for the importance of the right to vote, and respect for all people is tossed away, it demeans everyone, and that is where the Party is today. Voter fraud, vote stealing, and voter disenfranchisement should never be the hallmark of the DEMOCRATIC Party, yet that is what marks it after this campaign season. So, yes, I feel your pain there...
Again, Traveling Man, try not to take insult where there is none, and please refrain from the character assassination if you wish to continue any dialogue with me at all. Thanks.
Post a Comment