this is the same Donna that called Bush a hero one year into Hurricane Katrina.
Bush needed a photo op so he trotted out Mary Landrieu and Donna Brazile for his bipartisan hookum.
after that Landrieu called him " slow and reluctant " and Donna called Bush a hero.
who is more credible?
http://tinyurl.com/34ejjs

"I think that now is not the time for anybody to weigh in."

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress. There has got to be something at work here," she said, theorizing it may be the risk-averse nature of a state built around agriculture.
<><><>
I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

Do you just have fun torturing people with facts and common sense?

"Despite Obama's impressive victories in February, Clinton's comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. "In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever....If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate," Brazile said. "But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

We understand Ms. Brazile's aversion to negative campaigning, since her unsubstantiated accusation of an extramarital affair against George W. Bush got her fired from the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. (Said Brazile at the time, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House".)

But we can think of at least two reasons why any attempt by the DNC to force an early end to Hillary Clinton's primary bid based on the content of her campaign message is a bad idea.

First and most obvious, the idea that a political party would try to censor the speech and ideas of a political candidate or campaign in this manner is not only offensive but contrary to the constitutional values of the United States of America under the First Amendment.

Second, ending the primary process now before any candidate obtains the minimum number of pledged delegates will disenfranchise the voters in those states where the Democratic primary elections have not yet been held.

That would mean that the DNC--in addition to disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan (which the DNC has already done, as punishment for holding early primaries)--would be telling the voters with later primaries in their states that their votes will not count either.

In other words by fiat of the DNC, the voters in Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and West Virginia will join the voters of Michigan and Florida in the "your votes don't count club".

We applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement on Wednesday implying that the super-delegates should back off for now and let the primary process continue to play out. ("I was never among those who believed this would be resolved by now.")

But we do not think that Speaker Pelosi has gone far enough to insure democracy.

Unless and until a single Democratic Party candidate wins enough pledged delegates to capture the nomination the last primary in the last state should be held and the votes counted.