Sorry, but I'm not a fan

:thumbsdown:

I sure hope he disappears into the night once this campaign is over.

He comes across as very angry, nasty man.

Those who think he's a swell guy have no right to criticize James Carville or any of Hillary's support staff, in my opinion.



David Axelrod

Say, do you have a prescription for that koolaid?

rather, he seemed soft-spoken and thoughtful. He certainly doesn't play the buffoon that Carville does.

:shrug:

I find Wolfson and McAuliffe intolerable. I've never had an issue with Carville.

they're like jockeys riding roses, they switch off onto a new horse every 4 years.

I suspect he will be with Obama for the duration. Forgive me for making the comparison but...he's Obama's Rove.

Axelrod's strategies are far cleaner and classier than Rove's, and HE'S WINNING!

A true genius, if you ask me.

Specially after his Richardson Judas remark.
I have lost all respect for him.

remark, per se.

All he had to do was simply refer to Mr. Richardson as a back-stabber.

That would have been a perfectly fair remark and summed up the Governor's behavior without going down the road of Judas.

Cronyism is what was expected from Bill Richardson.
He owed Sen Clinton his vote in their opinion.
This is Bull shit.
I am a big fan of Wesley Clark and i never held it against him for supporting Sen Clinton.
I still respect him.

100 and Bill Richardson will never be capable of securing any type of White House job on his own.

He depends on other people.

During the debates, all he talked about -- and I mean all he talked about, was how good he is at diplomacy .. how he's been here and there .. how he's negotiated with this dictator and that dictator...

He did indeed do a good job, but Bill Clinton chose him over dozens of equally qualified candidates ... let's be honest.

I think you would agree that most of the pundits were predicting Richardson was going to end up backing Hillary Clinton once he dropped out.

However, when he noticed Obama winning state after state (albeit small ones, as opposed to the large states Hillary has won), he decided the handwriting was on the wall.

And since he wants yet another White House job, he decided to go with Obama because he has no more use for Hillary or the Clintons.

Thus, he back-stabbed Hillary/Bill Clinton in the name of a future White House position.

Just a terrible lack of personal loyalty. Mr. Richardson dismisses it in the name of loyalty toward his country, which he cites as being more important.

As though that's his real motive. :eyes:

Do you see now GoPsUs? It's really quite simple, and I'm far from the only person whose pointed this out.

More than happy to answer your follow-up questions.

alone. Their grip on power is finished.

Besides screwing up my screen name :D
I don't agree with your accusation that Bill Richardson backed Obama strictly for a WH Job.
He is a smart man and he made a choice using the best information he had.
It was very clear to him that Sen Obama had more appeal toward the voters who decide elections, the independents.
Sen Clinton is well hated (wrongly I will add) by a large chunk of poorly informed americans who IMHO would vote McCain over her.
I know several
This was my original reasoning for backing Obama over Clinton.
I appreciate your stalwart support for your candidate,I do.
I think sometimes we just see what we wish to see.

Ia actually looked at it three times to try to make sure I spelled it correctly!! x(

As for your response, I respect your view. I read every word and found it thought provoking.

WOW! We can disagree and be civil to each other.
Out of respect and appreciation I give you a Clinton shout out

Here's a cool shot for you

:D

or her negative campaign or her divisive tactics. It's just Richardson is what he is because of the Clintons and he should have known his place and stayed with the losing and negative campaign out of loyalty. Got it. :eyes:

Have you ever admitted yet that you like Hillary more than Obama and you are supporting her campaign or are you still playing the "I'm a neutral observer" role?

because that would be inaccurate considering I:

(A) Did not vote for her in the California Primary

(B) Have not sent her campaign any money

(C) Am not actively campaigning for her

(D) Simply speak out in order to provide some sort of balance here at DU, considering her supporters are heavily outnumbered.

===========

Would I like Hillary Clinton to get the nomination over Obama?

Yes, absolutely.

But I've never denied or concealed that view merh. I've consistently said I don't trust Obama because of the McClurkin incident.

Yet, with the exception of McClurkin threads, I have not posted any negative threads about Obama.

You know, when I watch the Dallas Cowboys on TV, I always root for the other football team.

Doesn't mean I necessarily like or support the other team .. I just want the Cowboys to lose because I don't like them.

Good Hillary-Obama analogy.

Most importantly, I'm on record as saying I'm voting for the Democratic Nominee.

You keep trying to pin me into a corner of hypocrisy, but it doesn't wash.

I've been very consistent, so I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Your attacks on Richardson is evidence of that.

He owes nothing to the Clintons, they don't own him. He has every right to view the campaign and the tactics used to decide what he should do. He doesn't have to, nor should he be expected to, close his eyes to fact that Hillary's campaign has been poorly run and is running itself and the Clintons into the ground while it divides the nations and creates deep wounds in the psyche of the nation.

If you support the underdog, as you allege, you should be supportive of Richardson's independent choice, that he actually choose to step out of some perverse and, in his view, destructive loyalty bonds, to voice his opinion regarding the direction of the party and what is best for the nation.

To not agree is one thing, to think he is wrong or over dramatic, is one thing, but to condemn him as a back stabber is an attack on the man, a man who has done good things for this nation and for the Clintons.

Disagreeing with a choice is so totally different from attacking the one that makes the choice.

What you view as back stabbing and others view as Judas like behavior is neither, it is an independent choice that Richardson was entitled to make knowing the clintons better than you and I could ever know them, knowing what they did for him, knowing he opened himself up to the petty attacks, it was his right and the clintons do not own him and he owes them nothing. He has the right to do what he perceives is right for himself, to try to limit that and attack him for making the choices is justification enough in support of the choice he made.

Oh, and if you were for the underdog, as you allege, Obama was the underdog, the unknown that came from behind. Clinton was the favorite, she had all the advantages and all the backing. She has just run a very bad campaign.

anywhere.

What I said is I've been trying (unsuccessfully I realize), to provide balance, since there are so many more Obama supporters posting here.

And my choice of Hillary over Obama also has nothing to do with underdogs, and everything to do with not trusting him.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about Richardson, as our views are far apart regarding his behavior.

my distrusting her.

Our views regarding Richardson are not what are far apart, it is our views regarding what constitutes the boundaries of relationships, the requirements of friendship, the bounds of loyalty and the importance of being true to oneself.

He was given an opportunity and he did an awesome job. He used that experience to help him get elected in New Mexico. He ran against Hillary Clinton for President. If he would have placed in Iowa do you think he would owe her the loyalty of stepping aside so that she could get her precious nomination.

:rofl:

BTW Bill Clinton campaigned for Bobby Rush in 2000 which is inpart why Obama lost that congressional primary. Payback's a bitch isn't it :rofl:

Richardson should be on his hands and knees thanking the Clintons.

Just watch him during interviews and you can tell how ungrateful he is.

He believes a White House job {yet another one} shouold be handed to him on a silver platter

Atrocious.

:eyes:

On edit: Only 7, not 8. I almost made him look bad for a second, phew!

Not all of us have the same taste.

Axelrod has the coolest presentation style of any "spinner" out there today. He may be a shrewd sumbitch behind the scenes but he's an ace mouthpiece...in my view.

Especially when compared to Clinton surrogate McAuliff.

laid back he is compared to other campaign heavy hitters.

Kind of like his boss...

I'm thinking the OP is trying to be sarcastic??

the Democrats need people that can do that. David and David (Axelrod and Plouffe) are gold for the Party.

Late-breaking news?

:hi:

Wolfson - now there's someone who deserves public ridicule.

Shorter cboy4: "I hate winners. Winners make me angry, and I project that anger onto WINNERS! Yeaaaaargh!!!"

a campaign from 2006 and millions bought it hook, line and sinker - and they actually think it's original/unique to boot. :rofl:

If he was smart, he would have used the recycled 17 State strategy the Clintons used. :eyes:

sure Carville, or Penn (who for some reason knew all about the rules of the Republican primary but was totally ignorant of rules established for the Democratic primary), yes they have been beyond simply being jerks....buy Axelrod, I don't see that one as he seems a bit milk-toasty to me (not meant in a bad way, just that he's not an in-your-face type of guy from what I've seen).

I am really curious exactly what actions, statements, etc. by Axelrod that caused you to feel as you do. I must have missed it whatever it was, but if you can give specific details I can always catch-up on youtube.

....no wonder there are wars.

intelligent and soft spoken every time I see him on TV. He was masterful at navigating the ocean we call a primary. He saw a route to the nomination that no one else did, and set a course for victory.

Carville, during the Clinton run, was funny and I use to laugh with him. Now he's sad and I laugh at him. He's changed over time. It seems that he has fallen into the trappings of his success.

Personal ties between Axelrod and Hillary Clinton also made it difficult, as she had done significant work on behalf of epilepsy causes for a foundation co-founded by Axelrod's wife, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy. (Axelrod's daughter suffers from developmental disabilities associated with chronic epileptic seizures). Axelrod's wife even said that a 1999 conference that Clinton's convening on finding a cure for the condition was "one of the most important things anyone has done for epilepsy." Ultimately, however, he viewed Obama's potential candidacy as inspirational and historic. He often likens Obama to Robert F. Kennedy and told The Washington Post, "I thought that if I could help Barack Obama get to Washington, then I would have accomplished something great in my life."

The people on the field, in the game, all know the game they're playing and what's in the rulebook. The people in the stands (us) are encouraged to get whipped into a frenzy in support of their teams, but aren't told about everything that's in that rulebook, especially the parts about getting dirty. With the internet, though, we stop being simple watchers and we become a part of the game.

When you've got some of the bleacher crowd who are aware of the dirty pool rules and some who don't, someone's going to get an eye poked out; if everyone in the stands knew the rules, however, they'd eventually lose enthusiasm because everyone would know that everyone else is merely going through the motions.

So, yeah. Here's Axelrod who has every reason to respect the hard work and contributions HC has given to her country, but it's his job to create people - create Democrats in the bleachers - who believe she is the lowest of the low, in order to help his client win.

And when it's all over, they're going to shake hands and she's going to congratulate him on the great job he did.

And all of these people who "used to respect" HC will never know just how badly they've been played.

omg please

what have you been drinking?

Penn was an angel?

AND

Carville? OMG he is a total idiot............

He is running an excellent campaign by all accounts. He is soft spoken and to the point. What are you talking about?

LOL!!

Look at how much he charged Hillary Clinton, to run a campaign that ultimately fell short...

which you deduced as very angry. HMMMMM Interesting and pathetic

you talking about?

Not only have I seen him numerous times on television -- I've read countless quotes and statements from the man.

You should at least attempt trying to think before you respond to my words of wisdom DPP.

lol

campaign for human rights, but use YOUR OPINION to attempt to smear someone's good name AND what is the pic for...it's supposed to add what to YOUR OPINION?

accuse me of having only seen Axelrod "one time."

Talk about something strangely amiss.

Now then, my passion for human rights certainly doesn't prohibit me from having an opinion about someone who I feel exhibits sleazy characteristics.

Whether he has a "good name" or not is purely subjective in nature, and it's hardly preposterous and unheard of to charge someone involved with politics of behaving badly.

You don't agree, fine.

But just because you disagree doesn't mean my opinion is a smear. I believe I'm accurately describing his behavior.

As for the pic...ummm, it's to show what the person in question looks like.

Not everyone here may know what he looks like DogPoundPup.

It's peculiar why you're so defensive of this man.

Know what I'm sayin'?

Ugly is as ugly does!

but as someone who has watched this campaign on ground level, it's been pretty remarkable (and I'm one who doesn't care much for political operatives for hire).

Nice try to smear Obama's campaign be we all know that Axelrod is nowhere near as close to the evil embodied by Hillary's campaign people. Wolfson looks and acts like that weird dude Woogie from There's Something About Mary. :rofl:

From here on out... it's him and Rove.

for running a dirty campaign, then perhaps she isn't the "smart, tough, experienced candidate" she's always being given credit for being.

She wasn't "smart" enough to see it coming and she wasn't "tough" enough to stop it.

All it proves to me is that Obama is, in addition to being a better potential president, a far superior campaigner.

These are campaign operatives. Liking them is nowhere relevant. They are judged by whether they produce for their candidate. Right now, Axelrod is king of the mountain. All hail.

stumbles which arguably could be why Obama has failed to finish off Hillary with the required number of delegates thus far....well then, you have a very different definition of "produce" and "All hail." lol

Do you think Penn's or Wolfson's reputation has risen in the course of a bankrupt, losing campaign? That makes no sense at all.

So it doesn't really matter what you think of him personally. He did his job, which is to organize, get Obama's message out there, and counter the opponent's attacks. He has been superb and will do well against McCain's campaign.

when he worked on John Edward's campaign in 04?

I thought you were better than the others.

And no, spin masters on either side are enjoyable people -- especially this guy who is the king of thinly veiled attacks.

Or does his picture somehow prove your point?

Penn's problem had something to do with his involvement in Colombian Free Trade Agreement lobbying on the wrong side of the issue. Carville is indeed very odd looking, but my problem with him is that he and his wife are a unit and appear to have no particular loyalty to anything other than their own self-aggrandizement. Carville's dubious behavior on election night 2004 has been well documented here, and while the solid proof isn't there, he simply cannot be trusted.

Oh, and here's what I think of Carville...

You would prefer advisers who push their candidate to crush the hearts of many Democratic women by using racial slurs against her opponent? Who tell her that instead of making strong insightful condemnations of the Bush-McCain policies to show Democrats she could do best to defeat McLame, she and her team should float some more racial slurs to push up support among closet racists? Because golly gee, it got her 9.2% more votes in Penn and a whopping 3% lead in Indiana. Who tell her, "yeah, baby, that 3% was worth it-- go on TV and talk more about white people." You prefer those advisers?

and I find Hillary's spokespeople as mean spirited, dishonest, bullies.

Funny how your support for a candidate makes you view everything differently.

No wonder we are so divided.

Geof Garrin on Meet the Press.

try again

Be careful not to confuse my observation with thatl

I far from hate the man .. I just don't like the way he's handled the campaign

I'm totally convinced now.

**takes bow**

I am curious. What specifically do you dislike about him?

Bill Clinton's now a racist.

Hillary Clinton's now a congenital liar.

David Axelrod can kiss my Casper white ass.