Tag Archives: clinton disses democratic activists

Oh, why does the Democratic party need activists anyway?

**Update:  5:05 pm EST:  In a room spinning moment that ties the past couple of days up in a neat little bow, Chris Matthews just used the “activist” language on Hardball to describe the people who vote in caucuses.  Wow.** 

In a shocking moment of honesty and pure stupidity, Hillary Clinton strove to dismiss Barack Obama’s sweep of every single contest on the calendar this past weekend by explaining that caucuses are dominated by “activists.”  She further dimissed the primary in Louisiana by saying that it is dominated by “a very strong and very proud African-American electorate . . . .”  In other words, that won’t matter in the white states.

Whoa.  Is she serious?  Is she dissing grassroots political activists and energized African American voters all in one breath?  Are you kidding me?

Wait, it gets better.  She goes on to say, “my husband never did well in caucus states either.”  Oh, ok, that makes it better.  Since Bill didn’t do well in caucuses, no Democrat should ever do well in them.  We should just cede that ground now and tell all of the Democrats who live in caucus states that they don’t matter one whit.  Here’s the press release from the DNC: 

Attention all Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington State, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico, and Puerto Rico:  We have decided that since you hold caucuses and, therefore, are dominated by highly educated, highly informed, grassroots activist members of our party, we will no longer pay attention to you nor count your combined 523 delegates. 

But Hillary didn’t stop there, no she didn’t.  She goes on to say, speaking of the November general election, “It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska . . . .”  Really?  Again, does that mean that the Democrats in those states should not have their voices heard?  Conservative calculations show that, at minimum, 86,836 Democrats participated in just those four caucuses.  Is Hillary Clinton actually prepared to tell almost 87 thousand Democrats that they don’t matter?  That it is impossible for them, as grassroots activists, to capture their states for the Democrats in November?  I dare her.

Getting back to the energized black folk comment:  it appears that she’s joined Pat Buchanan’s team for a day and they’ve bought stock in some lighter fluid company (see Rolling my eyes at Pat Buchanan).  To be fair, she did try to eat her words almost as quickly as they came out by adding that she “totally respect(s) and understand(s)” … what?  Why they voted for Obama?  I’ll give you the whole quote because I’m just that kind of girl:

“These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.”

Oh, maybe she’s saying she totally respects and understands the African-American electorate.  Doubtful.  Because if she did, I suspect she wouldn’t have made such a boneheaded statement.  Just a hunch.

Please, oh-Lord-of-politics, don’t give me more stupidity to blog on today.  These people are wearing me out. 


Filed under Uncategorized