Hillary: On Board With The Boardroom

The courageous environmentalist who refuses to take a stand on Keystone XL

"Dems," reads a headline in the Beltway trade paper The Hill, "Give Clinton Pass On Keystone." A more accurate, less Beltway headline would read: "Some Dems Give Hillary A Pass On Keystone, And Many Others Are Demanding She Take A Position." Every Democrat I know wants her to take a position. And they want her to oppose it. Professional careerist Democrats see it very differently, of course. To them sound public policy, which is almost always controversial, is always secondary to career opportunities.

Of course The Hill questioned the sincerity and motivation of Democrats who were demanding answers, particularly Bernie Sanders, who they claimed is "looking to bolster his credentials with environmentalists," saying, "It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline."

Clinton is getting a pass from many Democrats on Capitol Hill, even those opposed to the pipeline, something that could undercut the pressure on her to publicly say that the pipeline should be constructed or shelved.

“I think the decision is going to be made in this administration, so I think her position on this is moot,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a fierce Keystone opponent who is not pressing Clinton to come out in opposition.

“I want to make sure that she’s the president, and I think her recent video shows how important the climate priority is for her, and how she wants to develop that argument is, to me, up to her. I don’t question her judgment on this,” he said.

Even the lawmakers most opposed to Keystone gave Clinton cover on the matter.

 “The climate policy is what we care about,” said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a Clinton supporter and vice-chair of the congressional Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC). 

“Out of respect for the president and her professional role in his administration, it would be improper for her to comment at this point on the Keystone pipeline while the decisions are currently pending.”

Clinton introduced the first aspects of her climate change platform this week but gave scant details on several issues important to environmentalists, including off-shore drilling and oil and gas policies.

Yet it was her strident refusal to say if she supports Keystone that struck home the hardest for greens.

“This is President Obama’s decision,” Clinton said. “And I am not going to second-guess him, because I was in a position to set this in motion, and I do not think that would be the right thing to do.”

She then laid out a marker for when she might offer her position: “If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.

The answer did not please environmental groups.

“We find it completely unacceptable that she cannot provide an answer,” Jane Kleeb, the founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska, said. “She is the only candidate in the presidential race that doesn’t have an answer on where she stands on Keystone.”

...Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate yet, and he said Clinton’s wavering on Keystone is a leading reason why.

He said he thinks Clinton is eventually going to have to take a position on the issue given not only its policy implications, but its symbolic importance for many environmentalists in the Democratic Party. 

“If it is a symbol, it’s an environmentally important symbol, Keystone, and to 2016, politically, a very important symbol,” he said. If Clinton were to come out against the pipeline, “I think her campaign would be very pleasantly surprised at the positive reaction. Symbol or no symbol, it’s there.”

Grijalva is one of the few Democrats on Capitol Hill to scrutinize Clinton’s silence on Keystone.

...Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who hasn’t endorsed a candidate, said he “assumes” Clinton opposes the pipeline because of the climate proposals she began rolling out this week. He said Clinton is right to resist taking a position just because her rivals are pushing her toward one.

“She doesn’t want to look like she’s being pushed by anybody. It’s not good for her campaign to appear to be sort of influenced. But at the same time, the base wants these things,” he said.

“At the end of the day, I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Malley, Sanders and Clinton have taken very comparable positions.“

But green groups say they don’t want to judge a candidate on assumptions alone.

Kleeb said she thinks Democrats should push Clinton to take a stand on Keystone, but she expects many of them are “playing the long game” and trying not to alienate the odds-on favorite to win the party’s nomination.

Her group, she said, will look to pressure Clinton when she campaigns near the Iowa-Nebraska border later this summer by playing a game of dodge ball outside her events.

“Us in the heartland aren’t looking for an invitation to the White House,” Kleeb said. “We’re looking for clean water.”

There's an alternative to Hillary-- and I'm not talking about a worse alternative. I'm talking about Bernie Sanders. Do you want to help him save America for real? Here's the page.

More About That "Centrist" Democratic Counterattack

Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) making it rain?

by Gaius Publius

Howie covered this news from The Hill — "Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing" — in a previous piece, but there he focused mainly on the "centrists" themselves. I'd like to focus on the article.

First, though, read the headline from The Hill; then consider — this is very good news. The battle between real progressives and Big Money will be engaged, not shunted to the wings, and engaged on our ground, not theirs. Their prime argument? "Democrats will lose if they run progressive candidates. Only 'centrists' can win." Our prime argument? "The party ran that experiment in 2014. The results shows the opposite. Most of their 'centrists' lost."

Keep that in mind as you read through this.

The Article and Its Framing

Let's start where the article starts, by framing the news. From The Hill (my emphasis):

Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing

Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections.

For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a caucus of moderate Democrats in the House, plans to unveil an economic policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course.

"I have great respect for Sen. Warren — she's a tremendous leader,” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), one of the members working on the policy proposal. “My own preference is to create a message without bashing businesses or workers, [the latter of which] happens on the other side."

Peters said that, if Democrats are going to win back the House and Senate, "it's going to be through the work of the New Democrat Coalition."

"To the extent that Republicans beat up on workers and Democrats beat up on employers — I'm not sure that offers voters much of a vision," Peters said. ...

Read the rest of the article, since there's more of the same stuff in it. After you're done, let's deconstruct this a bit.

Now A Modest Translation

First, "centrist" is code for "corporate" without the negative-sounding name. "Moderate" is also code for "corporate." "Businesses" is code for "corporations" even though they'd like it to echo "small business" — like the mom-and-pop operations their campaign contributors work so hard to gobble and destroy (think of all the small cable companies like Storer that were eaten to become Comcast).

Now my translation of the same passage, with a few interpolations added:

Corporate Dems ready strike against Warren wing

Corporate-controlled Democrats are gathering their forces [and corporate-sponsored funding] to fight back against the [anti-corporate] “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left [of the pro-corporate right] could prove disastrous [for corporate candidates] in the 2016 elections.

For months, corporate Democrats have kept silent, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the [actual voters] and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But with the race for the White House set to begin, corporatists are moving to seize back the agenda.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a caucus of corporate-sponsored Democrats in the House, plans to unveil an economic policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course.

Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), one of the members working on the policy proposal, said, “My own preference is to create a message without bashing my corporate sponsors." ...

It's now a wholly different article, right? Yet a more accurate one, even with respect to its undeclared but obvious purpose — presenting the news.

Note that my translation is not snark, but literally true. The almost total extent to which New Democrats owe their funding and careers to "corporate service" is well documented. For example, here's Howie writing about the above-named frontman for this policy group, Rep. Scott Peters:

Scott Peters is a very wealthy conservative Democrat who bought himself a San Diego congressional seat in 2012. In one of the closest races in the country, Peters beat incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray 124,746 [to] 122,086, after outspending him $4,352,737 to $2,772,270. ... Peters ran one of the most self-financed congressional campaigns in history, having spent $2,757,452 of his own money. Since getting elected, Peters amassed a very conservative voting record that finds him voting with the GOP on crucial issues as frequently as he votes with progressives. He's not popular with Democratic voters in his own district and it was no surprise when the GOP mounted a strong campaign against him last year. ...

Peters eked out reelection 98,332 (51.6%) [to] 92,408 (48.4%). Peters spent $4,504,003 to DeMaio's $3,349,677. This time, though, Peters "only" spent $476,659 of his own money on the race. ... His ProgressivePunch 2015-16 crucial vote score is an abysmal 46.15, the worst of any California Democrat.

People who vote with Republicans vote with Big Money, and a guy who can spend over $3 million on his own election is Big Money (mostly; in terms of wealth, he looks up at the soles of David Koch's shoes, but most of us still look up at his). The choice of Peters to represent the Big Money pushback on the "Warren Wing" — the anti–Big Money wing — of the Democratic party is inspired. And Peters is clearly eager to be of service.

If my translation is accurate, then the writer's framing is misleading — because he disappears the corporate "thank you for your service" aspect of the New Democratic operation, and substitutes their "we just disagree" cover story as if it were factual. That framing is the opposite of factual, a counter-factual cover story in so many respects.

Note too the contradiction in just the passage above, which may have flown right past the writer. From the original:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But:

Peters said that, if Democrats are going to win back the House and Senate, "it's going to be through the work of the New Democrat Coalition."

Translation: Warren's attacks are popular with voters. But Peters wants to win them back with yet more pro-corporate positions. That's because each "wing" of the Democratic party has a different notion of their "base." The New Dem base is corporate CEOs and their lobbyists. The Warren Wing base is voters. Actual voters. Has the writer noticed that you can't win back voters with more of the same? I can't answer that question, unfortunately.

A Modest Interpretation

Which leads to the second layer of deconstruction. In all of these stories, someone is whispering into the writer's ear, and around those whispers an article is built that contains (1) as much of the whisperer's framing as the writer can in conscience include — this is the pass-through part — and (2) enough of the writer's own material so that the piece doesn't read like a cred-killing press release. (Trust me; in the non-political world, I've worked both sides of that press release–becomes–news article cycle. It's a very common practice. In the slimier corners of that world, it's even worse — it's "press release–becomes–news article–becomes–here's your thank you, sir.")

So, who whispered into this writer's ear? It has to be a New Dem staffer, right? Or perhaps even Scott Peters himself. Whoever is the source, the project-authorized whisperer, the part I quoted above is her voice, saying "Here's our news and here's how we're framing it." Immediately below the part I quoted above is the writer's own addition:

Warren’s rapid ascent has highlighted growing tensions in the Democratic Party about its identity in the post-Obama era.

Caught in the crossfire is the party’s likely nominee in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband took the party in a decisively centrist [ahem: "pro-corporate"] direction during his eight years in office.

The first sentence quoted above and the first half of the second are entirely true. After that, the writer slips back into New Dem framing.

I'll let you complete this interesting article. There's much to wonder at. For example, look for the brief section that ends with a congressperson saying, "I don't need an angry phone call from Bill Clinton." The writer is accurate about the tensions. Just wrong about how to think about them, based on the facts themselves.

Your Takeaway

There are two takeaways. First, be very clear. As I noted at the start, the Big Money wing of the Democratic Party ran its preferred candidates in almost every 2014 race — Alison Lundergan Grimes, for example, among a great many others — and got stomped. If anyone is losing seats for the party, it's them. If they wanted to win seats for the party, they'd run Warren Wing progressives. Which tells you their real goal — once again, we can only conclude that corporate Democrats would rather lose to corporate Republicans than to progressive Democrats who can win. Once again, progressives are being Tea Partied by their "friends"  on the same side of the aisle.

The second takeaway relates to articles like this. Shame on the writer for not spotting the contradiction between a group that says they want to win Democratic votes but offers known losing candidates and policies. That's a story, but because the writer ignores the obvious, you have to work to find it.

Which means, you have a task. Every time you read a piece like this, ask yourself — who's whispering in this writer's ear? Whose message is she passing along?

GP

Why Political Types In DC Don't Seem To Ever Know Anything About America

The Inland Empire is represented in Congress by wanna-be Confederate General Gary Miller, a multimillionaire real estate swindler

There are 4 serious candidates in the Inland Empire house race (CA-31), reactionary Arkansas Republican incumbent Gary Miller, progressive activist Eloise Reyes, former Congressman Joe Baca (Blue Dog), and the Steve Israel/DCCC recruit and last cycle's big loser, Pete Aguilar. As we mentioned recently, the DCCC put out some crazy story that Aguilar lost-- in a deep blue district-- not because he's an abysmal candidate but because he was too grief-stricken over the death of his father on election day. But that was a lie perpetrated for Beltway fools by the Cook Report. Herman Aguilar is very much alive and well and always has been. The Cook Report reportage comes from the DCCC and the NRCC so of course it's worthless and the report of Herman Aguilar's demise is still on their website as the excuse for Aguilar losing. But Cook isn't the only Beltway outfit misreporting this crucial race in a far off district none of them have ever visited or understand in the slightest.

This weekend the FEC candidate filings for the 4th quarter were released. They're not very hard to read. But the pros at both Politico and The Hill managed to get it wrong-- and wrong enough to completely distort the on the ground reality of the race… in favor of the DCCC narrative. What a coincidence! First the unvarnished facts:

• Eloise Gomez Reyes raised $302,084
• Gary Miller raised $148,943
• Pete Aguilar raised $147,086
• Joe Baca raised $20,484

Call me crazy but I would think the story there is that Eloise Reyes, a first time, grassroots candidate up against The Machine, out raised all 3 of her opponents combined. But this is how the story is being told to naïfs Inside the Beltway. First The Hill:

Former Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.): $20,000 raised, $21,000 cash on hand

Baca is seeking a return to Congress in Rep. Gary Miller’s (R-Calif.) district after losing a 2012 race post-redistricting to Rep. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Calif.)-- but it’s looking increasingly like he has no chance of even advancing past the top-two primary in the Democratic-leaning seat.

He has been shunned by national party strategists-- the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is backing Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar (D), while EMILY’s List is supporting attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes (D). Gomez Reyes had the most impressive quarter of the Democrats, with $300,000 raised, and she and Aguilar both have around half-million dollars for the race. Miller has $840,000 in the bank after a strong $364,000 quarter.

Miller didn't have a strong quarter despite what the NRCC may have fed The Hill. A glance at the FEC page shows clearly he raised $148,943-- not $364,000-- and that he spent $78,977. I'm sure The Hill will correct their misinformation. Sure, I am. Politico was even more cockeyed but how can you blame them when all they did was report the DCCC spin as though it was news. This is their analysis of the numbers I just laid out for you above:

Cash-starved: Top 10 fundraising losers

When Baca announced that he would be trying to unseat vulnerable GOP Rep. Gary Miller it surprised, well, just about everyone. After all, Baca, a former Democratic congressman who represented a nearby Southern California district, had once been a Miller ally.

At this point, it’s not clear whether Baca’s waging a serious campaign. He raised a paltry $20,000 during the fourth quarter, far less than what most of his opponents brought in. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has rallied around one of Baca’s Democratic primary foes, Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, who raised about seven times more cash than Baca did last quarter.

Several California incumbents have told me that Steve Israel came to them, directly and/or through intermediaries, asking them to back Aguilar as the only way to stop Baca. He misled them into thinking it was a 2-man race. When one more savvy incumbent asked about Reyes, he was assured that only Aguilar was a serious candidate and that she couldn't raise any money and would drop out. Looks like Politico fell for the same bullshit. Maybe they should start doing their homework... like real newspaper reporters do.

Ugly On The Outside

There are some good things about getting older. Being less swayed by the superficial is certainly one of them. I've heard more than a few people remark that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is handsome. I've heard people say they thought Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are pretty. When I look at Dzhokhar, Sarah and Michele those aren't the attributes that come to mind. Rotted evil is.

Politics industry trade rag, The Hill announced their 10th annual "Most Beautiful" List and they're opening it up to the White House, Cabinet departments and executive agencies. In the past it has mostly been about finding the "most beautiful" Members of Congress, their staffers, and the lobbyists and media folks who service them. You're permitted to nominate yourself. I nominated Jim Sensenbrenner in honor of his attractive eating habits and the role they play in national food policies. You can nominate someone too by e-mailing 50MB@thehill.com/

I used to be in the radio business and the truism was always how radio announcers were just too ugly for TV. That used to be true of politicians too but the trend is in a more blow-dried, hair-died, nipped and tucked direction now. Once you make the list once, you're not eligible to be on it again, so 450 Inside the Beltway types are ineligible this year. I bet Virginia Foxx and Louie Gohmert could still make the list. Notable Members of Congress who have been on the embarrassing list in the past include Obama (2005), Boehner (2006), Pelosi (2007), Ryan (2008). Corrupt ugly-on-the-inside Floridians Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Marco Rubio made it, respectively, in 2006 and 2011. The winner last year was former model Max Engling, a Republican who worked as a staff assistant for Dan Lungren's House Administration Committee. Just like junior high! The only Member of Congress who made it to the Top 10 in 2012 was Michelle Bachmann... at #10.

In terms of style, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has come a long way. For a 2008 story on congressional wardrobes, she told The Hill, “I’m a bottom-feeder when it comes to clothes shopping,” and described her strategy as going for “markdown, markdown, markdown, and then 80 percent off of that.”

But nothing about her presidential-campaign wardrobe looked bargain-basement. Not only did she hire Fox News Channel makeup artist Tamara Robertson for her 2012 bid, she also debuted a sleeker, trendier hairdo that inspired attention from the likes of the New York Daily News, which ran an article last year on women asking their hairdressers to replicate Bachmann’s look. She also made noise-- literally-- wearing a French manicure that clicked and clacked on the podiums of the GOP primary’s many debates. Bachmann was a chic version of her Capitol Hill self while on the national stage this past year.

Since suspending her presidential campaign, the three-term lawmaker has settled back into a familiar role as a congressional agitator, President Obama attack dog and magnet for media attention. This month, she took some friendly fire from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and in the spring, she attracted headlines by first announcing that she had become a Swiss citizen and then later rejecting the citizenship, saying her allegiance lies solely with the United States. It might have looked like a stumble, but the episode fits in with Bachmann’s modus operandi. In 2009 she told The Hill, “Life around here is so fast, it’s like being in a blender and you hit frappé. You can’t look backward.”

Bachmann declined to be interviewed for this feature.

No mention of the closeted gay husband, Marcus.

And not to be outdone in the inanity department, another Beltway trade rag, Roll Call, just published the second edition of a series that examines fictional characters and the real people who represent them in Congress. Appropriately enough, corrupt Long Island money grubber Steve Israel would be representing Jay Gatsby from The Great Gatsby by F. Scot Fitzgerald. Less appropriately, racist pig Jo Bonner (R-AL) would be representing Scout Finch in Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird and GOP dullard Sam Graves (R-MO) would be Tom Sawyer's congressmember. Tonight's music (above) has been provided by Knoxville's Judybats. Not enough music for you? How about some intense interpretive dancing (and facial gestures) from Marcus Bachmann, who turns out to be a much bigger fan of Lisa Kudrow's than he is of "street."

"July has been disaster for Obama, Hill Dems," proclaims The Hill, which means everyone in D.C. has read it (PLUS: Fun with Politico)

"[I]n the past few months as unemployment rates gave spiked, Republicans have increasingly found traction in lambasting Obama’s agenda and fanning the flames of division within the Democratic Party."

-- from an "analysis" by Sam Youngman this morning in The Hill

by Ken

You don't have to agree with "insider" outlets like Politico and The Hill to recognize their importance inside the Beltway, where they are taken very seriously. I don't suppose it's even the case that all those insiders believe any more of what appears in them than we do, but since perception is so important there, it's desperately important for them to know what everyone else is perceiving.

And according to The Hill this morning, "July has been disaster for Obama, Hill Dems. Some of what Sam Youngman writes in his "analysis" is a simple matter of record, some of it seems to me nonsense, and some of it seems real but misexplained. All of it, however, was read this morning by everybody inside the Beltway, where perception is often nine-tenths (hey, pick your own fraction!) of reality, making this a part -- a big part? -- of the reality there.

Here is a condensed version:

Analysis: July has been disaster for Obama, Hill Dems

By Sam Youngman
Posted: 07/27/09 07:15 AM [ET]

The Obama administration, which was flying high a month ago after pushing through a climate change bill in the House, has since been dealt a series of setbacks and is struggling to regain its footing.

After the climate bill passed 219-212 on the afternoon of June 26, there was a feeling that the White House could get much of its agenda through Congress in 2009. . . .

[I]n the past few months as unemployment rates gave spiked, Republicans have increasingly found traction in lambasting Obama’s agenda and fanning the flames of division within the Democratic Party. Obama did score a significant victory last week on eliminating Senate funding for F-22 fighter jets, but the triumph was overshadowed by Democratic infighting on healthcare. . . .

Democrats on Capitol Hill have grown bolder in defying their party leader. Many centrist Democrats are worried that Republicans will have the upper hand in the 2010 elections.

Paul Light, an expert on the presidency and a professor at New York University, said the president's problems with Capitol Hill reflect "a miscalculation by the Obama administration on how political capital gets spent in Washington."

Light said that capital, even for a president who enjoys immense personal popular support like Obama, is spent a bit at a time on each initiative or piece of legislation. . . .

One of the reasons Obama has spent so much capital, aside from his ambitious agenda, has been his willingness to cede so much control to Congress, Light said.

While lawmakers like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are allies of the president, his political capital is not necessarily a priority of theirs. . . .

The other misstep that has bogged down the administration on healthcare specifically, is Obama's inability to communicate effectively to the American people, Light said.

While it is shocking to consider that Obama is anything less than one of the best communicators in modern political history, when it comes to healthcare, he simply has not been able to make the sell to people who do have health insurance.

And Wednesday night's prime time press conference was a "disaster," Light said.

Light said that for the president to regain political momentum, he needs to reclaim his agenda from Congress and start connecting with the public.

"He needs to take this over and own it," Light said.

UPDATE: SPEAKING OF THOSE "MUST READ"
INSIDE-THE-BELTWAY RAGS, HERE'S POLITICO!

Jane Hamsher's got a hilarious post up on The Campaign Silo this morning:

Democratic Party and Politico: Get a Clue
By: Jane Hamsher Monday July 27, 2009 9:09 am
 
Eric Boehlert writes about Glenn Thrush's piece in Politico, in which he concludes "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the most despised political figures in the country":

BTW, according to Politico's own polling, 58 percent of Americans don't trust Pelosi. And wouldn't you know it,  according to Politico's own polling, 57 percent of Americans don't trust Sarah Palin. Can't wait for Thrush's exposé about how Palin is among "the most despised" political figures in America. Wake me when it arrives.

UPDATED: Well, well, well. According to Politico's polling, the Republican Party is not trusted by 57 percent of voters, which, of course, makes it one of the most "despised" political institutions in America, right?

Kagro and I were on a panel with someone from Politico for Democratic press secretaries a couple of months ago.  Everyone wanted to know  how they could get their boss a quote in Politico. They asked Kagro and I why they should trust blogs.  We sort of looked at each other and said, "because we're on your side?"

Then they wanted to know if people at Politico read the blogs, and if they had any influence over what people at Politico thought.

Kagro and I walked out shaking our heads.  I have to give Politico credit -- their business model was to cocoon the Hill at every level, from their beat sweeteners to the inside baseball gossip to the process stories that bored the general public.  But they wholly succeeded in becoming the publication that told the Hill what it thinks about itself.  If it doesn't register in Politico, it didn't happen as far as most Hill staffers are concerned.

I shouldn't have to remind everyone that Politico is funded -- and run -- by Republicans.  It's a huge flaw in the Democratic funding structure that the left doesn't like to fund media and thinks it will simply exist of its own accord.  And an even bigger flaw in Democratic staffers that they don't have any larger vision of politics than getting their name in the Hill's biggest gossip rag which certainly doesn't have their best interest at heart.

#