I can't believe some of you are OK w/ Romanoff and Sestak's betrayal of Obama

[LeftyAndProud60]

Sestak and Romanoff stabbed Obama in the back like I've never seen. It's bad enough he has all of the right on his ass, but to get it from his own kind is sickening. And they aren't doing it because of their morals, they're doing it to win elections.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Republicans circle the wagons, Democrats form a circular firing squad. Nothing new.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. Never understood that, but you're right. Obama needs us to have his back like never before.

[Clio the Leo]

2. good point. NT

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pirate Smile]

4. Did Romanoff come out and bring this up because he thought it would help him win the primary? Like

Sestak did?

Well, Obama supposed "friends" are generally the only ones that ever actually hurt him. As the saying goes, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

edit to add - I read the Politico story and it doesn't sound too bad but you have to read to the end:


'A top Colorado Democrat said that Romanoff first sought assistance in pursuit of a White House job back in March of 2009.

The source, who requested anonymity to speak about the delicate negotiations, said Romanoff's name was discussed in a meeting with a White House liaison about potential jobs in the State Department.


He talked to a lot of people about wanting a job in the administration. That’s what you do. You’re networking all over the place," said the source.


But the source said Romanoff's interest in the job seemed to fade by mid-summer, when he inched closer to seriously eyeing a campaign.


"There were lots of people out looking for jobs in this administration, I think this another case of that," the source said.'



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38064_Page2.html#ixzz0plA9bh57

[DrToast]

5. Stop it. Obama didn't do anything wrong. You're spreading the belief that he did

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Thank You. Shades of Henny Penny. (nt)

[LeftyAndProud60]

10. Did I say he did anything wrong. I'm pissed @ the standard he's being forced to lived up to. Every

POTUS has done this. The media never cared. It's obvious the media cares now for some reason.

[rury]

87. The media cares because President Obama is black

when you're black in the United States, you're ALWAYS held to a higher standard!!

[pocoloco]

20. Bullshit!! He was backing a fuckhead repug!!

That's fucking wrong!!

[gateley]

6. I'm not - this has been going on for years, and I don't know why Sestak felt

he had to open this can of worms. It's business as usual in Washington, but in this climate the Republicans are going to do exactly what they're doing. The horror!

I'm pissed at both of them.

[Pirate Smile]

12. If we lose the House, we know the RW loonies (they are much crazier then they were when they

impeached Clinton) will be doing all kinds of ridiculous investigations. Sestak and Romanoff - just for giving the RW some fodder - have earned the dislike and distrust of A LOT of Democrats.

[Hawkeye-X]

35. Sez who?

Romanoff is very well-liked here in Colorado.

He'll defeat Bennet in August.

[neverforget]

7. If nothing is wrong, then there is nothing to worry about.

[Pirate Smile]

14. You think that is true if the Republicans take back control of the House?

[neverforget]

33. I don't get upset over things I can't control.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. By that logic, I assume you're alright with cops randomly pulling over minorities too. (nt)

[neverforget]

67. WTF is that about?

:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

90. That's the exact line used by racist cops.

If they haven't committed a crime, they have nothing to fear.

[neverforget]

91. Are you saying I'm racist?

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[otohara]

9. I Can't Believe You Started Another Thread

All politics is local and why should Andrew & Jo lie for the administration?

It's VERY important to Colorado Dems that Andrew entered - we're not all that happy with Michael Bennet.

Get over it and stop blaming the two guys who stood up and said NO

[LeftyAndProud60]

11. Then don't bitch when the next Republican asshole is Pres and doing shit that you hate. NT

[ProSense]

17. WTF? n/t

[Cleita]

19. That isn't going to happen. The whole we have to be like them to be elected

is a false premise. We need to be different than them.

[donco6]

103. Huh? Romanoff has an even better chance of being elected than Bennet.

WTF are you talking about?

[Cleita]

13. Fixing elections is a problem to me. It seems politicians playing on their

chessboards have forgotten this. Convincing a candidate to step aside so that the same old tired dinosaur, like Specter, can run again is canceling out people's preferred votes and fixing an election result as far as I'm concerned. I don't find it ethical, I don't care which side does it. I don't blame Obama. I know this is how business has been done within the party for a long time. But I prefer it stops.

[Jennicut]

23. Yes, it has been done forever. From FDR on and I am sure even before that.

But it really is not the best practice in politics, is it?

[Cleita]

26. It takes our choice away from us and our choice in the primaries is basically

what we have. But when the party pushes their favorite up to the front we find ourselves holding our nose to vote against a Republican. Remember what they did to Howard Dean?

[ProSense]

27. It doesn't take your choice away

If a person goes the route of falling in line, what would you expect from such a person?

People are always free to support whomever they choose to. Sestak proves that it's not impossible to win.

[Cleita]

28. If Sestak had stepped aside like the OP suggests he should, then

the choice would be only Specter. So how can you vote for somebody who is no longer there? Do you feel that those people are free to vote in the general election for the person they chose in the primary who was side tracked if their Sestak turns into Specter again?

[ProSense]

32. Why would someone

with conviction step aside?

Sestak didn't. Halter hasn't.

[Cleita]

36. We agree, so why are you arguing with me or is it sport with you?

Try reading what I said before you automatically go into virtual karate pose.

[ProSense]

40. You misunderstood, I was asking a question. n/t

[Cleita]

41. And then you answered your own question.

You said:

"Sestak didn't. Halter hasn't."

[Hippo_Tron]

38. They're not fixing elections

The White House like many other groups and people tries to influence elections so that their candidate wins. Clearly, as Joe Sestak just demonstrated, they are often unsuccessful at that. There's nothing fixed about it.

[Cleita]

47. But if they had succeeded they would have taken away the people's choices.

I don't think people understand how important the primaries are. This is where we put our true choice up. But if the party is discouraging or bribing candidates within the party to put up the candidate they think can win or should win, it is taking our choice away. I'm personally fed up with the fact that I never have a Democrat to vote for in the House because the Democratic Party in my district has decided that the seat can't be won because my congressional district is the reddest in California. I don't care. I want a name with D after it to check off on my ballot. In the meantime my asshole Congressman has a legacy seat that is really a throne. There is nothing democratic about that.

[suzie]

63. You indicate that the smaller group of Demcorats who come out to vote in primaries are "The People".

Very often, that's simply untrue. The kinds of activists who come out in primary elections sometimes want candidates that Democrats who show up for the General Election won't vote for.

But according to your definition, "The People" doesn't include the broader group of Democrats who show up for the General.

So in either case, you have Party officials or a small slice of the Party affecting the choice of the larger group of Democrats that most might call "The People". But it only bothers you if it's "The Party" doing it.

[Cleita]

93. Not showing up for primaries is why we often get politicians bought

and paid for by special interests in both parties. As far as your definition of my definition, I don't know where you extrapolated that because I didn't offer a definition. Yes, parties can be corrupt and I believe both parties are corrupted today, which is why everyone really should think that they are Americans first and members of their political party second.

[dbmk]

84. How "true" is that?

Who would want a candidate who could be swayed like that anyways?
If "the peoples true choice" choose not to run isn't that the way it should be? If he/she is the right person, are their choices not just as right - including the one not to run? I can't see how they can change something that is "true".

As far as I understand it noone is stopping anyone from running. Theres a rather large canyon between taking the choice away and trying to influence it.

How can the Democratic Party influencing the members of the Democratic Party be fixing and about "the people"? One would think, as long as they stay away from using illegal means to influence, that it was the Democratic Partys prerogative and job to take what they deem to be the politically most profitable action? Disagree with specific actions or not.

[Cleita]

94. If people don't want to run because they had a change of heart fine.

But to be influenced with dangling carrots in front of them puts it in a different zone. Incidentally, the Romanoff incident has turned out to be entirely different than what was reported. Romanoff applied for jobs with the Obama administration, was interviewed and no jobs were offered at the time. Then he decided to run for Senator. The agencies who had interviewed Romanoff asked him about it and Romanoff said he decided to run for Senator instead so he wasn't interested in the jobs. So he was off the table as far as jobs were concerned and none had been offered up to that time. The Specter/Sestak situation is a little more troubling.

[Arkana]

89. And if it hadn't been for the deal that was cut for Specter's party switch, I suspect

the White House would not have bothered trying to save Specter's job.

Everyone in the building knows that the people of PA did them a favor by not picking Specter. You don't honestly believe otherwise, do you?

[zipplewrath]

92. His personal Friend?

You mean his personal friend, Joe Biden, is happy that Specter lost? Wow, what a tool.

Yeah, I honestly believe the preferred Specter. It cracks me up that so many of Obama's defenders have trouble with that concept and they have to constantly advance this explanation that Biden and Obama, not to mention Rahm, didn't REALLY want Specter elected.

Exactly what information do you have that Joe Biden didn't want Specter elected?

[Arkana]

105. Um, I don't.

The reason they preferred Specter was because they preferred the devil they knew--and it helped that Biden and Specter were friends.

You act like the primary election was some huge thumb in the eye to the White House. Do you honestly believe that anyone is rending their garments over Specter losing? I'm sure Biden and Obama don't consider it the ideal outcome, but they're not going to take their ball and go home because the voters of PA preferred someone else.

And I find it particularly rich that Obama's knee-jerk detractors believe that because that's EXACTLY what they would have done, that's what Obama will do.

[zipplewrath]

106. No huge thumb

That's why I find all of the explanations of how the WH didn't REALLY want him to win silly. They're showing a pretty lousy track record right now on choosing, and I suspect that's because they are guilty of choosing who they want, not who would be a good candidate.

I don't think ANYONE, save maybe Specter himself, is losing alot of sleep over any of this. Sestak is probably wishing he'd kept is mouth shut. But they are all players. They know how the game is played. I just think it is ridiculous that anyone would be advancing the idea that somehow "Sestak did the WH a favor" in winning.

[Arkana]

107. Sestak DID do the White House a favor, whether he knows it or not.

And whether the White House knows it or not, the voters of PA did them a huge favor.

Democratic strategists can read polls too--and some of them work for the White House.

[zipplewrath]

108. So when you said "in the building"

You weren't referring to the White House?

[rpannier]

Disagree

The Administration has interjected itself into the races and these people are firing back
They did not stab him in the back -- Obama is supporting their opposition and he has tried to clear them from the field by offering them positions within the administration (which is legal)
The White House has campaigned for the incumbents (Sestak and Romanoff's opponents), using the power and prestige of the White House to try and benefit the incumbent.

It's politics and what they have said is not Earth shattering, it's true and it's fair to mention

on note: I supported Sestak with money (and still do), as I do Halter and Romanoff

[ProSense]

15. "At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one."

Andrew Romanoff statement

What is with the hysterical OP titles?

There have been many posts showing this is not unusual. The RW is gunning, but you don't have to help them. Maybe they can stop demanding that Reagan's face be fixed on American currency since he evidently did the same thing.

[Cleita]

22. Fixing primaries by each party has become so institutionalized that when someone

actually wants to primary a corporate whore in their party, everyone goes into shock.

[Jennicut]

16. I like the President but perhaps he will never ever never again interfere in a primary?

Please?
I think it will all amount to nothing legally. But none of this really works, does it? Just let us decide who we want representing us.

[Pirate Smile]

30. They essentially always support the incumbent - especially in the Senate where they need every vote.

People know that which is why endorsements of that sort really don't matter. People vote for who they want to vote for in Primaries. I don't get the big deal. Obama still needs Specter, Lincoln and Bennett's votes for quite a few things before January 2011. He isn't going to alienate them.

[Dr.Phool]

57. With Emmanuel at his right hand?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Mr. "I never met a repuke I wouldn't recruit to run against a progressive" Rahm Emmanuel? That guy?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Jennicut]

66. Rahm recruited Sestak to begin with. Is Sestak not a good politician?

He is not even a progressive anyway, which just makes me laugh that some see him that way. He was not a former Repub. I would have voted for him, just like I voted for Lamont in 2006 over Lieberman. But the fact that some want to rewrite his history is kind of amusing.

[LakeSamish706]

18. I call bullshit on this. Obama chose to support Specter and Sestak said, simply

that I am not going to step aside while you support a Republican candidate. Sorry, I support Sestak on this one.

[Cleita]

25. Obama can support whomever he likes. It doesn't mean that,

we the people, have to be in lockstep. That is so Republican.

[LakeSamish706]

29. What "is so Republican."? The fact that Obama supports Specter over Sestak, or? n/t

[Cleita]

37. Being in lockstep is Republican? I don't understand what you are saying.

[LakeSamish706]

42. Your the one that made the statement of; "being in lock step" so you tell me? n/t

[Cleita]

43. I did. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

44. Ok, you are now making my head spin.. What are you saying? n/t

[Cleita]

48. Put down the cocktail and read my original post in the morning then

you will see what I said. I can't promise that your head won't be spinning though.

[LakeSamish706]

51. Uh, no I was the one that made the original post and you responded... So, you might want to take

your own advise about the cocktail. Obama supported Specter (who in MHO was/is still) a Republican. The only reason that he changed parties was to win reelection, and that's a fact by the way! What more is there to say? Obama is a Democrat? Hmmmmm

[Cleita]

52. Whatever. I don't like Specter either, but I'm not in his state so that's

up to the citizens there to figure it out not the White House.

[jenmito]

97. I read this little sub-thread of yours. And YOU said being in lockstep is so Republican"

"Obama can support whomever he likes. It doesn't mean that, we the people, have to be in lockstep. That is so Republican."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=324557&mesg_id=324602

[ChiciB1]

I'm ALSO Emphatically With Sestak! And I'm Sick Of Others Bashing Him!

He said ALL ALONG that he wanted to run for Senator AND HE DID! AND HE WON! Spector may have been more moderate than many Repukes, but he STAYED a Repuke UNTIL he felt he couldn't win his own Repuke Primary!

To me, THAT says VOLUMES whether anyone likes Sestak or not! Sestak stayed relatively quiet until the WH issued it's response, and I think he did so because he wanted to GIVE the WH the benefit of the doubt! From the get go Sestak KNEW who the WH was supporting and HE DID speak about it!

That Sestak forged ahead and worked hard to win says a LOT to me. I have heard he's DLC and I can't say that makes me happy, but I give him credit for sticking with it when ALL odds were against him!

He gets credit for that from me! That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it!!

And YES, Repukes are trying to make a BIG thing about this, but the WH had better get their act together because the REPUKES are NOT going to let up, not now... NOT EVER!!

And now we hear about Romanoff, so it seems they don't know HOW to control the situation. REPUKES are MASTERS of this stuff, so lessons had better be learned regarding how to OPERATE behind the scenes if they don't want to end up with EGG on their face!! Blaming Sestak OR Romanoff seems petty to me!! Whether a person actually likes either person is moot to me!!!!

JMHO!!!

[liskddksil]

21. Romanoff and Sestak are Progressive Democrats, who I support on policy.

The White House should have known better than to interject and interfere with the will of the primary electorate in these states. While not illegal, I expected better from a President who ran on doing things differently.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. How is it interfering with the will of the primary electorate?

Do you really think the primary electorate would want Joe Sestak or Andrew Romanoff if they quit the Senate races because the President offered them a job?

[liskddksil]

49. Because they tried to to remove the voter's having a choice in who is their nominee.

If either of them took the job, their opponent would have been the nominee without any election.

[dbmk]

85. And the guy running or not does not have a choice?

Would the person taking the job not be the one responsible for taking away "the peoples choice"?

What about all the people not running at all? Are they all taking away the peoples choice? Have you run? If not, why are you taking away the peoples choice?

[Moochy]

86. Straw Man

viable choices are the ones who survive to primary day.

[donco6]

101. Thankfully, your point is moot.

They didn't. And we have a viable primary with real choices - Romanoff being the better choice.

[Jennicut]

45. Progressives? Sestak was and is a moderate Dem and Romanoff was co chair of the DLC

in Colorodo. I think Obama needs to stay out of primaries but let's not kid ourselves here.

[liskddksil]

55. Sestak has a great record on environmental issues, supported the public option

and unlike Specter, was always a Democrat. Romanoff, while once affiliated with the DLC, clearly does not talk like he is a current member. He trashes corporate America's influence on politics, stand strongly for the public option, and even single-payer. Bennet on the other hand was luke-warm about the public-option until Romanoff's candidacy became a threat, and only then did he come out with an ultimately meaningless letter to put it back in the bill, which he backed away from at the end. Even worse, Bennet voted against the Cram-Down amendment, which would have allowed judges to restructure homes in foreclosure.

[freddie mertz]

73. So? Specter was a Republican Senator for 30 years.

PA Dems have been trying to unseat him for a more than a generation.

It was monumentally stupid for this WH to meddle in this race, especially since they did it so clumsily.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Why?

Shouldn't we be proud of what our politicians do?

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Niether of them have accused President Obama of personally doing anything wrong

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

46. THEY stabbed Obama?

:crazy:

If anyone "stabbed" Obama, it's the Chief of Staff's office that made the ill considered offers.

First thing Republicans are going to do if they regain the majority is open an investigation of this and start talking about impeachment.

[IndianaGreen]

53. K&R

Rahm's political machinations are to blame for this fiasco, together with White House interference in Democratic primaries.

[Dr.Phool]

59. Rahm has a long history of this shit.

He has screwed me, and friends of mine in the past.

Because of his and Harold Ford's bullshit, running the DCCC, I'll never donate a dime to them again.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. I'm a little pissed at Romanoff but ultimately this is the White House's fault

Sestak can reasonably claim that he did it under the assumption that it wouldn't become a big thing. But Romanoff leaked this to the press after it was clear that Darrell Issa was sniffing for blood.

But in the case of Specter, the White House had good reason to get involved in that primary because getting him to switch was crucial. In the Colorado primary the White House really overplayed their hand. Bennett was an appointed incumbent who had never been elected to anything in his life and that pissed off a lot of elected officials in Colorado, many whom I'm sure have more name recognition than Bennett.

I don't have a problem with the White House getting involved in primaries and I don't have a problem with them offering people jobs to get them out of primaries (so long as the person they are offering the job to is qualified). But if the White House should probably do these things more sparingly. It's not surprising at all that Romanoff refused to take the job because he arguably has just as good of a shot at winning that primary as Bennett, if not better. The White House needs to learn that before they try to buy people off, they need to be pretty damn certain that the person is willing to accept their offer.

[paulk]

114. The tone deafness displayed by the Obama administration

regarding the primary race in Colorado has me quite flummoxed. They seem clueless about Colorado politics and the effect their interference could have.

It wasn't just that Obama endorsed Bennet - endorsing an incumbent, albiet an appointed one, is understandable - but Obama came to Colorado and attended 3 fundraisers for Bennet, which raised over three quarters of a million dollars for him. That was seriously crossing the line.

This whole affair has made me question how how much this administration has got it together on anything...

[rocktivity]

54. Stabbed them how? By refusing to pull out of the race

or by refusing to take their job offers?

By the way, there's nothing illegal or unethical about it, because victory in the respective races were not Obama's to give.

This "scandal" is as legitimate as the one about Obama fathering black children.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[lamp_shade]

56. Nice try... but failed as usual.

[cornermouse]

58. Does doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do

and doing something that you know to be wrong have any meaning to any of you?

Unrec.

[polichick]

60. Betrayal? Only if that means falling short of blind obedience...

Looks like the WH tried to make things go their way, the voters did what they wanted, and Sestak and Romanoff are speaking their minds.

[Autumn]

62. There is no betrayal there. What was done is nothing more

than politics as usual, on both sides. Obama can have Bennett. I'm voting for Romanoff.

[freddie mertz]

71. But we were promised a candidate who would put a stop to "politics as usual."

This line of defense backfires seriously on the president's core campaign message.

It amazes me that the operation at the WH has been this stupid.

[Autumn]

76. Well that was just a campaign promise, from

what I understand those don't really matter.:shrug: Stupid indeed. I guess betrayal is in the eyes of the beholder.

[freddie mertz]

77. Stupidity is also a kind of betrayal. We were promised competence as well as principle.

One or the other would be nice, both at once would be even better.

[Autumn]

79. It would be very nice.

:thumbsup: Seems like their principles sure don't fit mine anymore.

[old mark]

64. Sestak won the PA primary DESPITE total opposition by the Democratic Party

machine at both the state and national level. They tried their best fo fuck him and take our choices from us, just as Bill Clinton is trying to do with Blanche Lincoln at Obama's command.
The VOTERS won one in PA, and if the Democratic Party doesn't like it, fuck them. We need MORE independent minded candidates rather than the half-republican clones that we have in Congress now. Sestak is certainly NOT a flaming liberal, but I don't like the president PROMISING a senator that he would be re-elected if he changed parties, and that he would keep all his committee chairmanships and seniority perks.

Obama said he wanted to change politics, but he is just another Democratic machine moderate politician.


mark

[freddie mertz]

70. Yes we did! And everyone who voted for Joe KNEW the WH was against him.

The president has really stumbled on this front.

Hope he learns a lesson, if it isn't too late.

[old mark]

99. Well, Old Bill was just down South to rally the Dems behind Lincoln....

seems like that isn't working well for them, either.

A trend, perhaps?

mark

[AllentownJake]

111. The White House being against him

was his only selling point for me...after that I think he's a bad candidate.

[salguine]

65. I can't believe how many are uobthered by Obama's betrayal of the rest of us. Obama's

stabbed so many liberals and progressives in the back like I've never seen. It's bad enough to get treated like that by a Republican President, but to get it from your own kind is sickening. And he's not doing it because of his morals, he's doing it to keep the real owners of this country—Wall Street, health insurance cartels, Big Pharma, and credit card companies—happy.

[Autumn]

80. True

:toast:

[PurityOfEssence]

125. Hear, hear!

Somehow, to the most partisan supporters, we owe him everything in the world, regardless of what he does. He can continue Bill Clinton's heroic dragging of the party to the right, and we're supposed to help crush anyone who breathes a whiff of a complaint.

Where is the concept of "public servant", instead of the messianic superstar to whom we must give everything?

[freddie mertz]

68. Unrec. You are just making it worse.

Sorry, but this flap, however much it is being overplayed by the media, is a case of the White House operation shooting itself in the foot.

What should concern us is the stupidity and incompetence of the thing.

Blaming the victim and calling out fellow DUers (most of whom, I am sure, simply wish the whole mess had never happened in the first place) is unproductive and needlessly inflammatory.

Sheesh.

[bigwillq]

69. Cry me a river.

Politics is a dirty game. They all decided to get involved in the game, so they get what they deserve. I never feel sorry for a politician. Boo Hoo....

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Ohhhh, poor widdle centrists can not handle the tough politics!

Whaaaaaaaa.

[liskddksil]

82. Romanoff and Sestak are Progressives

The kind we desparately need in Washington, to take down the corporations that are ruining this country. Get in their way all you want but they are the candidates that will win this November.

[Beacool]

74. How did they "betray" Obama?

Neither one's position is owed to Obama. I guess that you prefer that they had kept their mouths shut. How about all that transparency and "changing DC politics as we know it" campaign mantra? Oh yeah, that was just B.S. said to win elections. Not much different from the present situation.

Politicians often lie and will do almost anything to win elections.

:shrug:

[freddie mertz]

78. If you think about it, they actually owe Obama nothing.

He or his operatives tried to torpedo their campaigns.

Another reason the WH's behavior has been "stupid, stupid, stupd..."

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

83. White House should determine who runs in every race nationwide

He is the President right? Doesn't that mean he gets to run EVERYTHING?

[Arkana]

88. I think they're idiots for stirring up an unnecessary controversy, but other than that?

Sorry, I'm not feeling any outrage.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Nobody betrayed Obama and neither owes him squat.

Hell, liberals should be trying to get some distance from him so his bogus policies don't get conflated with them. This isn't our Health Care reform, it wasn't how we'd do a stimulus, its not how we'd handle Afghanistan, this is not how we roll on the environment, this is not how we would regulate, and it goes on and on.

[w4rma]

109. Exactly. (nt)

[JVS]

96. Obama is the one who decided to meddle in the PA senate primary, and there are risks to doing so.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. I don't understand your line of reasoning. Wasn't it Obama who betrayed them? He meddled

in local politics rather than allow the political process to take root. The people decide who their nominee will be. Not the president. It bothers me much more that Obama seems so determined to intervene on behalf of corporate Democrats and through progressives under the bus. Why? Why such disdain for progressives?

[donco6]

100. Two posts now? This one wasn't enough? n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

104. .

[AllentownJake]

110. Creating the issue bites them in the ass in the General Election

and gives the moderate traction in a primary.

My opinion are both are dumb asses for having brought it into the race.

[TheKentuckian]

116. Depends on how much space they feel they need from Obama to win, Jake.

It also helps them paint themselves as anti-establishment. It makes it much harder for their opponents to paint them as creatures of the "Washington Establishment" or "pawns of Obama".

I'm not saying it will work but it is a plausible strategy.

If it gave Arlen some traction then his situation must have been very hopeless because he still lost by what 8-10 points? The only way I see traction for the other guy is if there is a pro-establishment backlash.

[freddie mertz]

117. There will be NO pro-establishment backlash.

Not under the present circumstances.

Sestak probably GAINED votes in the primary because of the issue, and it will continue to HELP in the general election.

[AllentownJake]

118. I'm voting for him

Not really happy that I have to. Can't stand the guy.

[JVS]

119. Would you rather have Specter?

If so, why?

[AllentownJake]

120. Yes

Medical Research, The LGBT community in my area came out for him, and the man has balls.

Being Pro-Choice and most of the time Pro-Labor in the GOP for 30 years is something I frankly have to respect.

Plus I think Sestak's operation will do some very dumb things, just from my brief time in reaching out to them in the beginning. See if they got better in the fall.

I also saw him get his ass kicked by Pat Toomey in a debate live. Turned me off on him alot. It was like watching a puppy be kicked. It was very cringe worthy...and he than went and had beers with Toomey at the Democratic bar in town. The bad taste in my mouth after that fiasco hasn't gone away.

[freddie mertz]

121. He's improved since that debate.

Have you seen his recent appearances?

Must more assured, much less wooden.

[AllentownJake]

123. Not carrying his literature or getting involved

Plus his supporters locally are all the people in the Obama campaign minus one or two that I couldn't stand and wanted to punch when I was on it.

Governor's race and that is it for me.

He has my vote, he should be greatful I'm not voting 3rd party as a statement.

[freddie mertz]

124. I will never understand your die-hard enthusiasm for Arlen, Jake. nt.

[AllentownJake]

126. Not really for Arlen all that much

I really don't like Sestak.

I wanted Josh Shapiro. I'll deal with him as a Senator over Toomey.

[freddie mertz]

127. I still don't get it.

Sestak ran an excellent campaign against massive establishment resistance.

I admire him for that.

[AllentownJake]

128. I have some establishment ties

State party endorsed single payer. The establishment in pa not all bad. I'm generally out. I don't trust Joe to play nice in the sandbox. I don't mean over issues.

[freddie mertz]

130. Support for Arlen went all the way to the national "top."

Including pressure from the "anti-single-payer" White House and other WDC operations.

Arlen also ran a terrible campaign, barely worthy of the term.

[AllentownJake]

131. It is over

I wasn't involved in anyway other than posting my opinion.

The Governor's race has been and will be my focus.

The national focused dems, regardless of the Joe vs. Arlen debate aren't worthy of my time in the state.

[freddie mertz]

132. Well, I thought it was over too, Jake.

Till I read what you had to say about it.

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

133. I'm not focused federally

I've pretty much given up on DC. You know that.

I would have carried a flyer for Arlen out of respect...won't do that for Joe.

[freddie mertz]

135. Arlen kinda sucked, though, Jake.

Despite some good work, he also carried water for the GOP on too many occasions.

The Anita Hill thing was unforgivable, and after voting against him, it was hard for me to make the switch to "supporter."

Besides, now we actually have a pro-choice Dem Senate candidate in the state, which hasn't been seen in many a year (Casey, Klink, etc were anti/are anti-choice).

What is the story with Onorato by the way?

Another anti-choicer, or is that a rumor?

[AllentownJake]

136. He's good on economics and ambitous

Translation, the choice issue won't come up in democratic politics with the eastern side of the state.

I've met the man, I like him, and agree with him on the State Budget.

If there is a choice problem, it is because the Federal Supreme Court has decided against it.

The Federal Government as you know from previous discussions has little interest of me. I know where both parties stand...and it isn't far apart except for a few civil rights issues. Economically, I'm afraid, FDR and Kennedy are long dead.

[Sebastian Doyle]

112. I can't believe you're OK with Rahm Emanuel trying to keep actual Democrats out of the Senate

Fuck Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter, and fuck that useless tool Bennett who was appointed by the useless tool governor to replace the useless tool Salazar.

And fuck the DLC and all of their sickening interference in primaries.

[AllentownJake]

129. Arlen came out against the war

Arlen is something DLC or Conservative Republican is not it. Btw Joe was recruited by Rahm in 2006 and was a loyal clintonite. Some people are acting like this race was Dennis k vs bush.

[branders seine]

113. The White House, not Romanoff, leaked the issue.

Romanoff has repeatedly refused to discuss this until a WH source spoke aobut it a few days ago.

Only then did Romanoff issue a statement.

[craigmatic]

115. The big story about these guys being so public is that they're not afraid of Obama.

They'd never do this to LBJ. It's the president's own fault for not instilling fear into his own party if they cross him. You get the sense that they like him but don't respect him that much.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Synicus Maximus]

134. The problem as I see it was not that they discussed possible

positions. if it really got to that point, but the way the WH handled the information about it. If they had come out when the stories first broke and said something to the effect that it is common for party leaders to discuss possibilities with various candidates and there was no per pro quo involved that would have been the end of it. But to come up with "we will
issue a statement soon", makes it sound like there is something to hide.