You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: Well, I said if it's bullshit, not "if true" [View All]

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Well, I said if it's bullshit, not "if true"
And the very nature of political gossip-mongering (like this story) is that the monger doesn't much care, but the gossiper really needs to preserve his or her anonymity. My scenario is that someone in the administration was pushing the White House to get on the record in the Democratic primary behind Blanche Lincoln. It's indisputable that Lincoln was the White House's candidate in this race, and Halter was not.

Lincoln fails to secure the 50%+1 she needs to win the primary outright, and so yesterday's runoff happens. Polling shows the race is tight - and it was - and that same someone in the administration pushing the White House to endorse Lincoln is now shitting bricks. His or her credibility is on the line; the White House has already taken a black eye in Pennsylvania when their candidate (Specter) lost to the more progressive challenger (Sestak). It's entirely possible the same person is involved in both races, but even if it's not the same person, the Arkansas primary threatens another black eye for the White House. This could cost someone a job, which is more important than anything to political operatives.

Lincoln escapes the race, but barely. With a mixture of relief and triumphalism, our hero the operative can't resist crowing. Job safe, credibility maintained, and fuck you to the unions who made his or her life so miserable the past six weeks. Politico gets the gist of it, and runs the "anonymous White House official" story. Politico doesn't care about naming its source; its interest resides in driving a wedge between the White House and its natural ally, union and working people. It's up to the White House to scotch this story right away, and deny having said anything of the sort. But they haven't done that. The burning question is, "Why not"? The longer the story hangs out there, the worse relations are going to be between unions and the White House.

Unless . . . the quote is accurate, or the sentiment it expresses is a true reflection of administration resentment over what it sees as union meddling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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