Schumer Says N.Y. Win Was 'All Hillary,' Nadler Calls Obama's Talk 'Vacuous'
I just got off a somewhat contentious conference call with Hillary Clinton surrogates for New York reporters , who proved somewhat resistant to the pro-Hillary Clinton message coming from Chuck Schumer.
Referring to her primary win in New York yesterday, Schumer told reporters, “This was all Hillary. There was no big party machine in operation. There was no, you know, kind of things like that. It was Hillary.”
I asked him to explain that, given that virtually the entire party establishment was in her corner.
“Well, the political establishment is with her, but I am saying, when I ran my race in ‘98, and when Hillary ran her race in 2000, there was a huge get-out-the-vote operation with thousands and thousands of people and phone calls and everything else. I don’t think Hillary needed that in New York and results proved it.”
Liz Benjamin pointed out that the unions were phone-banking for her.
“Look, I’m not saying they weren’t," Schumer said. "I am saying that compared to get-out-the-vote operations in closely contested elections, and particularly with new candidates, this was not, you know, it was not that kind of operation. It didn’t have to be.”
Newsday’s John Riley asked Schumer why he thought Barack Obama did so much better in his home-state of Illinois than Clinton did in New York.
Campaign spokesman Blake Zeff intercepted the question, offering the explanation afterwards that New York is much bigger than Illinois and they didn’t campaign there with the same intensity that the Obama people did here.
Also, there was this, from Jerry Nadler: “I think last night really stopped what was building up to be a very strong Obama momentum. It seems to me at least that a lot of what he said is awfully vacuous. There isn’t much there.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Mr. Obama has and will win because he has run his race with talent, skill and GRACE. No name calling or mudslinging, but tough criticism of the status quo and what needs to CHANGE. The Nation is maturing beyond the ideological WARFARE of the 1990s and understand we must have a strategic plan for the 21st Century and re-embrace our place in the world after this dark night. How ironic the States who gave us the Bush nightmare, are self-correcting and voting for Barack. And, the Clinton Machine has a strong grip on the States where favors and lobbyists for special interests want to continue distracting voters (Latinos?) with foolish class/race baiting. Americans, PLEASE REMEMBER THE POLITICIANS WHO DID NOT GET ON BOARD and they can take their place in the past, cronyism universe of the private sector their next election cycle...one by one. Turn the page.
Hillary Clinton won Massachusettes and Arizona despite big-name endorsements going the other way. Her strong and articulate Debate and Town Hall performances showed voters what she is about. Intelligent voters will listen to the candidates themselves and look at their legislative and personal records of accomplishments. We are tired of media sound bites and misleading negative snipes.
Put aside the excitement of Someone New, who speaks in glittering generalities, and "feels exciting". The facts and record show Hillary is the candidate best capable of implementing economic recovery for all working and middle class people, perserving American security, defending Israel and ending the war in Iraq.
Clinton backers continue with the demeaning comments about Obama (Nadler's "vacuous"). These comments are racial and everyone knows it no matter their sly protestations. They believe they can say anything they want to or about a black person and it should be OK. Is there any other Democratic Senator that Mr. Nadler would call "vacuous?" It is of a piece with the young George Allen putting a deer's head in the black family's mailbox and thinking it was a real hoot.
So, it's okay to be sexist, it's okay to hate asians and hispanics, it's okay to be against the working class, but god forbid you question the big O (oh, is that Oprah or Obama) because they'll call you racist.
I like and admire Obama. I think he'd make a great president.
I hate his followers. They remind me of Nazis.
Janet Silver says it in concise, clear English. Do we need soft "vacuous" feel good words or do we want real meaning? I do not get Karen Shoak's connection of "vacuous" to racist. The word can apply to anyone who keeps repeating the same sound bite everyone wants to hear in every situation. In any case everyone is insisting this race is not about gender nor race, so how can one say "emptiness" is racist? I also can't understand how backwards American women still are to give up this chance for a woman in power to represent at least 50% of the population. Women of all colors know that men of all colors have in general not treated women fairly.
I would be very excited for a woman to finally make it to the presidency. But I do not automatically think that just because Hillary is a woman that she would fairly represent my interests as a moderate income woman or the interests of other moderate income folks.
Take for example:
1) Social Security Preservation: Obama and Edwards (and Nadler, for that matter) had called for the lifting of the cap as a means of preserving it, so that higher income folks - in addition to moderate infome folks - pay their equitable share. But during a previous debate, Hillary misrepresented the Obama/Edwards (and Nadler) position as entailing a 'trillion dollar tax increase' or words to that effect. She would merely refer/defer the question of Social Security preservation to some commision, saying that this worked in the 1980s. Well for moderate/middle income folks like my mom, neither the 1980s commission results, nor the Clinton 'tweaking' of Social Security had been helpful.What would have been helpful and equitable would have been the lifting of the cap.
2) Health Care Access/Financing: Hillary had her chance while part of the Clinton Administation to come up with an equitable and workable plan at a time when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Not only did she fail to do so but the lousy plan that she finally did come up with was arrived at through closed-door meetings in which no consumer reps were even invited. How was that helpful to moderate income folks-including moderate income women? Let me say that while I think that Hillary's current plan-a cut & paste from Edwards' book - is better than what she came up with before and better than Obama's health care plan, how do we know whether she would again revert to closed door meetings that exclude consumer representatives? Obama has at least promised to have open-door meetings on health care financing that could be televised on C-span
Obama supporters are not making "sexist" attacks or snide comments about Clinton. Thats a crock. I read this morning tht Chelsea Clinton herself is pushing some silly email that makes a big deal of the "Iron My Shirt" stunt. This is a woman whose father paid $850,000 to avoid trial for sexual harassment and she's whining about a stunt. Compare a few clowns pulling a stunt to a Governor sending a state trooper to fetch a state clerk to a hotel room, exposing himself and demanding oral sex, Chelsea Clinton! Who is going to ask Chelsea Clinton about it? Which is worse? Powerful men demanding droit du seigneur or a few clowns making a show in public place? Do you have to think too hard?
Oh please,..soon Oprah will run for president,...oh yiyi!!!!!!!