Skip to main content

This is from a party insider, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. I trust the source, and it's a source with high-level access, but feel free to take with the requisite grain of salt.
Now comes our intrepid Donna Brazile, with her love poem for Howard Dean. She's cookin' with heat, that's for sure. But as usual, Donna's fry pan contains more sizzle than steak.

Remember that big controversy during 2003 about the firing of all those African American workers at the DNC? They weren't fired, and they were not let go because of their race. Their jobs were non-essential during the down period after any election. (Parties have to scale back during the early part of the cycle to save resources for the late stages of the campaign, and that's what we were trying to do.)

But Donna rallied to save their jobs, protesting publicly and embarrassing the Chairman. She won't tell you that some untouchable staffers have so much time on their hands they are selling products for their home businesses from their desks. (Imagine if donors saw that shit happening inside the building they just paid for?) And before you even go there, this is not a black-white thing. It's a can't-afford-people-with-political-godmothers-to-sap-our-resources thing, whatever their race.

Donna is to the party what Jeese, her mentor, is to the business community. She knows she can exact whatever she wants. What do we get in exchange? Is she spending a lot of time doing micro-analyses of the turnout and performance of minority districts? Is she developing messages to communicate to the emerging black middle class, many of whom were born after the civil rights movement and are increasingly receptive to Republican messages? Aside from the chuckles she gets at public events from her practiced good-ole-girl adages, she's not pushing forward the discussion, not offering solutions, not innovating. She's not even that good at taking Bay Buchanan or Jonah Goldberg to the woodshed when she's on CNN.

Speaking of Mr. Jackson, for years now he has repeated in his speeches that there are hundreds of thousands of African Americans who, if they turned out in states with large black populations, would make it impossible for Republicans to have a majority in Congress. (Or at least the Senate, where they can't be gerrymandered.) He's right. But ask yourself: Is Donna working to fix this problem? She's the highest-ranking black campaign manager in American history, but frankly, she can't deliver a pizza. She hurts the party and, therefore, isn't doing much good for the black community she derives her political power from. She's also one of the few Democrats who chats periodically with Karl Rove. Here's an familiar aphorism for you, Donna: That dog won't hunt.

Don't be fooled by her love letters, Dr. Dean. This is Donna's way of saying she plans to be on the payroll if you win, now that she can read the writing on the political wall (her one great skill). If you win, you should work hard to figure out ways to be inclusive, encourage black turnout, and continue some of the DNC's ambitious efforts to raise money from younger, upscale African Americans. The party is guilty of turning to blacks only when it comes time to vote, and you can help end that practice.

But the first "reform" action you ought to take is to show Donna the door. Her 'Sister Soulja' moment is long overdue.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:19 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Dean and diversity (none)
    Dean has seen the need for being more inclusive, through his campaign and through DFA.

    He has asked the current membership to seek more diversity within the meetup communities.

    He's seen this well ahead of the DNC chair race.

    Proud member of the White House google-bomb project.
    Be proud. YOU'RE A LIBERAL.

    by changingamerica on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:21:55 PM PST

  •  Sad (4.00)
    I'm sad to read this.

    I have no idea if it's true.

    Just seems wierd and ... unseemly.

    After The Rapture, we get all of their stuff.

    by bink on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:22:07 PM PST

    •  Mistake to post this on the front page (4.00)
      This is pure heresay, and I think it's beneath you, Kos, to give this blind quote such prominence.
      •  Fair point (none)
        Blind quote is kinda creepy.

        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

        by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:33:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anonymous Attack (4.00)
          Whoever is throwing around terms like "Sister Soujah" to describe Donna Brazile ought to put their name on their efforts.  An anonymous, lengthy, snide attack on Brazile should not be a headline on this site.  I know, Kos, it's your site, but you're allowing someone the luxury of an inflammatory posting with no accountability.
          •  Especially (4.00)
            when we are under attack from the so-called 'civil rights' party, the GOPT... what a wonderful way to claim we are out of touch with the base... calling Donna 'Sister Souljah' and claiming she has no pull or desire to help her brothers and sisters, while the thugs just nominated an African American and Hispanic to high offices.

            This is a bad post.

            Jaded Reality... I've had enough spin for today thanks...

            by spiderleaf on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:49:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well said. (4.00)
            Nothing annoys me more than reading "anynomous quotes from Democratic insiders" in the New York Times and Washington Post -- usually nasty things party insiders wouldn't want attached to their names.  Plenty of those types of quotes were aimed at Kerry this year whenever the campaign hit a rut.  The party leaks like a sieve.  How is this any better?

            I love Kos; I think he has great taste and the front page is the best source of news on the net.  This is inappropriate IMO.

            The beginning of empire is the end of commonwealth -- Leon Fuerth

            by tlaura on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:49:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  100% right (none)
              you hit the nail right on the head. I can't stand reading blind quotes from Democrats in-fighting. The GOoPers never fight in the papers like we do. Not a big fan of the blind source Kos. Sorry.

              The Kohlman Observer: If you don't know you better ask somebody...or go to The Kohlman Observer

              by kohlmanobserver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:25:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (none)
                This strikes me as a small-minded, personal-score-settling rant.  I have little interest in reading this kind of stuff.

                Moreover, I'm appalled at how the author so nonchalantly adopts the phony Bill O'Reilly meme of Jesse Jackson as a corporate shakedown artist.

                Fight the American Taliban

                by pontificator on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:21:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  no, Jesse pretty much sucks (none)
                  Have you ever seen Jesse's magazine? Very high quality paid for with advertising from companies he's targeted for protests and boycotts.

                  I stuck my neck out to report racism in Navy Recruiting Command. I went to Operation PUSH and it was a waste of time. They wanted me to give money and never made an effort to understand the case.

                  Jackson is self-serving and not that great an organizer.

                  Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                  by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:02:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's make sure we differentiate between Jesses (none)
                    I have my problems with Jesse Sr., but I was a teenager in Iowa in 1988 and he was the only presidential candidate that really seemed to understand the toll of the farm crisis. Consequently he did much better in that caucus than most expected him to do.  He's become a bit of a media whore, but I'll take Jesse Jackson over right wing whores like Ann Coulter.
                    Jesse Jr., however, is a bright, thoughtful, articulate and progressive Congressman.  He's established his own network and has left most of the grandstanding and petty vindictiveness of Sr.'s machine behind.
                    I'm eagerly anticipating his mayoral bid.

                    The verdict on Gov. Blagojevich is still out.  If Mike Madigan, Rich Daley AND Dick Mell are angry with him, then he is obviously tipping some sacred cows.  I think he's a reformer who may actually change the corrupt culture of Illinois politics.  Plus he just lobbied for and signed our long overdue gay rights bill.  Give the guy a chance.

                    •  I loved Jesse Jr's recent speech (none)
                      I think it was the vote contest in Congress that I'm thinking of.

                      But it was Jesse and I agree with you about him.

                      I'm keeping my eye on him.

                    •  Rod mostly show, little go (none)
                      Just because G-Rod is pissing people off doesn't mean he's doing anything useful.

                      The Tribune ran an article today about people making six figure donations getting eight figure contracts.

                      Rod's not much of a reformer. He's a consistent opportunist about positioning himself so he looks like he's doing stuff to the casual observer while getting little of substance done.

                      Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:01:27 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Is what was said ... (none)
                ... accurate or not?  If it's accurate, it doesn't matter who said it.

                If it's not accureate, well, it doen't matter who said it, either.

                Judge the issue by the merits, and don't get offended where offense should not be taken.

                •  Anonymity is the Issue (4.00)
                  It makes substantiation that much more difficult. So much of the post is subjective anyway. It may ALL be true for all I know but I'm not going to give it any credence until its author steps forward. The "Sister Soulja" comment set off bells for me. Attacking Sister Soulja was Bill Clinton's way of proving that he wasn't beholden to Black folks -- it was a sleazy racist media stunt. Suggesting that Brzile should be targeted for that sort of treatment is contemptible EVEN if everything else in the post were true.

                  "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." -- Amilcar Cabral

                  by Christopher Day on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:25:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (none)
                you hit the nail right on the head. I can't stand reading blind quotes from Democrats in-fighting. The GOoPers never fight in the papers like we do.

                I hate it too...

                Which is why I really don't like Donna Brazile.  I've seen her on TV bashing other Democrats more times than I can count.

                My gut sense is that she blows with the wind.  Right now she sees the wind blowing toward Dean, so she's singing a pro-Dean tune.  But I see her as a fairly opportunistic member of the Dem establishment, not a real reformer.  (Kind of like Kerry, to be honest.)

                She is a Dem, so I'll give her a little leeway out of partisan loyalty.  Also, I don't know how true the story of the downsized black staffers in 2003 is.  But independent of this allegation, I have reasons for not being a fan of Donna.  

                •  Donna (none)
                  I have to agree with this assessment.  I have seen her on talk shows and she never defended the
                  democractic positions, just apologized.

                  I really didn't see anything racial about the story.

                  •  Sister Soulja (none)
                    thats whats racial about the story and it tells you all you need to know about this post. This strikes me as a deliberately provocative piece intended to inflame racial antagonisms within the party.

                    None of which is to suggest that Brazile is beyond criticism.

                    "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." -- Amilcar Cabral

                    by Christopher Day on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:29:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Donna Plays The Race Card (none)
                    It's called not being good at what you do, and hi-jacking the Party into giving you and those you designate....any number of goodies.  Now, Donna is lousy on TV, but so are other Dem talking heads,... and hopefully Dean will establish a training ground for developing exciting and relevant talent. She has done lotsa work, but isn't the Star she'd like to be.  Donna......move over. We pay your way, and you aren't doing a good enough job. GOP squakers roll you over all the time. You should sit in on Lakoff, and  learn some word framing and debate tactics, among other things. We should run it lean like the GOP, and get results instead of K St hacks.
          •  You're right (none)
            I waqs wrong in my first take.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:00:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sister Souljah? (none)
            I agree about blind quotes, though journalists use them all the time.  But the quote wasn't comparing Brazille with Sister Souljah (which would be patently unfair to Sister Souljah).  What the quote meant in referring to a Sister Souljah moment, was having Brazille called out in public on her shit, which is what Bill Clinton did about Sister Souljah at an NAACP meeting(and which showed what an opportunistic asshole he was).  In other words the quote was saying Brazille should be called out in public on what a lazy, unfocused, ineffective, gravy  train riding opportunist she is.  It's too bad nobody's brave enough to say that for attribution.  Let her get a job with CNN or MSGOP -- maybe Tweety will hire her -- but please keep her away from any money I contribute.

            This aggression will not stand, man

            by kaleidescope on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:23:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  To me it smells like (none)
              Reagan's "Welfare Queen" remark.
              •  That is what I said (none)
                Some Black woman and undeserving staff sponging off of the donors
              •  Huh? (4.00)
                Have you watched her sorry ass on TV lately?  She's usually unprepared, off message, and gets rolled by the conservative hosts and their conservative guests.  I can't think of a worse representative of the Democratic Party.  I'm sorry, but it isn't just white people who are like this and it's racist of you to imply that it's only white people who are lazy unprepared and unqualified.  Brazile is the epitomy of an internally retired establishment coaster and everyone like her -- be they black, white, yellow or red should get booted from paying jobs with the party.

                This aggression will not stand, man

                by kaleidescope on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:36:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So call her a (4.00)
                  "ROAD" Warrior. "Retired on Active Duty".

                  You weren't part of the civil rights movement, you didn't have to live in fear of getting lynched, you didn'thave to sit at the back of the bus and get called "nigga" for a hundred and fifty years, so yeah, whoever wrote this is being insensitive, and there are far less polarizing terms that say the exact same thing without tapping into the dirty river of our racial history, so HUH? right back at ya.

      •  Kos, are you F***-ing nuts? (none)
        You are 100% right in your content, but your timing? Please explain. And why invoke Dean in this spat, right here, right now?

        I mean can't we wait to win, and then move her out with some dignity? fwiw.

        Anti-War, Anti-Joe! "If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with Sean Hanntiy, well, he deserves to be primaried..."

        by DeanFan84 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:48:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  i don't get it (none)
        i hate blind quotes, i hate them in the NY Times and I hate them here. This reminds me of the writer from Raw Story who posted here, a diary i think, with all sorts of blind stuff regarding all the things "we" on the outside had no idea about that happaned to the Kerry campaign or something. While I trust Kos' judgement, i would hope he would be careful in who he trusts.

        The Kohlman Observer: If you don't know you better ask somebody...or go to The Kohlman Observer

        by kohlmanobserver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:09:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  why is it an anonymous statement? (none)
        Why do you think the person made her/his statements anonymously?

        Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

        by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:31:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Most Unworthy (none)
        This is just an annonymous source making an ad hominem attack that gives insufficient  detail to allow an independent assessment of whether there's even any basis for the attack. Donna Brazile may not have been a Dean fan, but she has a long history of service to the Democratic party. It looks like some of Kos' posts are just vehicles for evening the score with those he's tangled with in the past.
    •  yeaaah (3.91)
      continue some of the DNC's ambitious efforts to raise money from younger, upscale African Americans

      Weird tone to the piece.  I don't like it.  I'm no fan of Donna Brazile, but this is creepy -- with the exception of the above quote, though, I can't figure out what it is I dislike.  (That quote, however, speaks for itself.)

    •  Conflicted (3.91)
      I thought the Brazile letter was very strange, and I was put off by it.  I also think if these claims are true, it's worthwhile to bring them out in the open.  But without putting a name to it, or even using it to support some other "evidence" to support some of the claims leveled against her, it seems to me that this personal attack on Donna Brazile probably shouldn't be on the front page unless there's a name attached to the accuser or proof to back up the accusations.  

      I don't post under my real name (which, if you are dying to know, is Thomas Pynchon).  As a result, I probably write a little more candidly on some subjects, as I have a bit of "cover" to let my thoughts go.  But at the same time, I also try not to attack anyone based on any "inside" knowledge.  If I'm going to say something negative about somebody, especially a fellow Democrat, it's going to be my opinion and stated as such, or it's going to be based on some public source I can provide the readers.  This attack makes some very specific accusations, and makes conclusions based on those accusations.  Seems to be there should be some accountability for anyone leveling such inflamatory accusations, even if they are true.  But I don't see who's accountable for the accusations if they're false and unfair.  

      •  Exactly (4.00)
        At least Donna had the balls to write her own name to her letter.

        This letter not only attacks Donna, but it attack Jackson and every untouchable Balck person who works in the DNC.

        Shameful to promote such blatantly racist shit.

        •  I Don't Agree That It's Blatantly... (4.00)
          ...racist shit, but there's enough racially-charged stuff in there that even if it didn't personally attack Brazile that it should probably require an actual name to be posted.

          The writer makes an effort to say that it's not racially-based; in fact, he or she claims that it's Brazile who plays the "race card," which if true is dispicable.  But while I don't see this in the terms you do, I also don't think we have to say it's racist to question whether it's right to put it on the front page of DKos.  Even if it were an attack on the whitest man in America based upon "insider knowledge," it should still have a name so there's some degree of accountability.

          This person was given power.  But as Billy Bragg says, "no power without accountability."

          •  I've changed my mind (none)
            It's pretty racist.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:59:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is PURE racism (none)
              UNTOUCHABLES what the fuck is this???
              •  You're right (4.00)
                I was wrong.

                "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:10:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The letter writer is saying... (none)
                ...that certain people can't be fired because they are black, even though they are useless and incompetent and doing other work on the party's time.

                That's not racist, if true.  If false, it is quite racist.

                Basically, this is an attack on racial quotas, which, in itself, is not racist.

                •  well, except (none)
                  even if it's true... then there is this American principle of getting to face your accuser...

                  there is definately a racial undertone to the whole thing... but there is also a Reform Democrat undertone.

                  It would be a better accusatioin with a name attached... but I think if you try to kick Donna out it's going to include having to deal with race issues and accusations.

            •  Blantanly? (none)
              Maybe, but frankly, it's written with such ambiguous language, I'm really not sure it's blatantly racist.  Maybe it's racist, maybe just clumsy and stupid on the racial overtones.  

              But either way, questionable enough on the unsourced accusations even if race didn't figure in at all.

              •  Ok (none)
                It's racist in tone at the least.  I wish kos hadn't posted it. The attacks are sortof ok, though the blind quote stuff isn't good.

                But the race tones - ugh.  I can't believe i missed it the first time.

                "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:10:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Still missing it (none)
                  Armando, I don't see it.  Is it racist in tone because the writer is just talking about black people?  I'm willing to be schooled, here.  I'm honestly not seeing what you're seeing.

                  Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

                  by cerebrocrat on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:37:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I missed it at first (4.00)
                    Let me tell you what got me on second look:

                    Donna is to the party what Jeese, her mentor, is to the business community. She knows she can exact whatever she wants.

                    This implicit charge of racial extortion against Jackson and Brazile is racist to my mind.

                    Her 'Sister Soulja' moment is long overdue.

                    This is simply a racial shot.  There is no other reading.

                    You couple these bookends with the otherwise neutral seeming comments in the middle and a good deal of racial resentment seems present.  I think the language may not reflect someone who is racist, but clearly the sensitivity is palpable.

                    "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                    by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:50:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sistah (none)
                      "This is simply a racial shot.  There is no other reading."

                      I agree it's "racial." Can you flesh out how it's "racist"?

                      •  Here's the thing (none)
                        Racist is maybe too strong a word, not knowing the person.  That said, you accept that it is racial and given who he was critiquing- a critique that very well  may have merit, I'm no fan of Brazile- he really needed to avoid this language.

                        Frankly, instead of discussing his substance, we are talking about his poor choice of words.  Race has been and will be, rightly in my view, a sensitive subject.

                        The language was inappropriate and detracts from the points made.

                        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                        by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:11:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  just a blog (none)
                          I'm still of the "just a blog" position on the "kos shouldn't have posted it"... but it is interesting to note we are not talking about Brazile's role... so it's pretty clear that for the commenter community at least the message did not get through.

                          It was obscured by the racial tones, the dirty laundry, the unnamed source circular firing squad...

                          •  This is personal score settling at its worst (4.00)
                            The author is probably angling for some that Brazile could possibly be up for.  

                            I wish it hadn't been posted.  Donna Brazile kicked ass running Gore's campaign.  I'm frankly embarrassed that such a unverifiable piece of garbage would get posted here.

                            Fight the American Taliban

                            by pontificator on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:29:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't think she did that well (none)
                            but I'm probably biased by the fact that he/she lost.

                            what did you think she did well for Gore?

                          •  asdf (none)
                            I probably should have written: "worked her ass off."  I'm not qualified to say whether she actually did a good job or not, although Gore's public statements indicate that he was quite pleased with her.

                            Fight the American Taliban

                            by pontificator on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:42:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Disagree. (4.00)
                          I apologize for being late to the party...again.  But as  black woman, I think the writer makes valid points.  The tone is harsh and blunt, but it's long past time we've started speaking honestly about people, whatever their race.  Rev. Jackson (I wish the writer had been more respectful and not referred to him as "Jesse") has done a lot of good.  At this point, however, he's become a hustler (ask anyone on Wall Street about his annual forays.)  This is not to disparage his contributions, but let's be real:  Operation PUSH has done pretty well over the years, as charities go.  As for Brazile, I cringe whenever I see her on TV because she's simply an IDIOT.  It's not racist to point this out; nor is it racist to acknowledge that she's where she is likely because of her race.

                          Sorry, but I get really offended when folks like Brazile accuse others of playing the race card when they've been doing it for th entire careers, and I have no problem catching them out on it.

                          "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

                          by Passing Shot on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:30:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  BUNK ! (none)
                            It is racist read the article I just posted below.

                            They selected 10 to fire and they were ALL BLACK.

                            In less than ten year the Black staff of the DNC has dwindled from 50% to barely 12%.

                          •  What % should it be? (none)
                            I think 12% is about the proportion of African-Americans in the general population. Since they make up a larger portion of Democratic voters, is 20% appropriate? 25%?

                            If we're going to make an issue of percentages, we should have a reasoned idea of what's fair.

                            the spirit is restored by wounding

                            by jd in nyc on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:47:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Forget it (4.00)
                            This is why Blacks are turning away from the Democratic party ...and with good reason. You can analyze and rationalize this racist shit this all you want I give up.
                          •  Good statistic (4.00)
                            I wonder how many lazy, incompetent white staffers are at the DNC, working on their night jobs from their day job desks? More than one I bet. But no one ever says, "Oh, well they only get to keep their jobs because they're WHITE." Even though that is the truth! Don't front - white people got their own affirmative action, they just keep quiet about it. How many unqualified, incompetent, downright stupid white people do I have to run into in the course of doing business before I file a suit for discrimination? And the best part is, lots of white folks actually get PROMOTED for being ineffectual! Just to get them alone in their little corner office and out of the sphere of influence. So I don't want to hear about how wrong it is to keep unqualified black people on the job until we start talking about EVERYONE who is unqualified. I did donate money to the DNC and am all for rooting out waste of all complexions. Until then, more power to the incompetent black folks who can keep their jobs using the same hustle as their white counterparts.

                            Pardon me (for speaking the truth from my perspective and that of others)...just an angry black chick blowing off some steam. Some of my best friends are white - for real! While rightly debatable in substance, in tone that post was insensitive and should never have been published without attribution. Whoever did it is a hater.

                            Fight terrorists wherever they be found/Well why you not bombin Tim McVeigh's hometown?? - Michael Franti

                            by missreporter on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:16:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Brazile is an Idiot (none)
                            Nothing wrong with that comment.

                            The ones I highlight are the problems for me.

                            These hang over the whole letter.

                            Shame really, because Brazile's competnce is worth discussing - the letterwriter shot himself in the foot with his inappropriate words.

                            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:39:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Sister Soulja (4.00)
                        was attacked because Clinton needed to publicly attack a Black person to prove his loyalty to the great white race. Suggesting that sort of treatment for another Black woman is straight up racist. THis isn't complicated.

                        "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." -- Amilcar Cabral

                        by Christopher Day on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:38:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  how is the SS comment racist? (none)
                      As a relative newbie, what I've read about Sister Soulja and Clinton's comment turned "Sister Soulja moment" into a phrase meaning attacking a previously accepted person in a group.  It has no racial overtones.  SS being black is now secondary to the phrase.  At least that is how I read it.  Perhaps others who followed politics up till 2000 (when I started waking up) have a different recollection.

                      For example, I can't find the sources, but I have read on TNR's campaign blogs wondering when candidate X would have a "Sister Soulja moment" during a particular debate to shore up centrist voters.

                      •  It was about (none)
                        attacking Blacks to keep them in their place.

                        Clinton did it in a speech were he bascially gave Black Dems what they asked for but to look tough in front of Republicans and Conservative Democrats he threw in this winger.

                        •  Clinton said this: (none)
                          "You had a rap singer here last night named Sister Soulja. I defend her right to express herself through music, but her comments before and after Los Angeles were filled with a kind of hatred that you do not honor today and tonight. Just listen to this, what she said. She told the Washington Post about a month ago, and I quote, 'if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?' Last year she said, 'you can't call me or any black person anywhere in the world racist. We don't have the power to do to white people what white people have done to us. And even if we did, we don't have that lowdown, dirty nature. If there are any good white people, I haven't met them.'"

                          How is that "keeping black people in their place"?  She said a biggoted comment, and Clinton condemned her for it.

                          •  Precisely why (none)
                            it should not have been used here.  Brazile is no Sistah Souljah - it was very insensitive.

                            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:14:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  read my previous comment (none)
                            In the pundit circles I've read, the term "sister soulja" simply refers to someone bucking a trend.  It has trancended soulja herself.
                          •  No it hasn't (none)
                            when used on a black person.  Sorry, that remains the context.  

                            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:30:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  black people don't count? (none)
                            kinda weird that a comment from "the first black president" (stupid term, that one) can't be applied to a person of the race it was originally intended for.
                          •  Well (none)
                            call it weird if you like.  It is.

                            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:43:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  misquote (none)
                            What I've read about this thing is that he misquoted her anyway.  When she said that, she was describing the state of mind of someone else who felt that way.  She wasn't even advocating it (shooting white people) as a solution.

                            Anyway, that's kind of a third side of the issue.  There was the point Clinton was making (a good point), who he used to make it (SS didn't deserve it), and the political motivations Clinton intended (probably just a straight talk conversation - remember him telling union workers that their jobs wouldn't come back?), and the political motivations ascribed to it (a racist "put them in their place" kind of pandering).

                            Anyway, that's how I've always looked at it.  I thought Clinton was unfair about it, but not racist.

                      •  Cuz she was black (4.00)
                        and so is Brazile.  It is sometimes hard to accept, but race remains the central issue of our country.  The words used when speaking of race require special care.

                        In a critique of Brazile, which may have merit, the writer needs choose his words carefully.  Look what has happened here - much discussion of language, little of substance.

                        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                        by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:13:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  why lack of discussion of substance? (none)
                          Is there a lack of discussion of substance because liberals refuse to discuss the substance?

                          Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                          by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:30:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Because the language is a distraction Carl (none)
                            You may have forgotten this - but race remains an issue in this country.

                            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:37:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  context matters (none)
                            Yes, race is an issue.

                            But for powerful Blacks--and DB is a powerful Black--it's quite different than people in the PJs or trying to fight a flawed conviction in the criminal justice system.

                            If DB is using her Blackness to keep her peeps on payroll inappropriately it's an issue.

                            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:42:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And if were so important an issue to this person (4.00)
                            They should have had the guts to sign what they say, and the class to make it about Ms. Brazile's competence or lack thereof.

                            Instead, he used racial shortcuts-insulting Rev. Jackson and misusing Sister Souljah yet again to make a political point.

                            This kind of punter we do NOT need.

                            Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson

                            by boadicea on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:32:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong (4.00)
                            The language is NOT a distraction. Its central to the content of this post. This is a deliberately racially loaded post intend to inflame racial tensions within the Democratic Party. It isn't accidental. If the writer was really concerned about croneyism on Brazil's part they wouldn't have included any of the racially charged crap. Stop giving this provocateur (what we call trolls in meatworld) credit they don't deserve. They don't need tips on sensitivity, they need a boot in the ass.

                            "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." -- Amilcar Cabral

                            by Christopher Day on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:50:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Interesting point (none)
                            could be.

                            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:56:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you may have a point (none)
                            or well, you do have a point.

                            food for thought.

                        •  but what if it needs saying? (none)
                          Clearly the author believes that Donna is using blackness as a cudgel to keep herself in power.  He felt he needed to speak it.  Why shouldn't he?

                          Probably because it would have sparked the conversation we're having here.  We aren't talking about Donna's effectiveness, we're debating racism.

                          I can see why this individual chose to remain anonymous.  He/she probably wouldn't have any friends left over after this kind of statement.  But, if true, really needed to be said.

                          •  If it's timportant to raise the issue (4.00)
                            It's  important enough to put your name on.

                            Frankly, I found Ms. Brazile's open letter manipulative and theatrical.

                            I've not been impressed by her performance as a spokesperson, and I suspect she is one of the people who is against the reform moves that will dilute her power and influence.  That letter was public notice she won't go quietly.

                            That said, I don't care if she has a screaming fit as she's thrown out the door with her favorite potted plant right after her.

                            This self-appointed reform "Sherriff", the anonymous source, should be thrown right along side her. This is petty, self-serving bullshit. Any merit to the argument is gutted completely by the racist language and the anonymity.

                            Got any toes left at this point in your career, Sheriff  Mouse? Guess now you're starting on others' feet.

                            A few weeks ago, Atrios post an interesting entry titled You link it, you own it (hopefully that link to the archives works.) Same thing holds when you post something anonymously sourced.

                            Kos, just a couple of days ago crowed  "They Finally Fear Us". That arrogance and the heady exuburance of today's developments gave that little Mouse just the opportunity to settle a score, maybe two.

                            Someone used the power of this blog, and all of us, to settle a score with Ms. Brazile. If it paid off, a la Roemer, peachy. And if it backfired, and took some steam off the blog engines, that was probably good, too.

                            Kos, I think you've been played here.  And it's a game for fools.

                            Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson

                            by boadicea on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:29:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well said (none)
                            I'm not convinced on the "racist" overtones, but it is self-serving.  Enough to earn from me the contempt of the anonymous source.

                            I think the good ol' days of kos are done, this site is now rife with democratic operatives, and its allegiances are much more murky.  Let's hope kos is up to the task of staying above it all.  Or at least hope the stains will come out in the wash.

                          •  I appreciate your answer. (none)
                            I think the reference to Jesse Jackson and to Sister Souljah remove any question of whether it was racist in my mind.

                            If the legitimate points had been made without those comments, they would have been much stronger.

                            If this was a reform Mousie, he's a stoopid one.

                            Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson

                            by boadicea on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:12:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm just not buyin (none)
                      I think it can be construed as racist, depending on author's history. The problem is that it tackles legit issues, for race and influence do deserve to be discussed, just like anything. If we were talkin about Hoffa or somebody would it be so palpably offensive to be anti-labor? Everything would be a lot more clear if the author was known, and thus providing some context. But as to a blantantly racist charge, I think that still needs some proving.
                    •  Right on Sistah Soulja (none)
                      but I beg to differ on the comparison to Jesse Jackson.  Jackson does NOT get all he wants from the business community, by any stretch.  For a time though, Jackson's group was trying to address some of the complaints businesses have about achieving diversity -- qualified candidates.  Yes, we can argue about what makes qualified, but my own experience is that businesses operating at a certain level do want diverse workforces for serious business reasons.

                      That said, I don't see this missive as racist til you get to the end, and even then I am not much concerned with it.

                      This missive (altho anonymously sourced) flays abit of dying wood within the party.  Donna Brazile might have her skills, but they have not been on display for the past election cycle and she needs to be more motivated to provide real leadership in some areas or shown the door.

                      Opinions can be argued with. A conviction is best shot. -- T.E. Lawrence

                      by cassandra m on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:08:46 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Except (none)

                      his implicit charge of racial extortion against Jackson and Brazile is racist to my mind.

                      Except if it was true.

                    •  question (none)
                      is it less racist if the writer is black? aren't we assuming here that the writer is white? what if the writer isn't white? and what if its not a man either? more reasons why i hate blind quotes.

                      The Kohlman Observer: If you don't know you better ask somebody...or go to The Kohlman Observer

                      by kohlmanobserver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:49:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  It's disgusting (none)
              It reeks of racism.  Who is this jerk?  

              Absolute executive power absolutely tortures.

              by caliberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:50:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  can I laugh (none)
            that no one is defending Jesse?
      •  What? (none)
        I thought your real name was JD Salinger.

        This aggression will not stand, man

        by kaleidescope on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:42:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  i kinda like it (3.50)
      it's a little on the trashy side, but very entertaining, not to mention sad and probably true. good lord, bless your heart if you do make it to chair dr. dean. you are gonna need it. haha--forget hearding cats, you are gonna have to be an expert at hearding snakes!

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. --Yeats

      by JaneKnowles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:47:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You enjoy racist rhetoric? (none)
        •  kinda of a loaded question, isn't that? (none)
          i don't find it to be racist. unless you think just talking about black peopl as a group is somehow wrong.

          The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. --Yeats

          by JaneKnowles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:55:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Jane (none)
            Read it again. My first take was like yours, but I think dddemocrat is in the right here.  It is very tinged with race, even racism.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:59:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well i missed the shitstorm (none)
              i had to take my kid to his baseball tryouts and i was sitting there for TWO hours. but it did give me some time to think about the post. at this point, i have to say that i don't know enough of the facts to make a call on this post.

              i am pretty sure that A LOT of special interest groups siphon off undeserved money from the democratic party. i think this poster was just calling it like s/he saw it. and it be honest, i've read at least a half a dozen brazile quotes over the past six months, where i was like, good, girlfriend is finally getting some payback for talking endless trash about the democrats. what i don't like is that, as usually, black folks get served up first for ciriticism when they are likely getting the least in kickbacks.

              so anyway, i'm not convinced it's racist. it's about race, yes, but whatever, i'm not convinced. (lol--but i'll probably read through the rest of the comment here and change my mind by the time i get to the bottom of this diary.)

              The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. --Yeats

              by JaneKnowles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:55:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Hahaha (none)
    I love it. I hope she gets shoved out the door, and as Kerry was fond of saying, 'don't let the door hit you on the way out!'

    "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." -Malcolm X

    by PsiFighter37 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:22:08 PM PST

  •  Tactless... (none)
    Not racist but only identifies Blacks...
    •  Black (none)
      Donna Brazile. I don't know her or what she does, but she is being criticized specifically.

      I have no idea whether what is written is true or not, but I don't see the race tones that you do.  But, maybe I'm missing something.

      Or it could have to do with her gender. . . .

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:26:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  que? (4.00)
        If you win, you should work hard to figure out ways to be inclusive, encourage black turnout, and continue some of the DNC's ambitious efforts to raise money from younger, upscale African Americans. The party is guilty of turning to blacks only when it comes time to vote, and you can help end that practice. But the first "reform" action you ought to take is to show Donna the door. Her 'Sister Soulja' moment is long overdue.

        It's clear that the writer is aware of the racial overtones, and is seeking to play them down.  Unfortunately, he/she does so by a) advocating that we pursue affluent blacks (to the exclusion of working class blacks?), b) portraying said affluent blacks as a potential cash cow, and c) invoking ye olde "Sister Souljah" (misspelled!) incident, which rubs a lot of folks very much the wrong way.

        Again -- I'm cautious about really indicting the anonymous writer, but the piece makes me feel dirty.

        •  You're right (none)
          I think I was hasty.  Especially the Sistah Souljah bit.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:55:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Racial, Not Racist (none)
          Your pull quote isn't racist at all. Finding ways "to be inclusive, [and] encourage black turnout" surely isn't problematic. Raising money from "upscale African Americans" makes sense because "upscale" people have money to donate, and may be more susceptible to the pro-rich Republican economic program. Saying that Dems are "guilty of turning to blacks only when it comes time to vote" criticizes the Dems for not getting blacks involved enough. The only thing left is the Sistah Souljah moment comment, which signifies the author's belief that Donna should be snubbed like Sistah Souljah was.
           
      •  This is all about Black Democrats (4.00)
        • Brazille
        • Jackson
        • Black DNC workers

        What I wanna know is why was it only the Balcks that were fired??? That in itself is suspicous.

        Who ever this person is the manage to tap into racist codes

        • untouchable staffers What that fuck does this mean?

        • Donna is to the party what Jeese, her mentor, is to the business community. She knows she can exact whatever she wants. Oh, so they are what...highjackers.

        Who the fuck wrote this rascist shit Zell Miller?
        •  You're right (none)
          I was hastily wrong.  It is tinged with race. Even racism.  thanks for making me take a second look.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:56:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I must admit... (none)
            ...that I almost missed it too.  

            I would have missed it for sure if it wasn't for the fact that I've been living deep in the red for the past 3 years.  

            Racism is ALIVE and well here in the red.  I see it in my coworkers everyday.  

            Peace

        •  I do not know any more than you do, but . . . (3.50)
          I took this to imply that after the campaign, there were a lot of staffers of all ethnicities who were fired, because that is just what happens after a campaign.  However, Ms. Brazille fought to make sure that those who were African-American were kept on, resulting in them sitting around with nothing to do.  This is what the author had a problem with - as best as I can tell.

          Now, the fact that the DNC let paid laborers sit around when there is so much stuff to do is a problem in and of itself.  But their plan was to reduce operations, than firing staff makes sense.

          As for the other issues, they may just be racist slime.  Then again, it may also be anger at identity-politics.  

          It goes as follows.  

          Many white liberals, such as myself, just plain feel guilty for racism, oppression, and the fact that our racial group has caused much/most of the world`s pain and suffering for the past several hundred years.  As a result, we are very sensitive to people of color complaining that we are being racist.  You see, we know, intellectually, that racism is hard to identify, and since we are white and priveliged, we are just blind to it a lot of the time.  So we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

          This attitude is prone to exploitation by individuals/groups who use identity politics primarily as a way to amass organizational power.  Nobody likes being exploited, but then again, the guilt is still there.  So, it results in a no-win situation where you either let yourself be exploited so as to avoid any possibility of being charged as racist (which is what the anonymous letter-writer seems to feel was happening) or you feel guilty for oppressing people of color by refusing their requests.

          This can make aforementioned white liberals upset, or angry.  Especially since there doesn`t seem to be anything to do, any way out of this bind.

          I am not implying that all individuals of color or advocacy groups which work on the behalf of those individuals are guilty of exploitative behavior.  But in every group there are at least a few pushy and aggressive individuals -- especially, it seems, in politics.  Such individuals may deliberately or unwittingly tap into this dynamic when fighting for their cause.  That`s just the way things go.

          I don`t really see anything to do but suck it up, and pretend nothing is wrong.  After all, it is probably just all in my head.

          `Under my command, every mission is a suicide mission.`

          by Zwackus on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:08:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This letter targets Blacks ....PERIOD (3.50)
            He not only attacks Donna, but Jesse Jackson and all untouchable Black DNC staff.

            I am surprised he did not haul off and call Donna a Welfare Queen although he came close by saying that she and other Black are getting a free ride [she plans to be on the payroll] at the expense of white donors [DNC's ambitious efforts to raise money from younger, upscale African Americans] because Blacks haven't paid up yet.

            •  Maybe So (none)
              Given who I am, I cannot really trust my own intuitions on such matters anyway, so I should probably just shut up.

              `Under my command, every mission is a suicide mission.`

              by Zwackus on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:19:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  don't discount yourself (none)
                intuition is one of the most important analytical qualities we have as humans.  Don't let someone else make a judgement as to what is racist and what isn't.  Take input from many sources, of course, but decide for yourself.
                •  That is the problem (none)
                  If, as so many argue, racism is truly embedded deep in the mind of every white person, than my intuitions on any topic dealing with race are going to be inherently racist.  I can feel bad about it, but I cannot DO anything about it except discount my intuition, assuming that it will be inherently racist.

                  Thus, the only thing I can really do to avoid the negative consequences of my inherently racist thoughts is to deal only with other white people, and defer all judgement on issues relating to any individuals of color to people of color.

                  `Under my command, every mission is a suicide mission.`

                  by Zwackus on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:03:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Welfare Queen? (none)
              Your post is hyperbolic. And why are you assuming the author isn't black?
            •  that's not what it says (none)
              The author says we should work harder to reach out to black voters between elections, and do more to raise money from younger affluent black folks, not less. He or she implies that the white folks in the Washington party have delegated everything having to do with black America to a few well-placed and fairly senior African-Americans, rather than trying to understand black American themselves in all its changing splendor; that Brazile is one of the chief beneficiaries of this ill-conceived delegation; and that Dean, should he become DNC chair, could forge new and better connections between black America and the Democratic Party, especially though not only if Dean reduces the power insiders like Brazile have.

              I have no idea whether that's true or not, but I don't think Kos would have posted the piece if it weren't at least marginally plausible. That's my reaction to the substance of the post.

              The language is another matter. Notice how much discussion we're giving here to questions about the language (racist, or just insensitive?) and how little to the substantive question the author wants to raise (does Donna Brazile deserve the power she currently has in the Washington wing of the party?).

              Either the author has used racially-charged language clumsily, even with subconscious racist aggression (can't prove otherwise, can we?), or else the author is a Republican mole who wants us to attack one another over charges of racism.

              The second explanation could be true, given where the discussion here is going, but the first explanation seems more plausible, especially since the piece shows other signs of hasty writing ("Jeese" for "Jesse," e.g.).

              What if the anonymous poster had simply written "Donna Brazile: she's a lot like Bob Shrum?"

              Is she a lot like Bob Shrum?

              •  I said this (none)
                I think she is a hack but this letter is racially charges and Kos was wrong to put on the frontpage and evenmoreso not to name the person.

                If you read the article I found it clearly shows her beef with the DNC and firing 10 workers who all happening to be Black.

                Whereas, Kos didn't even have that basic information and took this persons view Hook, Line and Sinker without even questioning the veracity.

        •  It wasn't just blacks fired (4.00)
          It was all non-essential personnel. It happens after every election. You ramp up for the election, then you ramp down afterward.
          •  Fair enough (none)
            but the commenter really used alot of race tinged language. Even racist tones.  I obviously don't know the person, and you make clear that this is not you talking, but boy the language.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:18:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ramping Down (none)
            When Dean becomes Chairman, I don't think you'll see much ramping down going on -- although more of the work may be done at the state and local level....

            "We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

            by Jim in Chicago on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:21:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Democrats Botch Firing of Black Staffers (none)
            wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com :
            by Hazel Trice EdneyOriginally posted 6/4/2003

            WASHINGTON (NNPA)--If the Democratic National Committee can't handle the next presidential campaign any better than it executed last week's botched attempt to lay off a group of African-American staffers, it may as well concede the White House to George W. Bush in 2004, some key African-Americans leaders say.

            Donna Brazile, chairwoman of the DNC Voting Rights Institute and Al Gore's presidential campaign manager in 2000, expressed public disappointment with party officials after receiving word that 10 DNC staff members would be dismissed--all of them African-Americans.

            "It's outrageous," she says. "They have been targeted for dismissal without anyone discussing this with members of the DNC Black Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus. This would have a disastrous affect on the morale of Black Democrats across the country."

            And if that happens, it could spell trouble for Democrats, says Brazile, a political science professor at Georgetown University
            "If they are unable to get this right, then they will be unable to get the Democratic strategy right to defeat George Bush in 2004," Brazile declares.
            Many are blaming Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe for the miscue.
            "He's liable to do something that's racially insensitive again, which is going to complicate the ability of the Democratic Party to motivate Black people," says Ron Walters, political science professor at the University of Maryland. "Terry McAuliffe doesn't appear to have any Black people in his inner circle that when he makes a decision he can pass it by them and say, `How is this going to look?'"

            DNC spokesman Jim Mulhall says the number released by the DNC to Brazile and others--including Minyon Moore, former DNC chief operating officer--has not been confirmed. However, he did not deny the accuracy of those numbers.
            Mulhall did say that the DNC is looking at possible budget cuts.

            "It's been an ongoing process and basically it is so we can maximize and make the DNC the most efficient organization possible for the tough job we'll have to do to beat George Bush," he says.
            After receiving public criticism from Brazile, DNC head McAuliffe apparently called off the firings--or at least delayed some of them. He refused to return repeated phone calls to the NNPA requesting comment.

            Mulhall says the DNC has hired eight new staffers, five of whom are Black, including a Black press secretary. He says there will still be layoffs over the coming weeks, but there will be fewer than 10 and not all of them will be Black.
            But Brazile remains cautious.

            "The fact remains that the list that was read off to me contained African-Americans only," she says. "I am grateful that the party decided not to lay off their distinguished hard-working African-Americans, some who have been in civil rights since the 1960s. Terry McAuliffe has assured me that no such list will ever reach his desk. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had not signed off on this."

            Walters, the political scientist, says the blow up exposes DNC contempt for Black voters.
            "Blacks don't appear to have decision-making power. There is this matter of not consulting Black people before making these decisions," Walters says. "The bottom line here is that it's obvious to me that for all of the titles that Donna and [others] have, that somebody should be consulting them before they do this stuff."

            Moore, who served as White House political director in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2000, says that during her tenure as chief operating officer at the DNC from early 2001 until August 2002, people of color made up at least half of the staff.

            According to DNC officials, Blacks made up approximately 30 percent of the 170-member staff in 2001. But, with a series of layoffs, the staff is now down to 94 people, 26 of whom are Black (22 percent). An additional reduction of 10 would have taken the number of Blacks down to only 16 or 13 percent of the staff.

            Meanwhile, Blacks continue to give 80 percent to 90 percent of its vote to Democrats.

            Melanie Campbell, president and chief executive officer of the National Coalition for Black Civic Participation, a non-partisan get-out-the-vote group, observes:

            "This further exacerbates the perception that the Democratic Party takes the African-American vote for granted. It does not help that situation at all. I understand the need to manage an organization and make operational decisions. But that also has to be done in such a way that you do not damage what's supposed to be a part of your strong base."

            She isn't the only one that holds that opinion.
            "It'll have more of an impact among Black party activist and grassroots people who work in the campaigns," says Robert C. Smith, professor of political science at San Francisco State University. "I think at some point as the cycle unfolds that people will remember it. It will leave a bad taste in people's mouths even after they say it was not the way it appeared to be."

            With new Republicans effort to reach Black voters, alienating African-Americans could be the Democrats' worst nightmare, some observers say.
            Says Walters, "What the Democratic Party has feared is dissatisfaction breaking out. That's why this is inexplicable to me."

            Sorry for the long text

            •  Do not be sorry (none)
              That article provides the missing context to make sense of this rant.

              If one could come to the conclusion, as I did initially, that many staffers were being fired but that Ms. Brazille only objected to the firing of the African-American staffers, than there is room for a legitimate discussion of cronyism.

              In that context, though, it is clear that the original ranter is just off his rocker.  I would find it rather hard to believe that the only non-essential DNC staff were black.  Even if it were the case, it would be a problem in and of itself - why were such a large number of blacks congregated in grunt-labor jobs to begin with?

              `Under my command, every mission is a suicide mission.`

              by Zwackus on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:59:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  and how (none)
                did Black staff went from 50% in 2002 to 13% in 2003 that is a bit hard to swallow... this is what seems to have gotten the tongues wagging.
                •  Well (4.00)
                    My department -- a grand total of about 60 people, ignoring management -- went from about 60% female to about 15% female in less than a year.

                    We outsourced part of our IT group, which was comprised mostly of females, and we had two quit and one get promoted.

                    I suppose that means our mangement is a bunch of social rejects wanting to live back in the day when all women were secretaries.

                    Dude, it happens. Especially in high-turnover organizations like the DNC, whose staff levels fluctuate wildly from year to year.

                    You're still just taking Donna's word for it, without any way to verify ANYTHING.

                    If black staffers made up 50% of the DNC workforce because they'd hired 200 people (swelling their workforce to 300) and 100 of them were black in 2002, and then cut back to 100 in 2004 (losing every one of the new 200) it'd have the exact same effect on those numbers.

                    Accusations of racism shouldn't be tossed about without hard evidence. Donna's say-so isn't really enough. Proof's easy enough to obtain, especially for someone as highly placed as she is.

                    All you need is access to HR records and you can prove if low-performers were retained while high-performers were fired, with the obvious pattern being race.

                    Since she didn't provide them, and instead just used statistics (lies, damned lies, and statistics), I'm thinking she didn't have jack shit except for turf to protect.

                    I've seen managers trot out numbers just like that to "prove" their department was getting cut to the bone. The only difference being that Donna was crying racism and my managers were crying favoritism.

        •  Yes (none)
          And people who criticize Israel are anti-semetic.

          This aggression will not stand, man

          by kaleidescope on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:47:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Ouch! (none)

    "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

    by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:24:30 PM PST

  •  I am scared (3.90)
    when Daily Kos treads into attack politics.  Can't we use our powers for good?

    Having said that, I cannot disagree with a thing said about Donna Brazile.  The rhetoric is harsh, but people need to see she is not working for the Party, she's working for herself.

    •  I'm squirmy too (none)
      And yet kos dishes it out to many - look at Fowler this morning, Shrum.

      He hits everybody he thinks deserves it. Whether they deserve it or not is another question.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:28:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I don't like about this. . . (none)
        Is the blind quote, and the pure pettiness of the attack.  Plus the racist overtones.
        I bet this was launched by someone angling for a job that could plausibly go to Brazile under a Dean reorg.

        Fight the American Taliban

        by pontificator on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:34:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Meh (none)
        I'm not holding my breath waiting for the lowdown on all/any potential problems with Dean to make the front page.

        I heard Fowler interviewed on Morning Sedition today and he completely sucked, though.  I was about to bang my head on the desk.  Such useless boilerplate that nobody believes, not even him.  If you have to go the way the wind blows to keep afloat in this game, it would also help to not do it with such clumsiness.  You could see all the gears turning as he spewed out platitudes about getting rid of the Washington inside-the-Beltway consultant influence and trying to play up his Southern accent in a really ham-handed way.  John Edwards redux, and I just wanted to say, "For crying out loud, Fowler, none of us are that stupid."  

        And off to the political wilderness we go.  I feel like I did about three weeks before the election, that it's time to change my name to Cassandra.

    •  whoa! (4.00)
      I don't see kos attacking anyone. He posts and lets people make up their own minds. Does he agree with the content? If so, that's his deal. Otherwise, I see nothing to suggest 'attack politics'.

      From what I've seen of her, Donna Brazile is a smart woman and definitely an important cog in the Dem wheel but I have to agree that she hasn't delivered. Threre has to be quite a few African-Americans in the upper echelon of the Dem party that can make a bigger difference.

    •  Bullshit (4.00)
      to this: "I am scared when Daily Kos treads into attack politics.  Can't we use our powers for good?"

      Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
      dKos plays in attack politics constantly, and the community is proud of it. Or were you not reading the systematic efforts at taking down everyone not named Dean and Rosenberg in the DNC race? (Note - those are my two guys in the race, but come on - whenever a new alternative to Dean emerged, front-page dirt on him would be up and running within a day.)

      This entire site gets a great deal of attention and activity because of attack politics, whether it's in the form of eloquent, essay-length rants against the Bush administration in our diaries or when we start attacking our own in the circular firing squad (I remember very clearly that Reid had to spend a while taking shots from all sides, and don't get me started on how many of you attack Kerry, or Lieberman, or whoever Kos chooses to disagree with - it's amazing to see how quickly community sentiment turns against a person or candidate Kos doesn't like, is there a single one in recorded history that the community has liked but Kos has disapproved of?).

      Putting it on the front page didn't start now, ladies and gents. Take a quick look through the archives if you don't believe me.

      And as far as the letter goes, my opinion is that it's cheap trash, and that someone who's too afraid to catch heat for saying something like that should think a little more about what they're saying - such as, What exactly am I saying that requires me to hide from my words, and why am I saying it? The "Sista Soulja" line was one of many crass moments, and the whole thing looks like someone just wanted to air a grudge.

      But don't condemn the piece because it's "attack politics" and act like the community doesn't revel in that around here. Condemn it because it's a piece of trash.

      "For all his flaws...I have yet to see any Democrat that I trust more, or who has taken more shit without flinching." - Wintermule on John Kerry

      by OxyLiberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:48:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then name the fucking names (4.00)
        this is shitty and cowardly.

        Donna wrote her name on her letter.

      •  Arguments ad hominem (and pro hominem) ... (none)
        ... are the prevailing form of discourse here, and across the blogosphere -- left and right.

        Here, a tad more than some. A bit less than others.

      •  I agree 100% (none)
        I've been around this site for quite a long time now but it is what it is, it's not objective, it's got fairly strong biases, and it has a direct interest in netroots-friendly candidates gaining more influence in the national party.  Hey, it's politics.  But I've learned to have a very critical eye at all times.  Yes, the tearing down of other DNC candidates has been fairly systematic and obvious.

        Dean/Trippi really elevated into an art form the dual mode of blistering attack on fellow Dems + blaming fellow Dems for not maintaining party unity.

        Don't get me wrong, the old guard is lost in the wilderness as well, but as another poster wrote earlier, I think we're headed for a train wreck and I don't feel great about picking up the pieces by 2006.

    •  This.... (none)
      and this is what is going to kill this party.
    •  And the fact that (none)
      she works for her interests rather than the party's [and I would even have to question which party, given some of the comments she has made], has been apparent for quite some time.
  •  I learned all I needed to know about Brazile... (3.85)
    ...when she publicly denounced Kerry about a week after the election. As I've said elsewhere, if there was some basis to her claim, there was a better way to do it; what she did was loathsome and vile, and I cannot understand why anyone would trust her on their team again. A team player, she is not.
    •  hear! hear! (none)
      i was appalled to see her so-called missive to dean. didn't notice her out front promoting him before he looked like he had a chance of winning the dnc race. other african american leaders weren't afraid to say they supported dean. heck, gore, whose campaign donna supposedly managed, supported dean for president. where was donna? i hope dean doesn't forget to ask that question when the time comes.

      We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

      by yankeedoodler on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:38:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In fact, when asked about Dean, (none)
        She said the race was not over yet--or something to that effect [a week or so ago]
        •  Hear Her Say That Others (none)
          ...might jump in the race for DNC chair.  This also was a couple of weeks back on NPR.  But just today, Mara Liasson* on NPR reported that Donna is still saying that someone might still might jump into the race.

          Caveats that this woman may not be all that credible herself.

          Opinions can be argued with. A conviction is best shot. -- T.E. Lawrence

          by cassandra m on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:12:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry Donna is out. (none)
        She is about as sold out as Carville. All they are into is 'I am cool politician, hiere me for punditry' type of operative.

        They are ready to say anything and to kiss anybody's butt. They should get a real job instead of ...whatever they are doing.

    •  two things (none)
      I am not fond of her either.  I seem to remember her happilly joining the "yeaaaarrrrgh" bandwagon, and I didn't think she helped Gore a bit in 2000 (although granted there was more than enough blame to go around without blaming everything on Donna).

      second thing: this letter does not exactly "inside" information to trust or not... the accusation is not a material claim about a misdeed, just that she advocated for people that really should have lost their jobs.  That is, I trust it too, that is, I trust it really is someone's opinion.  Without substance it's just a declaration of enmity with some dirty laundry thrown in.

      not that I'm joining the "kos shouldn't post this" brigade... I'm still of the opinion that it's "just a blog"... any risk is kos' to take.

    •  What??? (4.00)
      When she publicly denounced Kerry about a week after the election? We had begun tearing him apart on November 2nd. I guess Donna was just late to the party.

      "For all his flaws...I have yet to see any Democrat that I trust more, or who has taken more shit without flinching." - Wintermule on John Kerry

      by OxyLiberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:51:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She kicked Kerry because he was down (3.85)
      She's sucking up to Dean because he's up.

      Don't knock it. Great empires have been built on not much more than that.

      Biggest problem from where I sit:
      There are things she's good at doing.
      There are things that need doing.
      There are things she likes doing.
      And they're not the same things.

      [Dean as DNC Chair may be affected by some of the same dynamics.]

  •  Whoah... (3.33)
    I like her persona on TV, and have no idea what she does for the DNC. Let the powers that be decide that stuff when the time comes.

    DKOS is most effective when its publicizing Frost's cozying up to Bush, or Fowler's scandals, or Roemer's dubious ties to conservative think-tanks.

    But let's not make more enemies than we have to, right?

  •  brazille v rove (none)
    i've heard her interviewed talking about her "friendship" with karl rove.  she gushes about it.  i think we all know that dems and repubs can be friends, but this is a very very odd case and i wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that rove viewed the relationship differently than brazille does.  as in, a nice insight into the workings of democratic campaigns in exchange for banter about demographics and turnout.
    •  Rove is evil (4.00)
      And that's no mere figure of speech. If you are friends with a confirmed evil person and boast about it then you're either dumb, or evil yourself.

      Europeans are to Americans what Greeks were to Romans. Educated slaves. - Luigi Barzini

      by Sirocco on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:41:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  adsf (none)
        yeah.  she tries to spin it like this: for both of them, their true passion is electoral politics.  they just happen to be on opposite sides of the debate.   that they're both students of what it takes to get elected, so they can talk shop about different states, regions, precincts, etc.  she describes it as  mutual interest in the non-partisan aspect of all this.

        fine.

        but the guy has a reputation for some pretty fucking disgusting stuff (not that brazille is any kind of saint herself).  i can understand polite greetings between the two at a cocktail party, but "friendship" i think says a lot about her character.

  •  I have heard this stuff about Donna before (4.00)
    I trust Dean to consult with Gore with how to handle this situation.
  •  The power of "better than" (3.57)
    Personally, any argument that is purely against something or someone has no resonance with me. I won't have any of it.

    Tell me what's BETTER THAN the person or thing that's so defective.

    If all you do is tell me Donna Brazile is a cancerous leech, all I get is despondent about the quality of our leadership.

    Talk UPGRADES. Tell me about IMPROVEMENTS. Give me an ALTERNATIVE.

    In short, go home with your bad and negative self. Come back when you can tell me who is BETTER THAN Donna for her role. Then I'll hear you.

    The GOP's "Abandonment Society" turns illness, unemployment, or arrest into a one-way trip from the American Dream to a living nightmare. -- Kyle B

    by Kyle B on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:30:34 PM PST

    •  upgrade (none)
      i think the "upgrade" or "improvement" that is implied is that things would be better without her around.  what's BETTER THAN donna for her role is no donna in that role.  if that means no one does it (whatever the hell she actually is doing these days) then that's probably an improvement.

      it's not negative or "bad" to advocate firing people who do more harm than good.

    •  Uh Kyle, (none)
      what exactly is her role?
      •  Excellent question. (none)
        I honestly don't know other than that she's a DNC member. But Kos' anonymous source is talking about booting her out. So I assumed that she held some sort of position from which, logically, she could be booted.

        It may be that she holds no official position beyond DNC member. In which case I don't really understand why we need to "get rid of" her. OTOH, if she holds some power that she is misusing, then tell me who should hold it.

        Heck, at this point, I'd be happy if someone could lay out exactly what position she DOES hold. If she doesn't have one, we sure as hell can't kick her out of it now can we?

        My main point, really, was that we spend too much time attacking when it's more productive to promote alternatives.

        The GOP's "Abandonment Society" turns illness, unemployment, or arrest into a one-way trip from the American Dream to a living nightmare. -- Kyle B

        by Kyle B on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:17:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Meow! (3.75)
    Saucer of milk for Anonymous Party Insider, please!
  •  So, (3.50)
    tell us what you really think?  

    My two cents: Brazile's a blowhard.  She's an inarticulate spokesperson, she strays off message, does not seem trustworthy given her hot/cold performances in the media, and, sadly, seems addicted to mainlining talking-head gigs with the SCLM.  If what the author says is true, she is actually hurting the Party.  Get the hook.

    On some great & glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last & the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    by lightiris on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:32:56 PM PST

  •  hm, how tricky. (none)
    kos, how about you add a caption to tell us where to go on this? i'm not quite sure what the desired response is.

    to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
    i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

    by Tacoma Narrows on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:33:53 PM PST

  •  "She can't deliver a pizza" (3.33)
    I hate to say it but her work on the Gore campaign was inept.  She won but lost.  Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  I can't recall a single memorable thing about the 2000 campaign that was directed from the top.  I'm just not sure what's supposed to be so great about her.

    "She can't deliver a pizza" is the best put down line I've heard since the guy who said "John Kerry couldn't lead ants to a picnic."  It's going on my list of witty political turns of phrase ASAP.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:35:10 PM PST

    •  That was Kimberly Stone (none)
      I called it bullshit then, for what I hope are obvious reasons. I call it, and this letter, bullshit now.

      Let me share an opinion: As reviled as a lot of these strategy people/consultants are in these parts, a lot of them didn't get to where they are by sitting around and twiddling their thumbs. Donna Brazille had to work her ass off and did a lot of good work for the party for years. She deserves better than to be subjected to anonymous, racially charged and hyperbolic hit jobs from within her ranks.

      "For all his flaws...I have yet to see any Democrat that I trust more, or who has taken more shit without flinching." - Wintermule on John Kerry

      by OxyLiberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:05:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  EDIT: KS was the source of the Kerry line (n/t) (none)

      "For all his flaws...I have yet to see any Democrat that I trust more, or who has taken more shit without flinching." - Wintermule on John Kerry

      by OxyLiberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:06:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nah, nobody beats Carville for put down lines (none)
      It's the one thing he's great at.

      My favorite: "I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire." (referring to Nader)

  •  If we're going to hang somebody (4.00)
    let's first (after From) go after these pollsters that appear on CSPAN and give GOP talking points.

    Its amazing: I remember one time watching a mixed GOP/Dem panel, and not being able to tell who was who because they were all saying the same thing, mockingly criticizing the Dems for the same reasons, with the same view of the electorate. It was only towards the end that I realized who was Dem & who was Republican, because the GOP pollsters started getting cocky, and the Dems started hanging their heads and making self-deprecating jokes.

    Losers.

    These are some of the first guys to go...

    •  If you want to see a sad show, (4.00)
      watch the archived CSPAN "wither the Democrats" panel featuring Brazile, Jim Jordan, Steve Jardine, Harrison Hickman and Brad Carson from about a month ago moderated by Chuck Todd.  Carson is the one lone bright spot on the panel.  The other four are absolutely insipid, Brazile ("the lone proud liberal") included.  Hickman is simply amazingly inarticulate.  You can't even understand what he's trying to say.  At one point in the panel he complained that Bush beat Gore among voters who prioritized education in 2000 -- which means he obviously hasn't looked at the exit polls from that election.

      BTW I think this attack on Brazile is pretty ugly and sounds like payback for something.  But certainly does a bad job of representing the party on TV.

      The beginning of empire is the end of commonwealth -- Leon Fuerth

      by tlaura on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:43:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hehe (none)
    Don't have much time for Donna myself to be honest. She doesnt seem to bring very much to the table, and appears to be all that is wrong with theinider beltway consultant class.

    That said, ouch, putting it on the front page, braver than I am is this kos guy, that's for sure.

    Glad you share some of this stuff though, might make a few people realize that what they do on the insider, they might have to answer for on the outside.

    I am a Reform Democrat

    by Pounder on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:38:58 PM PST

  •  thanks for posting this (none)
    i simply can't stand brazile- she is nothing but a gravy-trainer and, often, an embarassment.
  •  Mandate (none)
    I believe if Dean wins the DNC Chair as it appears, he will have the mandate to clean house on some level and I hope he does. Nothing personal about Donna for me, but he's being elected as a reform candidate, not a keep-the-same-old-dead-wood around guy. I hope lots are shown the door.
    •  I agree (none)
      But when he does clean house hopefully it won't include annonymouse emails from inside the DNC personally bashing those that they let go.

      Donna is not a bad Democrat.  The person who emailed Kos with this crap in hopes that he would "Gannon" it onto his site is.

  •  No opinion one way or the other on Brazile, but (3.50)
    this feels to me like a personal attack with a slightly racist caste. Mean-spirited.

    That's not why I read Daily Kos.

  •  This inside bickering is petty! (3.33)
    C'mon Kos! I understand you really want Dean to get that DNC chairmanship, but can we cut on the inside bickering...

    There are other more important things happening. Like an ongoing war on Irak, an unprecedented attack on social security, new analysis on the still puzzling and unexplained discrepancy between election polls and results, John Kerry's legislation on health coverage for kids, etc.

    Not saying these topics have not been covered, but man, I am personally annoyed at these personal attacks between democrats. As if we didn't have enough of it with the republican machine...

    I know, I know, that's politics and that's how the world works, and I guess I'll just have to keep on scrolling past these types of posts.

    Anyway, still love this site. I'm just not that into the specifics of the jockeying going on right now...

    "We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse." -Three star Lt. General William Odom (retired), former head of National Security Agency

    by FightOn on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:41:41 PM PST

    •  This inside bickering is vital! (none)
      C'mon Kos! I understand you really want Dean to get that DNC chairmanship, but can we cut on the inside bickering...

      There are other more important things happening. Like an ongoing war on Irak, an unprecedented attack on social security, new analysis on the still puzzling and unexplained discrepancy between election polls and results, John Kerry's legislation on health coverage for kids, etc.

      Not saying these topics have not been covered, but man, I am personally annoyed at these personal attacks between democrats. As if we didn't have enough of it with the republican machine...

      I know, I know, that's politics and that's how the world works, and I guess I'll just have to keep on scrolling past these types of posts.

      If we followed your advice, the party would already have appointed another corp-bot to the head, and we'd be staring down the barrel of another 2 failed election cycles.

      Here, let me see if a Clinton paraphrase can help, they work on almost anything:

      "It's the DISCOURSE, stupid."

      Any discussion about the parties direction will be interpreted as a circular firing squad. It's an old canard. Somehow the Repubs manage to purge and putsch their ranks all the time without the same stigma. We must allow ourselves to openly critique. Donna, while she may serve a purpose (one I can't quite see right now but I'll bestow benefit to her since she gets on TV and I don't), that purpose isn't suited to the party mechanics. IMHO, I-KOS-HO, and  I hope, I-DNC-HO.

      If internal debates bore you or make you queasy, by all means, keep scrolling. But please don't tell the boys in the engine room to keep it down if you expect your boat to make port. It's so pre-8/6/2001*.

      -StW

      *- I refuse to mark modern tragedy by 9/11/2001. The real tragedy happened on August, 6th, 2001, and we all know it.

      •  This kind of juicy gossip is (none)
        25% of the reason I stay in politics.

        I like to think of Donna as our own personal version of Bartleby the Scrivner.

        Maybe Dean can put her in charge of finding Tim Roemer some gainful employment.

      •  Too close to the engines, boys! (none)
        The personal attacks on Brazile are unhealthy, and will probably not contribute one iota to overcoming the current repub spin...

        "We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse." -Three star Lt. General William Odom (retired), former head of National Security Agency

        by FightOn on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:37:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you honestly think...... (none)
        the republicans managed to purge their ranks with this many set of eyes watching?  DKos gets 8 million unique hits per month.  Think about it.
  •  This sorta thing... (none)
    could be used against Dean.
  •  This much is true (4.00)
    She's not even that good at taking Bay Buchanan or Jonah Goldberg to the woodshed when she's on CNN.

    All I really know about her is from her talking-heads appearances, and she almost always just phones it in.

    "Folly is wont to have more followers and comrades than discretion." -Cervantes-

    by Don Quixote on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:47:20 PM PST

  •  It's about time (none)
    She should have been banished after Gore.
    If we, as the base and grassroots, are serious about getting out from under the consultants and the pollsters then the woman who gave us the Earth Tone candidate, surely needs to go.

    I don't care what she has done in the past.
    And what about the record percent of African-American voters that went for Bush I keep hearing about?
    What is her strategy to overcome the Republican's PR effort to become the party of diversity...Started today with Sen Allen????
    No thank you.

    What has she done for us TODAY?

    This aggression will not stand.

    by DailyLife on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:48:08 PM PST

  •  All too true (none)
    I have to agree. With every single word of the post. I was waiting for mention of the Mutt and Jeff Donna sullies herself by participating in with Bay. It's sickening to watch Donna refuse to take Buchanan to the woodshed. I mean, if the right can tease Boxer for looking mildly disheveled, why isn't Brazile making Phyllis Diller quips everytime they share the screen?

    Seriously, I've heard this woman say things that made me feel sick to be in her party. She helped Dems zero in the fight against anti-Kerry FUD. Putting her anywhere near the keys to the party wouldbe as bad as leaving McAuliffe in place. She's a loser, baby. Let's just replace her.

    •  2nd that.... (none)
      Donna Brazille...milking her incredible losing run in 2000 for all it's worth...

      Lot a hurt feelings around here....maybe those crying should find out what Ms. Brazille has been up to these past few years....torpedo'ing the Party at every turn....making the Dems look even more feeble with her every appearance...etc.  

    •  In this (4.00)
      Denver Post article, she said that the voters "bonded" with Bush--yes, she really said that.  The she made some other comments about b's efforts on terror that were probably provided by Rove. How sickening and pathetic.

      She's useless; dump her asap.

      And I don't know why people are calling the letter-writer "tinged" with racism.  Apparently Donna protected some blacks from being fired when the normal staff reductions would have resulted in their firing.  These people are perceived as "untouchable" to the other people who aren't similarly protected.  It's nothing new for groups of employees to be favored by someone in power, and it's nothing new for the "non-favored" group to resent the "favored" groups--to the point of publicly complaining about the situation, like this letter writer has.  The fact that the "favored" were black doesn't mean that the "unfavored" resentments are fueled soley [or even mostly] by racism just because they point out the "favored" group's race. [i.e., the dynamic could have happened with a different group, which could also be a catalyst for the non-favored group's complaints].

  •  I'm not a fan of Donna Brazile either (4.00)
    But this public statement strikes me as rife with irony.  

    So she "protested publicly and embarrassed the chairman" but permitting (I assume) Kos to post this anonymous missive isn't embarrassing the party?

    Is it necessary for these internecine spats be published on one of the most read democratic websites?  Perhaps its important for the rank and file to know what's happening "inside", but this seems petty.

    Whatever else, the truth is that Donna Brazile is one of the faces of the party.  Perhaps she doesn't do a good job, but it should be the Chairman's job to figure out how best to use someone with her profile, and encourage her to do a good job at it, not just boot her out the door.  We don't need to search for people to expel.  And even if she isn't employable by the party, why this "outing?"

  •  This is not just an attack on Donna (3.60)
    this fucking creep is attacking African American Democrats.

    the untouchables ie Black DNC worker. Sounds like the Republicans screaming reverse discrimination

    He attacks her mentor Jackson as a shake down artist...this is crazy.

    •  You're right (none)
      I was wrong, way wrong before. Thanks for making me look harder.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:57:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really don't think this should stay on the front (4.00)
        page.  It is damaging to dkos, imo.

        "...only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others." - Adolf Hitler

        by bittergirl on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:02:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dude... (4.00)
        I really am not trying to offend you with this man, but you seem to be throwing your position around a lot. I love your stuff, and you have good insight, but where are ya landin on this? You seem to be shifting with the blog-o-tide, which is a pretty quickly changin thing.
        •  Damn (4.00)
          I can't win for losing.

          I'm a kos sycophant.  Now I am bad for criticizing kos.

          I am an arrogant stubborn asshole. Someone changes my mind with an argument, and I'm a vacillator.

          Here's what I do dude, I write what I think. If I think I was wrong, I say so.

          If I think kos is right I say so.  If wrong I say so.

          Now, let me make one thing clear, right or wrong, kos has proven his integrity to me time and again, and I'll jump on any motherfucker that attacks the guy's integrity - whether he's right or wrong.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:27:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Armando (none)
            I think your problem isn't the message, its your delivery.  

            Having read your past comments, especially the recent Gonzales stuff, I had become convinced that someone had hijacked your moniker for this thread to make fun of your typical no quarter approach to ANYONE who disagrees with you.

            Now I'm just confused.

            •  you were confused before (none)
              he's always been this way.

              it's integrity, which overrules consistency.

              He always gives quarter to those that disagree with him (let him deny it!), he just doesn't pull punches... sometimes people think they have no quarter when they are dizzy and busy listening to the little birdies... but if you keep your senses you'll see, "PS: here's some quarters".

              This might just be my experience...

              ...but it's not.

              PS: the quick u-turn was good for a chuckle, though, but only based on reputation... the reality of it was not suprising at all.

              You just have to see a few inchs deep.  Oh shit, I'm blowing Armando's coverage... nevermind!  Yeah... he's a royal ass!  Ugly as sin too.

              •  Ugly? WTF? (none)
                I'm a handsome devil.

                "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:40:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Two additional points (none)
                one on topic - me navel gazing, one on the post.

                On my rules of engagement - i just noticed how I went after Carl full bore - snark and all.  And I realize it was cuz I have high regard for Carl and his intellect.  And yet I also go full bore on those I completely lack respect for. Those in the middle get mixed treatment. So go figure.

                On this post - the thread has proven to be a pretty engaging discussion on race.  Maybe method to kos' madness.

                However, the letter writer utterly failed in his object - to rip Brazile, due to poor choice of words. Not sure we want him around either.

                "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:46:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Here's the thing (none)
              And this style will be familiar - I'm so rarely wrong that you are just unfamiliar with me when I am.

              This is me when I realize I'm wrong.  Ain't I sweet?

              "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

              by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:39:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Alright, like I said... (4.00)
                No offense intended. Changin our minds is certainly valid, I was just a bit surprised at how quick and total ya were. Its all good.
              •  Rarely Wrong? (none)
                I sincerely hope your ego gets a massive reality check sometime soon Armando.

                You are coming across as more arrogant, strident, snobby, and downright rude with every passing day.

                Between Kos's very questionable front page contributions lately and your holier-than-thou ranting - this place is becoming a little less fun and welcoming.

                I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

                by diplomatic on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:38:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Now.. (3.60)
      First of all, I don't know Donna Brazile, I have only seen her on TV a few times (wasn't very impressed, but that's hardly enough material to judge her).

      I'm also not very impressed by this person, who airs (seemingly personal) dirty laundry by anonymous leaks.

      Having said that, let's step back for a minute and not get emotions about race in the way.

      This person is implying that Donna Brazile played the race card to protect some people at the DNC who would have been let go no matter what their race, as part of a normal downsizing. I have no idea if this is true. If it is true, I think it is valid to criticize her for it.

      Secondly, the word "untouchable" is used to refer to some DNC workers, but it is followed by:

      And before you even go there, this is not a black-white thing. It's a can't-afford-people-with-political-godmothers-to-sap-our-resources thing, whatever their race.

      So, the point of criticism seems to be people, in general, who keep their DNC jobs because they have a sugardaddy/mommy watching out for them, Donna Brazile being such a sugarmommy.

      I can't comment on the "Jackson and business community" part, I don't know anything about it.

      •  Okay (none)
        First of all you pointed out exactly what is wrong with this letter.

        We do not have all the facts.

        Why were there so many Black being fired? I don't know but historical Blacks have been the Last hired, first fired... so is it that these people were fired because they were the last hired? I don't know because this anonymous person did not give details. But is was serious enough for Donna to make a stink about it. To which I praise her.

        This seems to have lead to the insiders to call Blacks at the DNC untouchable as in "They have special priviledges because they are Black and we can't touch them". Are these people freaking Republicans...this is text book anti-affirmative action rhetoric. Susie can't go to Michigan State because all of those Black people have "special priviledges".

        I don't know about Jackson either but he painted him as a highjacker...would Mr or Ms Anonymous like to give details or do they just want to sling shit?

        •  Wait a Minute (3.50)
          First you admit, correctly, that we don't know what happened.  But then you claim it "was serious enough for Donna to make a stink about it. To which I praise her."  If you don't know what happened, how can you know it was serious or her actions were praisworthy?

          I'm starting to wonder about your sincerity, especially since this:

          Tactless... (none / 0)

          Not racist but only identifies Blacks...

          ...was your first comment on this thread, which you've now contradicted repeatedly.  

          •  I read it again (none)
            First time I could believe that Kos would put something like that on the front page... but when I read it over again ...it didn't add up.

            Well it had to be serious for Donna to make such a public stink. If it wasn't I am sure she would not have risked her job.

          •  It was serious (none)
            This is where facts come in and we realize that this is another fake story... so I guess the Deep Throat forgot to mention this part?

            my comment above :

            Moore, who served as White House political director in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2000, says that during her tenure as chief operating officer at the DNC from early 2001 until August 2002, people of color made up at least half of the staff.

            According to DNC officials, Blacks made up approximately 30 percent of the 170-member staff in 2001. But, with a series of layoffs, the staff is now down to 94 people, 26 of whom are Black (22 percent). An additional reduction of 10 would have taken the number of Blacks down to only 16 or 13 percent of the staff.

            Meanwhile, Blacks continue to give 80 percent to 90 percent of its vote to Democrats.

    •  untouchable (4.00)
      It's not clear to me why you find the descriptor, "untouchable" so provocative.  The writer is claiming that people who rightly should have been let go were protected by Brazile; their jobs are untouchable.  I have no way to judge if this is true (I don't think anyone here does) but I don't see why this term is especially racially charged.

      I'm open to being convinced on this, it's just not obvious to me.  I have noticed, though, that sometimes on DKos, conversations on race get crazy very quickly and I hate it that race is so difficult to even talk about.

      Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

      by cerebrocrat on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:28:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Untouchable (none)
        Which is a word that seems to have been used for Blacks working at the DNC.

        Not untouchable as in the caste in India but untouchable that they have special priviledges because they are Black so "We can touch them". That to me was the worse part of this letter because is drudges up the who reverse discrimation bullshit and anti-affirmative action arguement.

        IMO that jumped out at me.

        •  No offense (none)
            But you might be a bit too sensitive. It's a term I've heard at my job to refer to the three or four employees (of various genders and races) who -- due to some whim of the boss -- simply were never held accountable for anything they did.

            It was like having tenure, and people like myself had to clean up for them.

            I can understand the bitching and -- if true -- the desire for anonymity. He or she that can protect jobs can end them.

            The hard part is deciding if it's [i]true[/i], which really boils down to a character judgement by Kos.

          •  Untouchables (none)
            Non-productive Black people that we can't fire and have to pay so that they can sit at their desk and do nothing...that is his/her definition of an untouchable. As I read it this label only applies to Black people.
            •  The label "untouchable" (none)
              applies to the black people here because it is the black people who are being protected [according to the letter writer].

              I think your're reading way too much into this letter about a rather narrow situation at the DNC.  Employees resent other employees who have special privileges, expecially due to cronyism, regardless of race.  

              •  When does racism exist? (none)
                Only when someone is burning a cross on your lawn?

                This is the wierdest thing most rational being admit that racism exists but when confronted with it is amazing how many turn a blind eye. What racism with only in theory?

                •  *snort* (none)
                    I have a friend, whose a bit on the small side for a guy.

                    He takes offense at the most innocent comments, because he feels someone is making fun of his size -- even if they aren't.

                    Now, since I've personally WITNESSED people assume racism, assume mockery, assume discrimination when none was there, I'm aware it happens.

                    Stop acting like we're blind to racism. We're not seeing it. You are. Maybe we're wrong, maybe you are, but stop acting like a holy fucking avenger.

                    I'm not going to assume racism is the motivator for all things done to or for black people, and I'm not going to assume it's never the case.

                    In this, there appears to be nothing to suggest the author was racist, although a bit pissed that Donna was protecting ONLY black employees from routine termination.

                  •  because only BLACKS were fired (none)
                    perhaps you can read the fucking article with the facts first
                    •  *snort* (none)
                        BULLSHIT. The DNC downsized the bulk of their staff after the election, like they do every election cycle...like every fucking seasonal business in the world does.

                        "Read the fucking article". Which one? The one at the top of the page? Or some magical one out of your own ass? How about linking to this special article?

            •  Um, yeah (none)
                Yeah. Because according to the letter writer, Donna chose to protect black employees who would otherwise be downsized, and no one else.

                Now, if she'd saved the jobs of people of other races and he was ONLY complaining about the black employees, you'd have a point.

                But at the moment, there's nothing to suggest that's the truth.

              •  No one else was being fired ONLY Blacks (none)
                •  Yes.. (none)
                    You keep saying this, but failing to actually prove or support that contention.

                    See, before you accuse someone of racism, I'd except some proof. Instead, you're just repeating yourself, as if by sheer noise you'll get me to agree.

                  •  Oh good! (none)
                     I found it. Oh yes. Absolute proof there. eye roll.

                      Indeed. They were firing black staffers. And everyone knows, firing black people IS racism. Even if the DNC is downsizing. Even if the DNC had recently hired several blacks. Even if top-ranking members were black.

                      Even if the percentage of blacks working at the DNC was higher than the percentage of blacks in the population, it'd still be racism.

                      Jesus, man, get a fucking grip. All you've got is Donna claiming racism, without any proof whatsoever.

                      Do you know how many people the DNC laid off all told? How many it had laid off before this? After this? Do you have the racial breakdown?

                      Is it still fucking "Racist" if they'd lead off 8 whites the week before?

        •  When I think of the word (none)
          I think of "He's in the car".  The point of the letter writer seemed to say is that blacks could not be fired due to poor performance or whatever because they were black.  If true, it's bad.  If false, it's insulting and racist.  I have no idea which it is.
        •  Reverse discrimination and Donna's friends (3.66)
          I'm conflicted on this issue.  I'm (white and) very much in favor of affirmative action and putting together diverse workplaces and student bodies.  But the unfortunate corollary is that sometimes nonwhite employees play the race card to keep their jobs ("I'm being fired because I'm black/hispanic/Jewish" even if it's not true).  I'd probably do the same if I were facing a layoff.  Would you?  And do you think one should be able to?

          I'm not saying that happened here.  I'm saying that in certain organizations it doesn't have to because the rest of the organization knows what will happen.  The DNC isn't government employment, so it has more leeway to hire and fire regardless of race.  But there's public perception to consider, so they may be afraid to do what they need to do.  I think that's what kos was saying.

          I'm so busy right now that I never seem to post unless it makes me a lightning rod, so strike away.  It seems to me that this is something liberals need to talk about, even though it's painful.  It's a catch-22:  if you're color blind, you can't have affirmative action (the GOP position: reverse discrimination, yada yada), but if you consider race, you have to talk about when it's right to consider it and when it's wrong.

          •  I agree (none)
            I think that's exactly what Kos was saying by posting the piece.

            I also agree with Armando that the language of the piece is either sloppy and thoughtless, or borderline racist, or both.

            The author of the piece sounds so angry at Brazile, and at the ways in which (in that author's view) she's hurting not only the party but black America, that he or she (the author of the piece) has real trouble judging his or her words and writing effectively.

            I have no idea if the allegations are true, but I've been around here for long enough, and seen enough of Kos' predictions come true, that I'm inclined to think they deserve further investigation. And I wish the anonymous author had waited about a day before sending the email Kos posted, so that we could discuss the substance of the charges instead of the ugly language in which they're phrased.

        •  Untouchable because of privilege (none)
          If the writer is telling the truth (which I cannot know), the workers are untouchable <i>because they are Donna's friends</i>.  They are untouchable, the implication goes, <i>because Donna is so bigoted that she befriends and protects only blacks</i>.  
          <p>
          The post, as I read it, were muddy implications about Donna's handling of her job, and of racial issues.  I did not, in any way, read that these workers were untouchables ala, the caste in India.
          <p>
          I don't think your case holds water.  This is a crappy hit-piece just like the crappy hit-pieces that Donna herself issues.  But I don't think it's a racist one.  It's just petty.
          •  What is the first word of my comment? (none)
            I did not, in any way, read that these workers were untouchables ala, the caste in India.

            It is racist and if you can't see that then it goes to show that there is still a big problrm with racisn in this country. is it so prevalent that people can't or refuse to see it any more.

    •  Agreed this is purge material (none)
      This made me sick to my stomach.  Not that I'm a huge fan of Donna's but this goes far beyond feelings about Donna Brazile.  

      Absolute executive power absolutely tortures.

      by caliberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:31:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes (none)
      Reverse descrimination happens.

      If there is some test or something needed for a job, and I get an 87 on it, and the other canidate gets an 84, but gets a 10 point bonus for being black, and therefore gets the job, I will be reverse descriminated against, and will be quite pissed off-because I was more qualified for the job, and would do a better job at it (if the test is an accurate indication of job performance).

      Affirmative Action is reverse descrimintation.  They are one and the same.  It is not a situation that can survive long term-the person who got the highest score should be hired.  It should be eliminated ASAP.  Unfortuantly, there are racists out there still, and sometimes they are in charge of hiring, so reverse descrimintation (affirmatiove action) is used to balance the equation.  It's a mess, which is why most people are phasing it out in favor of minority outreach as opposed to bonuses for skin color.

      •  the reality (none)
        "(if the test is an accurate indication of job performance)"

        exactly the problem.  It never is.  Not to that accuracy anyway.

        I often find it funny how people say we should "just hire the best person for the job"... hiring is sooooooooooo subjective it'll make you sick if you try to make it objective and the hoops you install won't make it more objective.

      •  you're wrong about (none)
        affirmative action being reverse discrimination. the point of affirmative action is evening the playing field. most people of color come to the start of the race carrying a 20-pound handicap. affirmative action is to remove some of that unfair weight.  

        The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. --Yeats

        by JaneKnowles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:06:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem (none)
        with AA is that while it levels the playing field, it also creates a gulf the size of the grand canyon between black and white workers. It happens in office settings as well as factories, including mine, where everyone is a liberal democrat.  If it's a traditionally white profession where it's hard to recruit qualified nonwhite candidates, and an unqualified black candidate lands in the slot, it's more of a problem, but even if everyone's qualified, there's a constant walking-on-eggshells feeling on both sides.  It's less of a problem with gender/sexual harassment, and I'm not sure why.  I think it may be because the law isn't as aggressive about punishing gender cases except in the most egregious circumstances.

        Not the intended result, yet, as I posted above, I believe AA is necessary until society can find a better way to level the playing field.  That's not going to happen, though, until we (black and white) can talk about race without screaming at each other.  I have no problem with the language of the letter.  It's blunt, but it's nothing compared to urban black talk radio shows.  I do have a problem with the circular firing squad aspect of it.

  •  Somewhat uncomfortable here (4.00)
    with unsourced comments, but I have to say I have heard similar complaints from a person close to my family who had a high level job at the DNC during the 2000 and 2004 cycles.   I am not at liberty to reveal this person's name so perhaps I'm adding to the moral sketchiness of the thread.

    At any rate, I don't believe that  anyone considers  Donna Brazile a reliable partisan.  She has been corrupted by the right-wing talk show circuit which expects her to damn Democrats with faint praise.  And she usually does.

    Of course, we have to give her credit for not reaching the bottom of the barrel where Pat Caddell resides.

    "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

    by Radiowalla on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:57:44 PM PST

  •  What is the context for these remarks? (none)
    Were they made directly to you, in conversation?  From a letter?  Whose interests does the speaker represent--i.e., why is their opinion relevant?

    I didn't know how to take this. Even more than not knowing who the speaker is, not knowing the when, where, why, how is even more disorienting.  (I don't have a stake regarding Brazile either way.)

  •  Her "Sista Souljah moment"? (none)
    WTF?!?!?!  

    No one is above being criticized, but criticism and "putting someone in their place" are two different things altogether. That is HIGHLY offensive.

    Dean, assuming he wins (which I hope he does), would do well to ignore that piece of "advice." Let the person who now wants to be down to keep his/her job fight for it out of the shadows.  

    "But sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

    by AuntiePeachy on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:02:49 PM PST

  •  This REEKS (none)
    Donna Brazile has been a fighter for a long time.  This sounds like sour grapes from someone who knows his ass is likely out the door when Dean takes over.
  •  I'm no fan... (none)
    of Donna Brazile but I don't like the anonymous attack (even if true).  If Kos wanted to "criticize" Brazile under his own signature, that would be very different.
  •  Two words for Donna: (none)
    Wellington Webb.

    Donna, you're relieved.  Webb's bright, articulate, urban, western, a former executive ... oh, and he's actually won some races.  New faces and fresh blood are coming to town Donna.  Step aside.

  •  A Very Bad Idea (3.75)
    It's a bad idea to allow some one to publish, through dailykos, an anonymous hit piece on anyone.

    I am not big fan of Donna Brazile.  She is an average to very poor promoter of the Democratic Party in her TV appearances.  She appears to be almost an archetype of the Beltway Democrats who don't care whether we win or lose elections, so long as they maintain their standing on the social and cable news circuits.

    Yet I have to stand up for her, as I would for any other Democrat who is attacked anonymously, particularly like this, with the vague charges that are very hard to defend.

    If we are going to beat the Republicans we are going to have to replace them.  If we are going to replace them, we are going to have to be different.  

    This attack doesn't even rise to the level of dignity I would assign to the Swift Boat Liars.  While they lied and smeared, at least they had the courage to say their names and show their faces.

    This, My Good Friend Markos, was a very bad idea.

  •  INAPPROPRIATE (none)
    memo to Dean: party insiders gotta go...
  •  Petty, but... (none)
    This anonymous person obvioulsy has some petty leftover bullshit to let out after the election, and they did get an audience here.  But in the long run we all need to take a step back and really look at what is happening.

    Brazille penned an open letter to Dean, a common thing to do if you are looking for work in the political arena as she is doing.  And then comes this response.  Anonymous as it is it points to the pissing battles that are currently taking place in the party.  We have taken over the party with Dean's, and the blogosphere's help, and they are all pissing over us at each other.  They are all trying to keep their jobs because REFORM is looming loudly over their heads.  That word is specifically targeted at people like Ms. Brazille, and whomever ANONYMOUS is, and we should take a step back and rejoice.

    Ms. Brazille now has to fight for her job, one I think she could do better, but so does everyone else in the party structure.  They need to show us what they've got, and sometimes these battles will be quite petty, but let them fight.  Its our party again.

    •  Well.. (3.50)
        The open letter was a nice piece of work in of itself. It reeked of oppurtunism.

        Look, the fact of the matter is that Dean seems a shoe-in at this point, and appears to have a mandate to clean house. I think EVERYONE has shifted into cover-your-ass mode, Donna included.

        Because they're all working under the assumption that they might have to justify their job, their record, and their continued employment in a few weeks.

  •  I'm conflicted by this post (3.33)
    I agree with the main argument of the post that Donna Brazile is an ineffective spokesperson for the party in television appearances. I also share concerns of her close ties to Karl Rove and even some remarks that she's made after the election.

    With that said, I think the language in the post is particularly incendiary. I don't know!! I think some of the language such as the following:

    She won't tell you that some untouchable staffers have so much time on their hands they are selling products for their home businesses from their desks.

    This is a vivid description of basically laziness and a lack of an incentive to find work to perform. To me, that's pretty ugly, considering IMHO it plays on the old sterotype that all blacks are lazy etc, etc, etc.

    But if the allegations are true, then it also tells me that the DNC leadership wasn't really willing to engage with Donna Brazile or other black leaders to call her out on her b.s. What are the Dem leaders so afraid of? To be called a racist? As an African-American, I would rather that you tell to my face whether you have a problem with me, rather than talking behind my back. Is it that difficult to be honest with African-Americans in this party?  

    Aside from the chuckles she gets at public events from her practiced good-ole-girl adages, she's not pushing forward the discussion, not offering solutions, not innovating.

    So why allow her to maintain a visible presence in the party if she's so inept? So that she can continue to be the laughing stock of the party? From this statement, I get the impression that the only reason why inside Dems have her around is so that she can stroke their egos or something. What is this? Noblesse oblige for inept black political operatives?

    Assuming that the allegations in this post are true, I would hope that the Washington Dems thought better of African-Americans than to accept anything but the best from us!! I don't know which I should be more insulted by? The inflammatory language presented in the post or the idea that Dems only tolerate black figures like Jesse Jackson or Donna Brazile b/c they are afraid to call them out for their crap for fear of alienating African-American support!!

    Just talk to us and expect the same from us as you would anyone else!!

    I'm through w/this!! Whatever!!  

    •  disagree with you on the laziness angle (none)
      You write,

      This is a vivid description of basically laziness and a lack of an incentive to find work to perform. To me, that's pretty ugly, considering IMHO it plays on the old sterotype that all blacks are lazy etc, etc, etc.

      I read it not as a description of laziness at all, but of too many people with too little work. After all, if they were lazy, would they be working on their own businesses while employed by the DNC?? That sounds industrious, not lazy--the point is that they are being paid to do A but actually they are doing B, and that this is not an efficient use of resources.

      Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

      by David J on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:29:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the laziness (none)
        would be thinking that there is nothing to do when the election are long off.

        Elections are about politics, and politics is all day all year.... that's the whole issue of trying to frame and think in terms of cognative science, we are not dealing with winning a football game where you need to practice just at the right time... we are talking about changing how people think, inventing new ideas robust enough to shape whole centuries... there is time for just a little bit of Computer Solitaire and blogging (built in irony!)... other than that, get to work!

        •  They don't... (none)
            It appears they're akin to seasonal workers, in that they're hired to do jobs during the campaign season and not afterwords. The jobs needing doing year-round are already covered by permanent staff.

            I read that section of the letter as pretty clear: They're got jobs, but nothing to do, so they do make work -- and not even assigned make work.

            Which means the problem isn't with them, but their supervisors -- up the chain to Donna, apparently.

          •  ok, that's sensible (none)
            and furthermore... the DNC is for running campaigns... probably this thinkwork should happen elsewhere (and they can hire DNC staffers)...

            still... IF you work for the DNC and are twiddling your thumbs, and you tell your superviser and she comes up with nothing... I still say there is a lot to be doing.  Crafting blog posts would be better than nothing.

            again... I build in the irony.

      •  You are correct. (none)
        All of the nonessential white, Asian and Latino employees were laid off...

        there is literally nothing to do during these periods.

        Generally the DNC is run by a skeleton crew during these periods. And this isn't a secret.

        And frankly it is tough to find much to do when all your supervisers have been laid off.

      •  Point well taken . . . (none)
        Replace the sentence with:

        This is a vivid description of an employee's  lack of an incentive to find appropriate work to perform, when business is slow!!

        I didn't accurately describe what I meant in the original post. I tend to do that when I'm ticked off!! :(

  •  Time for the Truth... (none)
    It would seem a good time for the Democrats to abandon "the-little-pieces-to-make-a-whole" strategy and aim for something bigger, i.e. control a majority through appealing to middle-class love for their children (or some such thing).  Go after the global warming issue and get rid of catering to smaller groups.  Those groups end up winning in the end, and we don't have to worry about voter turnout and disenfranchisement.  The wealthy are lost (and good riddance), the poor don't vote (in high enough numbers), the core groups come at a high cost when they're all you pay attention to (look at last election); we need something better.

    Plus, as a bonus, we can be honest with Ms. Brazile.   Thanks for figuring out a way to deliver Chicago, DC, and Detroit, but "Bye!"

  •  40-60% STILL DON'T VOTE. (none)
    The fact is, Democrats are allowing twenty per cent of the electorate to Corporatize America. Every last one of the top "leadership" should resign, and move out of the way of real Democrats: Workers and Middle Class families who get screwed every day by Corporatists. Enough with the Ivy League wonks and so-called leaders of various divisive imaginary "communities." Aren't we tired of LOSING???

    There wasn't one candidate in the Demo primaries I would have voted for. I got stuck with Kerry. How about a worker, born of workers? A striver, born of strivers? A fighter, born of fighters?

    It's time the grass roots grew up, and took back their Party.

    Here's another issue to organize around. (Sorry, Kos, no inside baseball in this one):

    "POLL: PRIVATIZE HOMELAND SECURITY???"

  •  I don't like Donna but... (none)
    I could do without this veiled racial-tinged anonymous hit piece, or anymore of them in the future, for that matter.  There's many people I have some complaints with at times in or out of the Democratic Party structure, but this is not the way or the language I'd use to go about airing such complaints.

    Like, what the hell is this:

    The party is guilty of turning to blacks only when it comes time to vote, and you can help end that practice.

    Sounds like it's written by a Republican, giving a Republican stereotype.  This is damaging to the past of the party.

  •  Not appropriate and not useful (4.00)
    I like Donna Brazile from what I have seen of her, although of course I don't know her personally. I also thought she was tactful toward and showed some reserved admiration for Howard Dean during the primaries. My objection to her has been that I believe she is a Clinton insider. I like the Clintons, but I DO NOT want them to thwart what th Party must do right now--which is move forcefully and vocally in extremely strong opposition to Bush. I think we have to move beyond the DLC model for the Democratic Party. I don't like the rapprochement that Bill Clinton seems to think he is going to effect between himself and the two Bushes. (I think this is his personal mission for his own ego--to get some kind of personal acknowledgement from the two Bush presidents that a) he is a good man personally and b) he was a reasonably good president. I can understand why he might want this kind of recognition from them, but it has nothing to do with the politics of RIGHT NOW. He and Hillary have a lot of personal power and now they have a lot of personal wealth, so they can afford to entertain the idea that some kind of negotiation can go on. Meanwhile, the Bush junta is busy ignoring the Constitution and dismantling checks and balances as fast as they can. THESE ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE. THEY ARE NOT ACTING WITH A NORMAL RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR FOR THEIR POSITIONS.

    The Democratic leadership (elected and administrative) seems to NOT GET that the Bush Junta is interested in absolute power and nothing else. I have tended to see Donna as skillful, smart, and with a high E.Q., but planted firmly in the Clinton/DLC camp--meaning MOTS.

    As for the nasty statements about her, we don't have any way of knowing if they are true, but I think it is wrong to publish them. This is an attack on her reputation by an unnamed person. That hardly seems fair, and she is not here to defend herself. Frankly, the person who said this stuff, as revealed through Kos's post, sounds like s/he really has a personal axe to grind.

    As for Donna singlehandedly bringing in the Black vote, that seems like a utilitarian assumption at best and a racist one at worst. Shouldn't the entire Democratic Party be trying to do this?

  •  what a sad day (3.92)
    This piece is so wrong.  It was wrong to have written, wrong to have published anonymously and wrong to have posted on the front page, imo.  And it doesn't take but five seconds to realize this if you stand back and ask yourself:

    • What kind of worldview is gonna advocate giving Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000, a "Sister Souljah" moment?
    • What kind of point of view is gonna use the phrase "can't-afford-people-with-political-godmothers-to-sap-our-resources" when referring to African Americans?
    • and what kind of BULLSHIT is the following quote?:

    Donna is to the party what Jeese (sic), her mentor, is to the business community. She knows she can exact whatever she wants. What do we get in exchange?

    Let me ask you this question, Markos, and whoever wrote this thing:

    I want to know who is the "we" being referred to here, because it's not a "we" that I want to have anything to do with.  My "we" does not talk like that.

    This hit piece is a disgrace...to whover wrote it and to the dKos front page.  It seems the idea is that just because someone finds it okay to criticize a prominent African American woman, it's also okay to trot out sick ass tired stereotypes at the same time:

    • Blacks "cheat the system" (using their desks to promote their own business).  
    • Jesse and Donna use the cause of racial justice for personal motives and gain, not, I guess, because they believe in it to their core.
    • the proper way to treat a problematic Black woman who you disagree with, for reasons valid or not, is to give her a "Sister Souljah" moment.

    What a sickening turn of the phrase.   Absolutely disgusting.

    I've heard Sister Souljah, aka Lisa Williamson, speak. I've sat in the same room as her and listened to her.  I disagree with her.  Vehemently.  Said so at the time.  But if the upshot of Bill Clinton's critique of her is that it is now okay for Democrats to use her image as a way to pillory an African American woman who has nothing whatsoever to do with Sister Souljah's views then, quite simply:

    this isn't a party worth giving the time of day.

    It's a funny thing.  When African Americans stand up and caucus for their ethnic group, like every other ethnic group in American History, they, uniquely, get shot down for it.  Somehow, what was okay for my Irish and Czech ancestors to do isn't okay for Donna to do?  Somehow, it's wrong for Jesse or Donna to stand up for Blacks and gain political prominence for it but it's entirely okay for other ethnic groups and minorities to do the exact same thing?  

    What a sad day to read this here.

    I'm as white a dude as they come.  And, as a black woman friend said to me one time:  All you have to do is cut your hair, shave, and put on a good suit and you can walk into a job interview at the best Wall Street firm and not be given a second look.  You haven't even begun to put yourself in my shoes.

    Those words still ring true to me today. Donna Brazile, whatever valid critiques of her there are to be made, deserves so much better than this.  I don't care what the race or ethnicity of the "secret author," this is a hurtful and meanspirited way to make a critique.  And one that I vehemently disagree with.

    The readership of dKos deserves better than this, as well.  In publishing this anonymously on the front page, you have, in essence  signed your name to it, Markos.  You have cloaked the author under your authorship.

    This is a sad day for dKos.  As but one voice here, I want to apologize to Donna Brazile for this.  This piece does not represent my views or what I stand for politically.  We can be so much better than this.

    I truly believe that.  And I think many of you out there do too.

    I used to live like Robinson Crusoe--shipwrecked among eight million people. Then one day I saw a footprint in the sand, and there you were. -B. Wilder

    by kid oakland on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:40:17 PM PST

    •  Party Types (none)
      Are these folks you mentioned high level Democratic political operatives?  Isn't that what Ms. B claims to be?

      We've just lost yet another big election because of lame leaders like Schrum, Clinton and Ms. B.  Time for them to go.  There is no racial thing here, we only want our party back from the clowns who have run it into the ground.  The race card is always the one of last resort, usually protecting the worst offenders.  Hell, we've all lost jobs, but usually for things out of our control.  These clowns have had the control, run us off the road, and must, must go, now!

    •  HEAR HEAR !!! (none)
      I wish I could write as well as you do...but that god mother thing...was basically calling Donna a Welfare Queen
      •  that I don't get (none)
        that I thought was the one fair point in there...

        that was about "patronage" not race.

        er, I thought.  who knows.

        •  But the "patronage" (none)
          the author complained against was all racial patronage at least according to the author.

          its barely (if badly) coded.

          In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

          by a gilas girl on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:49:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  On the contrary (none)
        but that god mother thing...was basically calling Donna a Welfare Queen

        It was just the opposite, really - if she's a godmother, then she has the power to throw around to  protect her constituency.  If she's a welfare queen, then she's a powerless recipient of undeserved handouts.  

        I have no way of knowing if this writer's charge is bullshit or not, and the writer may, in fact, be a racist.  I'm inclined to agree that the post has little value on Kos' front page.  But I think you're finding racism in the language that just isn't evident.  Calling protected employees "untouchable" is not inherently racist.  Calling their protector a "godmother" is not inherently racist.  Talking about race as if it is an actual political reality is not only not racist, it's important, and having a racism-denouncing hair trigger drives it underground.

        Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

        by cerebrocrat on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:52:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, kid o (none)
      As someone who's critiqued Donna running her mouth to the press before undermining people, and as someone who's criticized some of her past tv appearances, I want to say that this "piece" is really unfair and uncalled for in the language it uses.
    •  well put (none)
      damn.

      "Donna Brazile, whatever valid critiques of her there are to be made, deserves so much better than this. "

      of course anyone can look at my comments in this thread and see this is total hindsight in my case... but you put it pretty well there kid.

    •  Thank you KO (4.00)
      This made me so sick to my stomach and sad when I read it.  How can anyone get past the first couple of paragraphs and think this is what our party stands for?  You're right, if it is then it's not my party.  If it is I've been fooled for a very long time.  The royal 'we' is no one I want to know or thought I knew if 'we' are emblematic of the Democratic Party.

      Remember that big controversy during 2003 about the firing of all those African American workers at the DNC? 'They' weren't fired, and 'they' were not let go because of 'their' race. 'Their' jobs were non-essential during the down period after any election.

      But Donna rallied to save 'their' jobs, protesting publicly and embarrassing the Chairman. She won't tell you that some untouchable staffers have so much time on 'their' hands 'they' are selling products for 'their' home businesses from 'their' desks. (Imagine if donors saw that shit happening inside the building they just paid for?) And before you even go there, this is not a black-white thing. It's a can't-afford-people-with-political-godmothers-to-sap-our-resources thing, whatever their race.

      Yesterday I learned on Kos that the NAACP is a special interest group and today I find out that Jesse Jackson is a shyster.  I wonder if anyone has filled Jesse Jackson in on who he really is.

      Absolute executive power absolutely tortures.

      by caliberal on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:40:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you're being overly dramatic (none)
      it's not that bad at all. the anonymous thinger makes it super trashy, but honestly, i have to say that the keyes/lesbian kissing scandal easily tops this. then again, i'll read anything and i take it ALL with a grain of salt--the times, dailykos, the star, drudge report, whatever. so anyway, it's hardle a "sad day" on dkos. our man has a long history--thank god--of posting juicy, sometimes scandalous news stories. it's part of the deal.

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. --Yeats

      by JaneKnowles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:23:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  more than agitprop in a campaign (4.00)
      I read all the comments page before deciding to attach a note to Kid O who I want to second for his remarks of disapproval to Kos.  This is wrong wrong wrong and I think Kos will regret it (but prob not admit it) someday.

      Essentially he is hiding behind someone else's anonymous morter shot to get the community all riled up.  What he wants are comments to show that there are a number of Kossacks (read: new dem activists) who disapprove of Brazile.  Certainly he's doing this to combat the attacks he must be taking in the high altitude parlor games re: DNC Chairman.  This is a skirmish of the (not snarky) self appointed reform democrats and the established kingmakers and insiders.

      Kos, I wish you the best in your personal and professional endeavors.  I like so much of what is going on here and in other new democratic communities around the country.  I hope Dean can seize the moment.

      But I still say this is wrong wrong wrong.  It is wrong to pursue personal gain by employing the language of race or the language of gender to smear someone if there is an iota of respect for anothers' race or gender in your heart.  If Donna Brazile, as a person, is a professional failure then call her for her failings as a professional.  If Donna Brazile, as a manager, is a personal failure for losing trust because she lies, or picks favorites, or shoots her mouth, etc then call her for her personal failings.  There is absolutely no need to win an argument by couching an attack in what I read to be race-tinged throughout and one-foot-in-one-foot-out racist at times.

      I'm a student of revolutionary parties.  I specialized in the Communist Party of China.  I devour everything I can on the post-Soviet social and political commentary that comes out of present Russia or eastern Europe to see into the largest surviving Leninist party in the world.  I have the recently departed Martin Malia's "The Soviet Tragedy" here next to me.  Bolsheviks, mensheviks, Trotskyites, faithful Leninists, Stalinists from 100 or 70 years ago would see this for what it is.

      We are witnessing a crescendo of revolutionary conflict inside the Democratic Party.  I think it is a good thing.  I've picked a side (you are reading a post here right?).  But there is a moment in any revolution that a "follower" must recognize boundaries and limits to what the "leadership" does in ones name in order to achieve the goal of the revolution.

      So I adding my voice to those who are saying wrong wrong wrong.  I won't accept a counterargument that says 'ends justify the means' or 'meekness means weakness.'  Not in my name, Kos.  I hope on reflection you'll remember the friends who are in no uncertain terms admonishing you today the next time you want to do anything like this.

      I'd buy that for a dollar [canned laughter]

      by SkipWalkDC on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:23:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment is wrong wrong wrong (none)
        Not in saying kos was wrong to post this - I agree with that.

        But imputing ulterior motives.  That was utter bullshit on your part.  It doesn't even make sense.  What does kos get from pissing off Brazile?  You think he can't privately badmouth Brazile to Dean directly?

        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

        by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:53:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  how is it possible (4.00)
          to use someone else's anonymous smear on your own web site and NOT HAVE ulterior motives?
          If he can speak directly to Dean about her, why air the anonymous laundry so publicly if not to bank shot smear her?
          And let's say I'm full of shit and off by a mile on the 'use dailykos to drum up attacks on Brazile', what is his motive to posting this smear?  He doesn't clearly state what his motive is, so by definition he must have ulterior motives.

          I'd buy that for a dollar [canned laughter]

          by SkipWalkDC on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:09:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ulterior? (none)
            that's ridiculous. What was his ulterior motive for posting on the Super Bowl?  What's your ulterior motive for posting these comments?  come on.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:13:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  because Kos' post had a clear intent (none)
            it maligned Brazile.

            Simply put.  You can side with Brazile instead of kos or stay out of it or whichever, but the motive was clear as a bell to lesson Donna's role at the DNC or in the Democratic party.

            Mind you I'm not defending that or the way it was done... but I'm defining "not-ulterior".

          •  direct motive = attack Brazile (4.00)
            means = anonymous smear posted in his name on his website
            ulterior motive = employ his shock troops to echo and enhance the attack

            But you didn't answer the question: if I am full of shit, what do you think his motivation is for this post?  (I'm inclined to thin it is only half like his post on the Super Bowl: to inspire debate.  But in the Super Bowl debate, he isn't going to use the outcome to advance his position.)

            PS - I am happy to thrash this out with you.  But I want to say up front that you're doing a great job on birddogging Gonzales.

            I'd buy that for a dollar [canned laughter]

            by SkipWalkDC on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:27:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I agree (3.50)
    Ms. B is really useless.  How many precincts can she carry?  I wonder if Gore really took any of her advice or if she was just window dressing.

    I know this sounds tight but the DNC staff, I know for a fact, is loaded with all sorts of people with no political skills, act like their jobs are some sort of divine contract and are connected in some way.  Sounds like the Mafia.

    Dean should clean house and bring in those fired up, energized folks who have been with him since the start.  He should also move some of the operational staff to Charleston, Il or someplace where the cost of living is low and staff can afford to live.  No need keeping them in DC, where you get what you pay for in staff.

    Many Democrat type organizations in DC are just the same, loaded with untouchables of all kinds, shapes and sizes.  Unions have this same problem.  They are loaded with staff who don't know or care to do their jobs.  Thats ok elsewhere, but not in the engine room of our national party.  The Unions also.

    Run em' out, open an office in Charleston, Il and get to work.  Those folks in Charleston who are fighting for no benefit min wage WalMart jobs would love the work, and do it better.  Besides, who better to help input on the Heartland but real people from the Heartland.

    Donna, take break, get a job at Fox,  we wouldn't want you to break a sweat.

    •  I'm gonna run with this idea. (none)
      What about a travelling DNC HQ!??!

      Three months here, Two months there.  

      Set up shop.  Get local.  etc?
      Totally do-able but waaaaay to out on a limb to risk the bad publicity???

      hrmm

  •  Yo, seriously, what kind of crack y'all smokin'? (3.77)
    Sometimes it seems like the collective wisdom of this site just goes to sh*t.  Pack mentality.

    How about, you know, try reading the letter and, you know, comprehending what it actually says instead of working overtime to find racism where none exists?  Just a thought.

    On the wingnut boards it's anti-American to say 'penis' and on dKos it's anti-American to say 'untouchables'.

    Look, if you don't want to take on tough topics, go elsewhere.  If you're going to be offended everytime someone calls Jesse Jackson a black man, go elsewhere.

    The anonymity thing is unfair, but racist?  Seriously - hook a brother up!  You must have the fairest of all bud.

    Those of us interested in actually having a conversation about important topics like race don't want to have to worry about offending the 'crying corps' everytime we post something.

    Unfarkinbelievable.  

    [Untouchables = black people] = brilliant

    Funny - I just read part of that boring witch hunting article on Salon today.  The better witch-hunting debate was right here on dKos.  Who'd a thunk it?

    •  Over the Wall (none)
      Great comments and insight.  We must move past this and tackle REAL issues.  

      We are all Democrats, we need to remember that.

    •  Yo yourself (none)
      This letter is fucking racist no matter how you read it.
      •  To you.. (4.00)
          But you shouldn't assume everyone reads it the way you do. I see a lot of bitching that she's not doing ENOUGH to engage black Democrats, which is hardly racist.
        •  If you notice (none)
          I have not commented on her performance. I think she is a hack just like all the other hacks... Begala, Carville, Trippi, Matthews.

          I am commenting on the racist tones in the letter, and the Black stereotypes he/she is invoking.

          •  equivalence through labeling (none)
            Not all hacks are equal. Some are useful; some aren't.

            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:46:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Problem is (4.00)
              This is subjective. You claim it's racist, I claim it's not. Where next? You claim I'm racist and I claim you're overly sensitive?

              You tell me that just PROVES I'm racist, and I tell you it just proves you're a jackass?

              This is a subjective call, lacking further information.

              You've closed your mind on the subject, I have not. I have seen nothing to indicate racism, but am willing to reasses. You seem to have decided on the subject, but all you're offering is repitition.

              I've seen that letter in the business world. Seen that viewpoint, that complaint, and it's never been racist. I think the only reason YOU think it's racist is because Donna is black and choose to protect black employees.

              I'm more used to a manager choosing to protect employees based on something a bit more complex than "Skin color".

             

            •  Okay you obviosly did not read the article (none)
              •  Which one? (none)
                  The one at the top of the page? Or some other article? If there's one you'd like me to read, feel free to link to it.

                  The facts as I'm aware of them are simple: The DNC -- like any seasonal business -- downsized after the election. Donna raised a big stink about it, and a  number of people were retained who had been slated to be laid off.

                  A number of other people throughout the DNC were laid off, as happens every four years.

                  Unless you can point to an obvious racial pattern -- like, say, half of those doing clerical work were retained and half fired -- and all those to be fired were black -- then you're just making baseless accusations.

                  If the entire clerical staff -- save the most senior member -- was laid off and the entire clerical staff was black, it's hardly be racist, would it?

                 

      •  namecalling doesn't make the case (none)
        You'd be more persuasive if you explained why you thought it was racist.

        Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

        by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:44:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you a republican? (none)
          I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I'm just curious.  Why do you run an anti-Blagojevich website, when your biggest beef against him is that "he shows scorn for politicians without acknowledging that he is one"?  Why do you blame him for failing to follow through on policy funding when federal support of state governments has been flushed down the budget toilet by George the Mad?

          Four-hundred years ago, on the planet Earth, workers who felt their livelihood threatened by automation flung their wooden shoes, called sabo, into the machines to stop them . . . hence the word: sabotage.
          --Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country

  •  Disgusting (4.00)
    I worked at the Democratic National Committee this election cycle and I know Donna Brazile. This is unsubstantiated trash from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. If this person believes he is so right about Donna, then let this coward publish his name for the record.
    •  We Only Deal with Results (3.66)
      Have you checked the scoreboard since 1994?
      •  Touche (none)
        I get what you're saying, but... that's kinda harsh.

        All in all without a formal acusation all this does is waste time.  Effectively a troll.  I wish I could moderate the anonymous 'tipster'/insider.  

        But there are tensions in the party and there are things the party needs to debate internally.  All voices under the tent should at least have a chance to say something.  

        IMHO the front page was not the place for this issue to be redressed.  

        (Maybe if there is a need for some kind of a sandbox for anonymous posts like this one.)
        Maybe not.

        To me this just goes to show how dirty politics really is.  Maybe the conspiracy theorists are right after all.........

    •  welcome to the site! (none)
      well, we can say this, at list the post inspired you to register and have an opinion!

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. --Yeats

      by JaneKnowles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:12:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This Is Not A Substantial or Appropriate Criticism (none)
      I agree mada4u87.  This is not an appropriate approach to issues relating to the DNC, its management or Dona Brazile.  

      If posters want to address the substance of her work, they should address that, and do so publicly.  If someone wants to address issues related to management of resources and management of the DNC headquarters when we are a minority party and need aggressive organizational infrastructure, even in non-Presidential election years - then that should be addressed as well.

      Regarding the diversity at DNC headquarters, how people may have behaved there regarding staffers, and whether or not there is something fishy going on and Donna might be onto something, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on these questions.  

      And, by the way, I don't agree with her on everything and I do agree with criticisms of many Democrats, including Brazile, when they have been advocates on talk shows.  They get too chummy with the other side and end up not being as effective as I'd like.  I don't want them to be less chummy, they have to be likable.  But they need to keep making their points effectively - which is not happening.  That may get to the point of communications strategy for Democrats.  However, that's not Donna Brazile's fault.  The entire democratic party's infrastructure needs to be remade for the new challenges we face (not so new, this has been going on since Reagan ran in his first campaign).

      So, I think it's a cheap shot, especially the anonymity.  However, the discussion has raised interesting issues that could be the focus of useful and real discussions about the DNC and organization of the democratic party's infrastructure generally.

  •  To analyze this letter correctly (3.50)
    We need to know whether or not it's true.  If there are "untouchable" staffers who are doing anything but can't be fired because they are black or protected by Brazile, then this is bad.  If it's bullshit, than it's racist howling.
    •  He clearly (none)
      relates "untouchables" to Black people
      •  Yes (none)
          Because, according to him, ONLY BLACK PEOPLE WERE PROTECTED.

          A statement of fact cannot be racist. If he's lying then he may or may not be racist (ignorance is always a possibility), but if Donna protected ONLY BLACK PEOPLE than pointing that out can't be racist, since it's a fucking true statement.

    •  Exactly (none)
      This really is the heart of the matter.

      Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

      by cerebrocrat on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:41:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Analysis (none)
      Whether the charges are true or not may be a matter of perception.  I get the distinct impression that there is no shortage of dead wood at the DNC.

      A more important point for analysis is: what is the writer trying to accomplish?

      If the charges are true, was it really a good idea to take it public?  Did the writer feel it necessary to go public for fear it would not be addressed by the incoming management?

      Even if the writer were to identify him/herself, it would be a bad idea to put the "DNC coddles shiftless black employees" story into the public domain.  The fact that it is anonymous makes it a very bad idea.

  •  DB being Black doesn't make her a sacred cow (3.00)
    I don't get making DB a sacred cow cuz she's Black.

    She's had her place at the table of power. She hasn't delivered for the Dems, although she appears to have taken care of herself.

    For you liberals wringing your hands over DB getting barbs because of how she's played her Blackness, how would you have it? Do you want her never to be criticized?

    If DB gets canned it isn't an attack on Blacks. It's what happens in politics.

    Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:08:28 PM PST

    •  Aw Come on (none)
      That is beneath you Carl.

      Rip Brazile to shreds. That's not the issue. The language is unfortunate. In fact, the language has overwhelmd the substance.

      Bad use of words. And insensitive. And, in the end, rather stupid, really hurt his argument.

      Actually, not much of a recommendation of the letter writer as a politically astute operative. Quite the reverse.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:21:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  are you changing the issue? (none)
        Is the DNC carrying DB's people on payroll when they don't need to?

        Why?

        Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

        by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:27:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Me? (none)
          Yes Carl I changed the subject. I convinced 50 people here to believe the language was racially insensitive.  I was especially brilliant in this in that at first I pretended to not believe that the language was racially insensitive and pretended to be convinced by the arguments of others.

          As for your question, I dunno, probably is my guess.  But it's a guess.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:34:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  counting the power points (none)
            If Blacks in power use their Blackness to game the system, do people with less power have a right to be mad about it?

            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:38:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure (none)
              Phrase it properly though.  

              "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

              by Armando on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:41:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah... really powerful! (none)
              This is where facts come in and we realize that this is another fake story... so I guess the Deep Throat forgot to mention this part?

              my comment above :

              Moore, who served as White House political director in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2000, says that during her tenure as chief operating officer at the DNC from early 2001 until August 2002, people of color made up at least half of the staff.

              According to DNC officials, Blacks made up approximately 30 percent of the 170-member staff in 2001. But, with a series of layoffs, the staff is now down to 94 people, 26 of whom are Black (22 percent). An additional reduction of 10 would have taken the number of Blacks down to only 16 or 13 percent of the staff.

              Meanwhile, Blacks continue to give 80 percent to 90 percent of its vote to Democrats.

              •  what's the solution? (none)
                Are you suggesting the solution is to keep Blacks on staff at make work jobs?

                Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:53:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  First of all (none)
                  I'd like to know why only Blacks were selected to be fired...then we go on from there. But to have only Blacks fired is a bit cheesy...
                  •  JEsus fucking christ (none)
                      You're ASSUMING THAT ONLY BLACKS WERE CHOSEN TO BE FIRED.

                      He said only black people were protected and you jump to the asisine and idiotic conclusion that they were the only people chosen to be laid off?

                      What? The DNC HR director is a fucking racist too?

                    •  Read the fucking article (none)
                      only Blacks were chosen to be fired it is a fact not an assumption. 10 people were to be fired and they were ALL Black
                      •  What article? (none)
                          What article? Point me to it. Oh, and then make sure it states that the ONLY PEOPLE BEING FIRED AT THE DNC WERE BLACK.

                          Because I sure as hell know that isn't the case, because the DNC let everyone go but their core staff.

                          Look, man, whatever the story is here, isn't certainly not obviously racism -- even if you want to it be. Prove it or let it go.

                        •  Having found your article (none)
                            Color me unimpressed. Nowhere is it stated -- despite what would have been a perfect oppurtunity too -- that the only layoffs were the 10 black staffers, and nowhere does it offer anything for this supposed racism except Donna's say-so.

                            Even the statistics aren't convincing, without information on DNC staffing levels and how they fluctuate, or who was fired and who quit.

                            As I noted elsewhere, my own department here has seen demographic changes that sharp in FAR less time, and "Racism" or "sexism" wasn't the reason at all.

                            The DNC would have ramped up staffing levels in 2002 and ramped down in 2004. Those numbers could mean ANYTHING. For all you know -- and they're careful not to mention -- the DNC could have had 12% black staffers before they started hiring in 2002 and after cutbacks had 14%....a net gain in jobs and in demographics, but only if you ignore the spike because of seasonal (as it was) hiring.

                            Crying racism requires a bit more than contextless statistics and one persons's say-so.

        •  Carl, Carl, Carl. (none)
          What an excellent question!

          However, like Robert Novak's anonymous tipster, we'll never know the person is.

          We knew it was a blind source and kos warned us to take with a grain of salt.  

          This is how the fox news channel works.  Incite people to controversy over some simple issue that is blown out of porportion and/or mis-represented.

          On the flip side.  There was another anonymous tip about the michigan money also today.  That tip sounds more 'real' and we'll probably see some 'real' actions sooner or later about that amount or money.  Someone will take the fall for sure.

          Man, now you've got me thinking that you're a troll too.  See what this type of thought breeds?

        •  If this post is true, then yes!! (none)
          As to why? Because they don't respect DB (or frankly the people that need to be fired) enough to tell them the truth that she isn't a very good spokesperson or political operative for the party and/or they aren't competent workers. Because they are afraid that she would put up a big stink and accuse them of racism--at least if I'm reading the crux of this post right.

          If the allegations in this post are true, then they just need to go ahead and fire the people. BITE THE BULLET!! They need to stop acting scared and start treating Donna B like everyone else. The DNC chair shouldn't change his behavior out of fear for being called a racist by Donna Brazile, Jesse Jackson or whoever. The Washington insiders should stand up for what they believe instead of cowtowing to racist charges, when race has nothing to do with it. Allowing these workers who lack any initiative to find work to remain gainfully employed at the DNC, while firing other people, doesn't help anyone's cause. It breeds resentment against these employees, as reflected in the original post and it shows that Dems are unwilling to treat African-Americans equally with their white/other minority counterparts. White Dems need to get over their fear of being called racists. AA just want a seat at the table when important decisions are made, just like everyone else!!

          I have to ask again why should Dems allow political operatives like DB to continue functioning in their leadership roles when they do such an ineffective job of it anyway? For instance, I'm sure that there are probably many African-Americans who could be a better spokesperson on tv than DB. Why doesn't the party mentor those people to take the place of DB? When DB steps out of line and criticizes party members in the press openly, why doesn't someone confront her about it? Is it b/c she's black and they are afraid to confront her for fear that she will play the race card? I don't know!! But the post implicitly presents several issues on some of the racial politics that play out in the Democratic party which is pretty troubling.
           

    •  but calling her Sista Soulja? (none)
      I don't think you get the context. The DLC appears to be punishing Brazil for abandoning ship by threatening to Sista Soulja her.  I don't care for Brazil myself and she was a toadie of these people for far too long, but this looks like self destructive desperation on there part. They are showing their antiblack tendencies.

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:49:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I question the underpinnings of the opposition (3.50)
    to this letter.  It's meanspirited because it is anonymous, yet written in a personal manner. I do not find it racist.  In our work to reform the party, let's agree to not immediately slap a racist label on a negative judgement about an African American leader.  I read the writer as saying Donna Brazile embarrassed the Chair and used the race card to keep unnecessary staff employed. I read the writer as saying DB pretends to be an advocate for the African-American segment of the party, but fails to spend any time working to improve the performance of minority districts. The writer is warning Dean from falling for her as we need to find real ways to be more inclusive and encourage turnout. This is racism.  
  •  The dlc crowd shows its dixiecrat roots (2.80)
    .

    Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

    by NoAlternative on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:43:50 PM PST

  •  All hail Saturn eating his children (3.00)
    Hey, did you guys hear how Kerry faked his war wounds?  Supposedly some folks who served with him are trying to expose how he hyped his service record.  Has anyone else heard about this?  I think it raises important questions about Kerry's patriotism and fitness for public service.

    As an aside, the great Bob Novak unveiled Tom Foley's "Sista Soulja moment". <wink>. Anonymous slander is Godhead.

  •  Fuck Donna Brazile (2.71)
    It's great this shit is on the front page!

    Is is racist? Should we be attacking each other?  Why post this now?

    Fuck all those questions.  It's all a bunch of shit.

    y'all are ignoring a larger question, which is
    Why the FUCK does this woman have anything to do with the DNC in 2005?

    Didn't this dipshit run the incompetent Gore 2000 campaign?  When Fahrenheit 9/11 stated '...and hope like hell the other side just sits by the phone, waiting for a call."  it was refering to Donna.

    And you know, Bay Buchanan does mop the floor with Donna everytime she's on CNN.  Please Howard, don't listen to this fucking dipstick.
    She's the type of person you need to expel from the building:  a fucking loser and a whiner.

    •  I wish i said it like you did (none)
      She's long past her prime if she ever even had a prime.

      We need to be rid of these old fashioned dinosaurs.
      But this time we don't need as asteriod to get rid of them-just a meteor named Howard!

      This aggression will not stand.

      by DailyLife on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:39:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Donna Brazile (none)
    Donna Brazile was Chairman of the Voting RIghts Institute.  Did the Voting Rights Institute do anything to protect voting rights?  It was the Kerry-Edwards campaign that put together the network of 17,000 lawyers to do election protection.  VRI had to be dragged to the party before and after November 2.
  •  Donna Brazille (none)
    In my opinion it became "racist" when the writer made reference to Jesse Jackson and sista Soulja who both happen to be black as Ms. Brazille herslef is.  I like Donna Brazille. She's done a lot for the party..I haven't agreed with her on EVERYTHING, but she IS a fellow DEMOCRAT that shares MOST of my core beliefs. I hope she can contribute loads to Dr. Dean as he leads our party....Enough said.  
    •  Donna Brazile Deserves Better than This (none)
      Love ya Kos, but I gotta agree -- I can't stand anonymous attacks like this, it's just not fair.

      And I agree -- I like Donna Brazile, a lot. In all my dealings with her, she's been a class act, big time, and a good person.

      If people don't agree with Donna, fine, then state your disagreement.  But these ad hominem, anonymous attacks are a heaving pile of you know what...

  •  Can't tell which part is worse (none)
    That it is true and that you put it on the front page or you put it on the front page and it is true. Wow....

    Donnie, Roemer, Frost, Webb, and now Brazile; who will you talk shit about next? Dailykos is turning into a gossip magazine and it is going to discredit itself.

    Step one: Compare to nazis or aparthied
    step two: make a radical slanderous claim

    It is getting pretty predictable around here.

  •  Wow!! (none)
    So many posts
    So much emotion

    I do not see the letter as racist. There's nothing racist about calling it like it is and to be honest the woman is not that good.
    Everytime I see Donna B. on CNN or hear her on NPR, I want to switch the channel because she does such a horrible job.

    Chance favors the prepared mind.

    by hypnyx on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:50:08 PM PST

  •  She reminds me... (none)
    of the Memphis, TN democrats.  The local party there is (or was, when I lived there) led by a small, cliquish group of African-American pols, educators, and business folks, and, sad to say, it's as corrupt and self-serving a group as I've ever seen.  Goes to prove that corruption and selfishness transcends party and racial boundaries.  Donna Brazile would fit right in with that crowd.

    Ref: this is the bunch that gave us Harold Ford Sr. and Harold Ford Jr.

  •  Very late to this party ... (none)
    ...but just wanted to say I totally agree with you.
  •  Chats with Rove (none)
    I read about this a while ago and was convinced it's time for her to go.  Plus, she managed Gore's lame 2000 campaign, which is reason enough for me to want to see her go.  

    Dean doesn't have to boot her out of the party, just promote her to a useless and powerless position to remove her from the equation.  Make her head of DLC or something.  <snark>

    "You beat on this prick enough, he'll tell ya he started the Chicago fire - that don't necessarily make it so!" -Nice Guy Eddie, Reservoir Dogs

    by Subterranean on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 01:48:38 AM PST

  •  btw, to demonstrate no racism, (none)
    can someone at the DNC bust on that screeching foxnews-whore susan estrich? she is ten times as useless as brazile.
    •  in comparison, (none)
      brazile manage gore campaign vs estrich manage dukakis campaign- scoreboard brazile, as it were

      brazile lose to buchanan on CNN vs estrich agree with hannity on Fox- scoreboard brazile, as it were

      brazile represent african-americans vs estrich represent aimless drifting whites of privilege- scoreboard brazile

      this one isn't even close.

  •  My First Post (none)
    Is to say that the blind quote is real lame.  Especially noting the prominence on the site of this lame post.
  •  beneath contempt (none)
    this posting is totally inappropriate and a personal attack on Donna Brazile. If the person who is quoted had any balls whatsoever he/she would put his/her name on opinions. It is totally beneath the high standards I thought were adhered to on this important blog site.
  •  Don't know much about Donna (none)
    but I suspect that there is PLENTY of work to be done at the DNC.
  •  STUPID WHITE MEN/WOMEN! Shame on you! (none)
    99% percent of you whiteys are racist for the simple fact that you assumed the anonynmous "party insider" was "WHITE"

    Is it impossible to conceive in your reality that the anonymous party insider might just possibly  have been BLACK?

    You know, even though there clearly are not many participating on this thread, there are still a few black "insiders" in the Dem leadership (ever hear of the CBC?), and a lot more who vote Democratic, and are completely fed up with Dems loosing constantly.

    And Blacks are about the only ones left in the democratic party who still have the balls to tell it like it really is, and fight on.

    Have you kossacks ever watched the Chappelle Show? Hey: Is it racist for a black to accuse another black of being a house-nigger, or an uncle tom?

    [OOPS!] [Embarrassment]  Step away from the keyboard. You're all busted!

    Like what if just MAYBE a John Conyers, or Jesse Jackson Jr, or Stephanie Tubbs Jones was fed up off with her lack of action and MIA status on the vote security office she was supposed to be overseeing for the 2004 election, or

    What if it was Sheila Jackson Lee, or a Charles Rangel, or a Barbara Lee, who might have been outraged by her Fox-friendliness  and ineffectiveness on the media as a betrayal to her party and her race.

    Noooo.  Nobody besides a Stupid White Man can be a Democrat insider.

    Yes. Racists.

    Now Start thinking, and start behaving like winning  (not whining)  Democrats, not crypto-Dixiecrats.

     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site