Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Just Wondering If Anyone Noticed This In Gibbs Statement

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 » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:10 PM
Original message
Just Wondering If Anyone Noticed This In Gibbs Statement
Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.


Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington in America, and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, I saw it
The truth is that the whole screed was nothing we haven't argued around here for months. Now Gibbs wants to get into the whole "who's a real progressive" argument too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Gibbs is invisible until he pees in a cup and we have an independent lab check it out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just listened to the guy from The Hill who interviewed Gibbs (he was on Ed's
Edited on Tue Aug-10-10 03:40 PM by gateley
radio show). Although I'm sure Gibbs wishes he hadn't used those words, I get the sense they feel they HAVE worked hard to accomplish stuff and all they hear is criticism and anger, no gratitude. I'd feel kind of hurt too and would probably lash out in frustration.

IMO, much ado about nothing.

EDIT -- because I kept calling "Gibbs" "Gates"! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I beg yer pardon, Gibbsley
but I think ya got the name wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Man, I do that all the damn time! Read right over it and don't catch it.
I posted a long diatribe about Clinton's cat, "Boots" and finally somebody said, you could at least get the fucking name of the cat right since it's in the OP! Sorry, Socks. :blush:

Thanks for calling it to my attention -- and I love my new name! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The first headline I read about this business,
I had the 2 tangled up too. Anyway, Boots, Socks--Who Gibbs a shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. that's bullshit, but it was a nice try on his part. people paying attention know that
he unnecessarily gave up more than he needed to.

Did the stimulus have to have all kinds of tax breaks for businesses to pass when Obama had a supermajority in the senate?

Did he have to accept a health care reform bill without a public option to put pressure on the insurance companies to clean up their act or be exterminated, when he could have put pressure on the handful of blue dogs & DLCers blocking it?

Did he have to appoint some of the architects of deregulation and disastrous trade policies to run his economic team, or a treasury secretary who was a regulator asleep at the switch at best or complicit at worst with Wall Streets derivatives ponzi schemes?

Did he have to let the corrupt and cowards in his own party dilute financial reform legislation, the toughness of which will determine whether our economy is ever tanked again by a Wall Street pump and dump scam?

Did he have to appoint a union-busting, public school privatizing scammer as head of the Department of Education?

None of these things were forced on him, and most were done in spite the majority opinion of Democratic voters and even the majority of the general public.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. +10 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. +10 million
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Exactly. He aslo didn't have to support and continue so many
Bush policies, including ones he attacked while campaigning.

Decisions like that doesn't reflect any failure by the left to support him. It reflects decisions by him to abandon the left that elected him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
45. i only give you credit on the department of education. the rest
is bs. we never had a super majority, and probably never will not if you can't get even one repub to vote with you. dems are too spread out to ever think you can get all of them to fall in line. what is it called "herding cats"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. the president has more leverage herding the outlyers in his own party instead of
looking for Republican defectors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. how, what will or can he with hold from them to get them to fall in
line. and if he did and the bad party person went public with it, how do you think that would play in the press. I know deals are done all the time, but if the congress man, or senator in question doesn't think his following the president will play with the folks back home during election time, what can you do to make him fall in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. in the case of health care reform, blue dogs and DLCers voted against the wishes of the
folks back home and for their corporate owners.

You don't make something true by repeating it over and over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
53. Wow. That head spinning must hurt.
"Obama had a supermajority... blue dogs & DLCers blocking..."

Pick one, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
54. people keep saying supermajority. dems never had a super
majority, they had 60 people that might vote dem, but that wasn't a gurantee. now the repugs they have a supermajority because they are going to vote repug no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Whooops...
:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. The party would be in worse shape coming up to the mid-terms without the 'professional left.'
I would like Gibb to tell us exactly who he thinks are the 'professional' left. If he means Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz and various liberal radio personalities, he's dead wrong. Obama said he would need our help to accomplish his goals. He also needs our prodding. FDR told activists in his own party, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

This 'progressive' feels the Obama administration could have done more to lead on both health care and financial reform, and I expect Obama feels the same way. But, that's water over the dam. What he could do to please and excite the base is nominate the incomparable consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. ..and maybe keep his press secretary from publicly shitting on us. nt/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I think Gibbs probably understands he f*cked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. He probably does, but the "cat is out of the bag"...
Edited on Tue Aug-10-10 03:59 PM by whathehell
I think in Gibbs' mind, his only "mistake" was his exposing the true attitudes of this administration.

I'm a boomer who grew up in what is now called "the golden age of America -- when everyone did well".

For me, this was the final straw..I finally "get it" that I'll never see that America again, not in my lifetime. ;(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. you mean that those who thinks obama is just like bush isn't on drugs?
Those are the only people he was referring to in regards to that, atleast if i read it correctly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. I don't think you did read it correctly...As Michael Moore said last night
"The first word out of his mouth was 'Canadian Health care'"...which he equated with "getting rid of the Pentagon". Yeah, right. If Gibbs thinks that "Canadian Healthcare", which his boss has been heard to praise, is on the same page as "getting rid of the Pentagon", he's a flaming idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. for once i disagree with Moore, what exactly is wrong in this statement
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 04:16 PM by Bodhi BloodWave
"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," the press secretary said. "I mean, it's crazy."

"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon," he added. "That's not reality."

Both those are quite accurate in my eyes

The first part does as I commented in the first post on ONLY refers to those people saying Obama is like Bush(and I'd agree they likely need some testing since that equation IS quite separated from reality)

As for the second part, would you not agree that there is a fair number on even DU that would not be happy until the US has Canadian health care? Along the same lines there are those here who WILL not be happy until the pentagon has been removed since its just a waste of money.

The removal of the pentagon and the US getting the equivalent of Canadian health care is very slim(tho the health care have a slightly larger chance of happening) so saying its not really Reality would be accurate in context(Canadian health-care is likely another 2 or 3 democratic presidents away thus not realistic with how things are at this time)

The above healthcare improvement tho would likely require most progressives to keep fighting hard to get progressive and liberal politicians elected(at times with the white house opposing them since the white house i think will almost 'always' support the sitting candidates, in that regard i don't think the WH really looks or care if they are a liberal or conservative dem, they are the sitting senator or house member and thats why they get the support)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. As many here have pointed out, Obama IS like Bush in certain respects
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 05:06 PM by whathehell
I wouldn't disagree that there are a fair number on DU that wouldn't be happy until we have Canadian style health care..and why should they be?..Every other industrialized society has it, and Obama himself has said Single Payer was the best...My problem with Gibbs is that he imagines this to be so "radical" as to be unreal.

By the way, I notice that you're from Norway...What kind of healthcare do YOU have? :eyes:


I WOULD disagree that ANYONE here wants to "get rid of the Pentagon"...Get real. We're weary (with good reason) of wars "of choice" but everyone realizes that the Pentagon is needed right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. and a lot of those countries also have gun laws, and that is never
going to happen in the usa. well not without another civil war at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. A lot of those countries don't have a Constitutional amendment decreeing a "right to bear arms"
..I don't think the two are closely related.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. We wouldn't have the 0.4% who voted for Kucinich.
My god, how could we ever overcome that crushing burden...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
46. Those people attack the Democrats
Are you saying the nation is so indebted to these pundits that we have to do what they want? They have such an influence over a majority of the voters that if they say you're doing things wrong, you are? Geez, I don't want to live in a land where Keith Olberman decides everything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. of course. that's why I don't understand all the flipping out here.
unless we got ourselves some of them professionals posting here, whats the big deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. yep, I
wondered the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. Nope - they're too busy getting their hate on over the
perceived attack on Progressives. It's like lighting sawdust soaked in gasoline. Nuts.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. See, some will hear only what they want to hear, and twist it...
instead of listening and/or comprehending what was actually said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's called holding your god damned feet to the fire
keeping your eye on the goal, all that naive talk we were told to do. I just get sick of being called Loony liberal, and now by my own GOD DAMNED PARTY.

Fox/teabags/GOP calls us liberal loonies and the idiots arm themselves to the teeth to exterminate us...now we have those in our own party doing the same GOD DAMNED THING. (at least they havent armed themselves) I guess the better of two evils.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Yes. FDR to Dem activists, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
Hear, hear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. AMEN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. No, it's called burning his god damned feet. I really can't wait for 2012, that would be fun
Since there's no difference between Obama and Bush, i guess you'll be happy with the 2012-Bush, whoever it'll be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. I never said Obama and Bush were the same
the pandering to the right, and folding like a god damn glove at any fart in the wind Fox does. Pandering for the vote of ONE WOMAN, weakening what could have been his finest achievement.

I remember Obama's speeches when he said, "I can't do this alone, I need your help, hold my feet to the fire. Together YES WE CAN!" God Dammit I am holding up my end, WTF are they???

Instead I am called "LOONEY LIBERAL" by the right wing and my own god damned party. so what is the difference between the parties? I will vote, too many have fought and died just so I could vote, I will vote my gut, not party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Gibbs doesn't get to define "progressive" or "left"
Imo, he's being willfully ignorant if he asserts that people "who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama" aren't among those who are disappointed and vocal about it.

He has to have seen mail coming in to the White House from fervent supporters who are unhappy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. According to polls, the unhappy liberals are a very small minority.
Take that for what you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. And their strategy is to throw those votes away in hopes of attracting
defecting Republicans.

Only thing is, they are NOT going to get Republican votes.

If he really wants to lose ground, all he has to do is keep shitting on the base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. When 88% of his base says they are happy, you can't expect to be taken seriously...
...when you claim he is shitting on his base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Define "his base".
Then, back up your definition.

The base is NOT the total Democratic votes in an election. The base are those who drag the sorry-ass wishy-washy sometimes Independents to the polls to vote Democratic. The base are those who ALWAYS vote Democratic, who work and donate to the Democrats, and who just happen to think that FDR's second bill of rights should define our party.

If you were ever a Reagan Democrat - you are not the base.

If you are DLC - you are not the base.

If you backed Perot - you are not the base.

The base will never listen to a RW Republican and think "he's making sense".

The base should be counted on because they are the base. The base should not have to be wooed.

Obama's team is not playing to the base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. So you think the base is accounted for by 12% of self identified liberals then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #32
40. Talk positions, not labels.
This is an overwhelmingly LIBERAL country - if you poll people on their stands, without asking if they are 'liberal' or 'moderate' or 'conservative', the liberal positions have the clear majority.

The right has poisoned the label of 'liberal' so people disavow the label, even while supporting equal rights, government regulation of the workplace and the markets, brakes on unfettered capitalism, entrepreneurship, public schools, restraint of militarism - all the classic 'liberal' positions.

Most moderate independents are LIBERALS. Hell, more than a few republicans are liberals. And I would be surprised if any less than 75% of Democrats were liberals.

Even here, most the denizen of the Gungeon are liberals - they may deny it, and figure that because they own guns they CAN'T be liberals, and so call themselves 'moderate' or 'centrist', but line up a list of 25 policy questions and they will come down firmly on the liberal side - so self-identification is bullshit.

And, at the same time, even using YOUR definition, when elections turn on the votes of 5% of voters, having a solid core of 12% does determine the base - take that 12% of 'self-identified liberals', and another 12% of self-identified moderates who ALWAYS vote Democratic, and you have the app. 25% who are the base, without which Democrats CANNOT win.

So how is insulting 50% of the people who do the party's legwork a winning strategy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. Then I guess a lot of people here are "not to be taken seriously"..
Sorry..I disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. If we're meaningless to them then I have some decisions to make
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yeah, I'm always grateful when victory(pronounced half-assed mediocrity) is snatched
Edited on Tue Aug-10-10 04:22 PM by nosmokes
from the jaws of real reform.



edit:proud >grateful to comply w/ Gibbs' statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
25. So progressivism is determined by geography.
Holding the same set of values in two different places means you are...

What??

He wouldn't know a progressive if he tripped over one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
31. We are not the ones that live in the Beltway
Gibbs is on a par with Baghdad Bob, without the humour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
33. So nice of Gibbs to presume he speaks for progressives...
...since he aimed a repugnant attack ad at one of our most progressive Democrats back in 2004:

The ad slowly moved in on a Time Magazine cover featuring bin Laden, zooming in on a close-up of Osama's eyes, while saying that Howard Dean was an unqualified Democratic candidate because of his lack of military or foreign experience.

Tricia Enright, who was the spokeswoman for Howard Dean at the time, summed the ad up best, saying: "Whoever is behind this should crawl out from underneath their rock and have the courage to say who they are." But Robert Gibbs, who was the spokesman for the group, embraced the slime ad against Dean, and refused to say who had funded the ad. Now sure, you can say that Gibbs was just doing his job. But Gibbs wasn't just aligned with the group, he was in the leadership. The group took seed money from crooked former Senator Robert Torricelli to get off the ground, and then went out and raised over a million to run the ad. Gibbs was one of three people that made that ad happen.


http://mydd.com/2007/2/22/robert-gibbs-the-drag-on-obam...

No wonder Gibbs thought he could get away with his statement.

Hails and props to madfloridian for unearthing this inconvenient truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
36. fuck him
I'm not grateful for conservative policy thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
38. I'm outside of Washington, and I think that HCR rooted in the basic value
--that people with less money deserve worse health care is absolutely vile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
52. You mean like this person?
Let's put aside for a moment Gibb's adoption of a really nasty, and un-American, Sarah Palin talking point in order to smear the Democratic base (has it really come that?). (And heck, even Palin apologized for using that smear.) Let's look instead at the substance of the smear. Gibbs is now claiming, on behalf of the White House, that anyone who is upset with the way President Obama is handling his job clearly did not organize, campaign, or raise money for candidate Obama back in 2008.

Really? That's the latest White House response to Obama voters who are sincerely concerned about the direction this White House is taking on so many issues. To smear everyone and suggest that they didn't lift a finger to get the President elected? Seriously?

Joe and I are upset with Obama, and we, for example, raised nearly $43,000 for the man, According to the White House, our money now doesn't count. Great, would they like to give it back? I for one, would love the $1000 back that I personally donated to the Obama campaign. Joe gave even more. I suspect a lot of our readers wouldn't mind their contributions back too, since apparently they're not appreciated.

Then there's all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do - and we did it, gladly, and quietly - none of that counted either, apparently.

This interview with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is really quite remarkable. Not in its substance - President Obama's staff smears the Democratic base, and our issues, on a regular basis. No, what's remarkable is that a senior White House official has finally gone on the record in order to smear the Democratic base. That's unprecedented. It also puts to the rest the White House's prior defense, whenever a senior unnamed official went after the base, of claiming it was a rogue employee who didn't represent the President. Gibbs clearly does.

More: http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/gibbs-people-who-are...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
55. why would anyone pay attention to what he actually said?? they're too busy throwing a fit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
56. Gibbs channeling Sarah Palin n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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