Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Salena Zito: Democrats’ Hillary snub still divisive
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | August 4, 2012 | Salena Zito

Posted on 08/05/2012 5:26:49 PM PDT by neverdem

For a striking number of Democrats, May 31, 2008, is a day that lives in infamy.

That’s when the national party’s rules committee dealt a death blow to Hillary Clinton’s bid to win the presidential nomination over Barack Obama.

The committee, weighted with Obama loyalists, issued a unanimous decision amid whispered back-door deals.

The date “will not be forgotten,” according to Gayle Allegro, a Democrat from Pine Island, Fla. — which is why she was frosted by last week’s announcement that Bill Clinton will be the keynote speaker at the Democrats’ national convention next month.

“If Obama and his crew think that having Bill Clinton give a speech is going to sway all the Democrats that left the party in 2010 or just slipped into the shadows, they are mistaken,” she said.

“Do they really think we are that stupid, that we don’t see what is going on?”

Allegro, 60, is one of those women who break glass ceilings. She has lived in Europe, North Africa and Israel, and was one of the first female laborers on the Alaska oil pipeline while earning a master’s degree in economic geology.

In 2008, most Democrats sucked up their sense of personal loss regarding Hillary and voted for Obama because the idea of handing Republicans another four years in the White House was just too awful to bear, said Lara Brown, an Electoral College expert at Villanova University.

“Nevertheless, they had reservations about Obama’s leadership skills and experience,” she said.

By 2010, Clinton Democrats’ Obama allegiance waned and they were the deciding factor that removed Democrats from power in the U.S. House, closed the margin in the U.S. Senate and flipped state legislatures and governor’s mansions to Republicans across the country.

Now, on the threshold of the 2012 election, many are still angry with their party — mirroring how conservatives felt in the 2006 Bush midterm election and 2008 general election. They’re angry enough to not vote, or to vote for the opposing team.

To understand why, you must understand their roots.

In 2004, Bill Clinton loyalists, distraught over Democrat John Kerry’s defeat, hunkered down and planned for the next presidential election.

They fortified themselves with a few thoughts: Hillary would be the 2008 nominee, and Obama’s 2004 convention speech proved the party had a bright centrist future because both were pragmatists.

They didn’t plan on Howard Dean supporters (including the “netroots” and ideological progressives) believing Kerry lost because he wasn’t liberal enough.

They also didn’t plan on this faction starting a revolution in the party.

With Dean in charge of the Democratic National Committee, progressives worked to convince rank-and-file Dems that victory required a 50-state strategy and dismissing people in “flyover” states as not knowing what was good for them.

They believed government led by coastal (elitist) Democrats would be good for those people; it would educate them on environmental issues and help the “guns- and God-clinging” crowd vote on economic self-interest, not on cultural issues.

Moderates always have been skeptical of such arguments, Brown said: “They believed in trying to bridge cultural differences between the coastal and the interior Democrats.”

Angry Clinton Democrats not only lost the 2008 nomination, but Obama did not become the president they expected based on his 2004 convention speech. They felt their party betrayed them by installing its progressive wing and kicking out its centrists.

These voters, sometimes called Reagan Democrats, hold traditional values. Based on job (blue-collar), religion (Catholic), location type (rural) or region (Appalachia and Midwest), they prefer moderate government regulation of the economy.

In 2008, they supported Hillary in the primaries. They also gave Obama, the most liberal U.S. senator, the benefit of the doubt and chose him over Republican John McCain.

Today, Allegro has no more benefit-of-doubt to give Obama.

Nor do Jo Ann Nardelli, the Democrats’ former vice chairman in Pennsylvania, or Richard Furillo and son Matthew, two Youngstown, Ohio, Democrats.

Theirs are the voices that usually remain unheard, theirs the views typically not considered, in much national political analysis.

Yet they all insist they are not alone.

Salena Zito covers politics for Trib Total Media. (412-320-7879 or szito@tribweb.com)


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: angrydems; bho2012; bho44; hillary; obama; zito

1 posted on 08/05/2012 5:27:01 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salena Zito; upchuck

BTTT! & a Ping


2 posted on 08/05/2012 5:29:55 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump another reason for Sarah Palin:

A great excuse just in case of Hillary...


3 posted on 08/05/2012 5:32:32 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A pox on both their houses.


4 posted on 08/05/2012 5:32:35 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (I didn't post this. Someone else did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Interesting.


5 posted on 08/05/2012 5:35:18 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Word Is Out,Harry Reid's Into Child Porn.Release All Your Photos,Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Obama did not become the president they expected based on his 2004 convention speech. They felt their party betrayed them by installing its progressive wing and kicking out its centrists.

So in other words they are stupid. They didn’t bother to check who the man actually was but voted for him based on a speech. Hahaha shah!


6 posted on 08/05/2012 5:42:19 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping nd. Salena, ya did it again. Fantastic article.


7 posted on 08/05/2012 5:47:39 PM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salena Zito

It would be interesting to know where these folks fit in the national polls.


8 posted on 08/05/2012 5:49:26 PM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
For a striking number of Democrats, May 31, 2008, is a day that lives in infamy. That’s when the national party’s rules committee dealt a death blow to Hillary Clinton’s bid to win the presidential nomination over Barack Obama.

Actually, it was March 21, 2007.

And it's still there.

9 posted on 08/05/2012 5:50:23 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The silent majority of both parties need to rise up and be heard!!

their differences would be minor compared to the “elite leaders” of both power hungry party's

10 posted on 08/05/2012 5:57:43 PM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Speaking of Hillary, what happened to Hillbuzz?


11 posted on 08/05/2012 6:32:11 PM PDT by manic4organic (We won. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“They fortified themselves with a few thoughts: Hillary would be the 2008 nominee, and Obama’s 2004 convention speech proved the party had a bright centrist future because both were pragmatists.”

Centrists? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Both Obama and Hillary are Marxists. Despite his position, she still gets more women than him. She got more than Bill.


12 posted on 08/05/2012 6:50:20 PM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

seems to me that ole willie doesn’t seem as concerned or angry over his wife being kicked to the curb for Obama. So, why should they be upset???


13 posted on 08/05/2012 7:32:29 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The woman-scorned factor raises its ugly head.


14 posted on 08/05/2012 7:56:18 PM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
By 2010, Clinton Democrats’ Obama allegiance waned and they were the deciding factor that removed Democrats from power in the U.S. House, closed the margin in the U.S. Senate and flipped state legislatures and governor’s mansions to Republicans across the country.

they became members of the TEA party ?
15 posted on 08/05/2012 8:03:00 PM PDT by stylin19a (Obama - Fredo Smart ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Centrists. Yeah, about spit up on my keyboard on that one.


16 posted on 08/05/2012 8:14:44 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hillary was told by her handlers she wasn’t running.


17 posted on 08/05/2012 9:53:34 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Centrists? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Both Obama and Hillary are Marxists. Despite his position, she still gets more women than him. She got more than Bill.

I'm with you. What's with this resurrected, antique "Blue Dog DLC Centrist" canard? That went out the window in 1993 with DADT and the beginnings of Hillarycare, which Beastie began whomping up in a locked room, Soviet-style.

What was centrist about anything the Klintonx did when they thought they were high in the saddle?

The only thing they did that was "centrist" was to listen to Bob Rubin at Treasury and not do anything to crash the 30-year T-bond market. And Slick was pretty unhappy about being schooled on that by Rubin, who knew what he was doing. (In between pulling his private chestnuts out of various fires he'd started while still over at his Goldman, Sachs CEO job.)

Slick Willie pouted at having to do small-scale, "deal of the day" mini-initiatives to try to control the news headlines, when he wanted to let 'er rip like Landslide Lynt'n.

Wonder who Zito's been talking to. They sure have a funny-colored Hall of Mirrors prism they're looking through.

18 posted on 08/05/2012 11:14:51 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; doug from upland
Centrists? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Slick Willie was reasonably adept at maintaining his moderate image if you didn't inspect his appointees and actual policies. The DLC served his purposes with moderates in both major parties, actual independents and hereditary Jacksonian Democrats just enough that with Perot in both races in 92 and 96 he became a two termer without ever getting more than fifty percent of the popular vote.

Wonder who Zito's been talking to. They sure have a funny-colored Hall of Mirrors prism they're looking through.

She's talking to working class whites, a whole bunch of which are being economically killed by Obama's war on coal, oil and natural gas. Add in Obama's various and sundry attempts to revive the culture wars beyond Obamacare and the administration's corruption and incompetence.

The GOP got sixty percent of the white vote for the first time in 2010. I'll be surprised if it's not more than sixty five percent of the white vote in 2012.

19 posted on 08/06/2012 12:49:24 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We're just going to have to do something about our demographics. Look at the ridiculous majorities of Americans -- emphasis on Americans -- we have to roll up now, to keep, or get, white-hating, America-hating, Communist-loving Islamists out of the Oval Office!

We're going to have to induce massive remigration to Mexico, and somehow lure the Obamanoid tax-eaters onto vast transports (converted supertankers maybe) for the ride to West Africa to "get even" with the Ashanti and Hausas who sold great-great-great grandmother into slavery and exile. Offer them unlimited feasts of favorite foods, luxe accommodations, guns, gold -- whatever it takes to get them on the bus. Or just tell them that West Africa is a pile of gold and diamonds, and give them the guns to go take it. Payback's a bitch, and this way we pay back all parties.

I think we can't have what we've got right now. The divisions are just too much, and we have right before us two examples (Clinton, Obama) of our enemies using these doofus race-political and homosexual and lesbian and man-hating Shemale stooges to install their Manchurian tools in our highest offices. This has got to tear it, finally, beyond any party affiliation.

Identity politics is about the division and destruction of America, and we've got to go after it.

20 posted on 08/06/2012 2:58:43 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
She's talking to working class whites, a whole bunch of which are being economically killed by Obama's war on coal, oil and natural gas.

Do they realize they're also getting killed on racial-preference and patronage politics? That they're being gradually recast as The New Nigras, constantly watched and restrained and vilified to their faces the way blacks used to be in the Old South? Recast as Enemies of the State and as a breeder pool for a Toll of Boys for the homosexuals? Integrated into totalitarian social and economic structures, like the SPP and the ICC and WTO?

They've been asleep at the switch for years, thanx to Major Media's Prolefeed(TM) ... they've got some more waking up to do.

21 posted on 08/06/2012 3:11:42 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
A pox on both their houses.

There is a fair case to be made going forward, that anything that keeps Hillary! out of the White House may be a good thing in the long run.

Obama's crap is so obviously vile and odious, that the Tea Party-assisted GOP can get it taken down (not that Mittens is the right guy for that, and not that the RNC RiNO-ate are the guys you want running the GOP, because they WON'T take Obamacare down for reasons I've posted several times), but Hillary! would be the tougher political opponent, esp. with Slick helping her and trying to get an angle on President of the World for himself.

22 posted on 08/06/2012 5:25:23 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
A pox on both their houses.

There is a fair case to be made going forward, that anything that keeps Hillary! out of the White House may be a good thing in the long run.

Obama's crap is so obviously vile and odious, that the Tea Party-assisted GOP can get it taken down (not that Mittens is the right guy for that, and not that the RNC RiNO-ate are the guys you want running the GOP, because they WON'T take Obamacare down for reasons I've posted several times), but Hillary! would be the tougher political opponent, esp. with Slick helping her and trying to get an angle on President of the World for himself.

23 posted on 08/06/2012 5:25:46 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Moderate Dem activists will vote for Obama, despite any lingering resentment or doubts-—much the same way Republican arch conservatives will end up voting for Romney in order to get Obama out of office to save the country.

The question is whether the average s0-called Reagan Dems who have been slimed as bitter-enders, clinging to their religion and guns, have had enough of Obama and his ‘transformation of America”.

They don’t have to vote for Romney, just stay home and get the same result while remaining Dems.


24 posted on 08/06/2012 7:44:07 AM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson