|
Re: "[There'll be some leaking in the press]/That will disclose/What everybody knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The party was undoubtedly ignored by Obama after he won his second term, and maybe before then. I think the Obama team theory was the House and Senate dems should run it, because they still had skin in the game and he didn't need to run for reelection again, but one of the problems of separating out DCCC and DSCC operations from the party is that it takes the legislators eyes away from the National Party because they don't need it.
|
Your first sentence was right -- you should have stopped there. It was Obama's party, and once it got him elected he did not spend his time or energy to build and maintain it. There was so much potential in O4A and it was totally squandered. We are now paying the price.
Quote:
|
I don't think hiring consultants constitutes enriching party functionaries unless there is some relationship between the two, and that's not yet posited here. Sometimes people hire consultants because they're lazy and don't want to expend the energy to build an operation or they're time crunched and don't have the time to build an operation, so they hire one pre-built. Of course, my view is that both may be fine reasons for a candidate to hire a consultant but they're lousy reasons for a party to hire one.
|
You are taking a narrow view of the fundamental corruption involved here. Seem people hire consultants because they can, and because they don't actually care a whole lot about what the party ostensibly stands for. If nothing else, this whole episode shows that Hillary's commitment to political reform was skin-deep.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
