FINALLY, A prominent democrat says Obama needs to grow a sack

hildebrand_steve

Okay, Pity Pat Powers @ the Wuss College beat me to the punch on this post (knew I should have posted it earlier in the day), but I wanted to point a couple of things out in the interview;

One of President Barack Obama’s former top campaign advisers is “losing patience” with the White House, he told POLITICO Tuesday morning, as frustrations among the president’s liberal allies crest over issues from health care legislation to gay rights.

Obama, he said, “needs to be more bold in his leadership.”

Like I have said before, I couldn’t stand GW, but one thing I liked about his leadership style was when he said he was going to do something, he did it (usually it was wrong) but nonetheless it got done. I think Obama is tough when he wants to be. He needs to stop worrying about 2012 and start thinking about America.

Hildebrand was a singular figure as Obama’s campaign bus rolled through the hills of Iowa, a goateed, soft-spoken, and sometimes mischievous gay man who lived in sleepy Sioux Falls, right across the state line.

WTF? Mischevious? What does that mean? I’m still puzzled by that statement. I have never met Steve personally, but know who he is, he lives close to me and I see him quite a bit around town. He often has a half-cocked smile on his face, but I have never thought of him as ‘mischevious’. In fact, he often looks like he is deep in thought. Maybe I need to talk to some local ‘Gays’ who know him. As for the statement about Sioux Falls being ‘Sleepy’ that couldn’t be more true. It is the number one word I use to describe this town, that and ‘boring’. There are some benefits to that though, don’t ask, I’m still working on that list.

Hildebrand said in San Diego that he had demanded that his own congresswoman, South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, return his contribution after she voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and that he would vote for a Republican against her next year.

What’s the difference Steve? We all know Steffy is a Republican now, doesn’t matter who you vote for.

But this statment gave me a good chuckle;

Hildebrand, who worked for a stretch for Rep. Kendrick Meek’s bid for a Florida Senate Seat, is no longer working on that campaign, and said he’d returned home to focus on issue campaigns, rather than candidates.

So what is Mike Heuther? A CANDIDATE or an ISSUE? Just curious.



15 comments ↓

#1 PP at the SDWC on 09.09.09 at 5:56 am

You were 6 days late….

http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/9911

#2 Randall on 09.09.09 at 7:10 am

Dude… “mischievous gay man”?
…”half-cocked smile”?

really?

#3 l3wis on 09.09.09 at 8:48 am

Randall-

LOL, I didn’t intend that as a bad pun. But you thought it was . . . dirty boy.

#4 Sy on 09.09.09 at 8:54 am

SH via Politico:

“he said, “needs to be more bold in his leadership.”

BHO’s been there, done that. Remember his “I won” reply to Republicans who tried to scale back the Crapulous Bill? You know, the one he promised would be timely, targeted, and temporary. This crew has been in Crisis = Cramdown mode since they unpacked. That, more than anything is why the moderates are fleeing in droves and why BHO has dropped below 50% approval rating faster than any POTUS ever.

L3wis:

“He needs to stop worrying about 2012 and start thinking about America.”

He can’t, this is what happens when you go for the sizzle without taking a closer look at the steak. He’s been in campaign mode so long he and his staff knows no other way. Their vision for America as the nanny state is unachieveable and it’s pursuit is fiscally unsustainable. This was the fine print of “Hope & Change” no one wanted to actually read.

L3wis:

“So what is Mike Heuther? A CANDIDATE or an ISSUE? Just curious.”

A paycheck.

#5 l3wis on 09.09.09 at 9:41 am

He is getting money from Heidi-Scott to.

I would have to partially agree with you on the ‘Campaign Mode’ I’m starting to wonder if Obama is a leader? I will have to admit, he has diplomacy to an art form, but he needs to study up on leading.

#6 l3wis on 09.09.09 at 9:44 am

The other thing that is scary about this interview, this isn’t Newt Gingrinch spewing his normal bullshit about Obama, this is a criticism from Obama’s deputy campaign manager, someone in the know. But I also wonder if Steve’s comments have something to do with sour grapes over the gay rights issue? Steve put in a lot of hardwork in getting gay rights groups behind Obama, then Obama turned his back on them (no pun intended, Randall).

#7 Costner on 09.09.09 at 11:01 am

I partially agree with Sy about the campaign mode and I agree that Obama hasn’t lived up to his own hype regarding the steps he would take to get things done and to unify the nation.

I disagree however that people were focusing upon the sizzle and not the steak or that people were somehow lured in by the “Hope and Change” tagline without looking at Obama at a more granular level. I hear these arguments quite often that the voters were duped or that they didn’t know who they were voting for or that they are suffering from “buyers remorse” and frankly they don’t really make any sense.

Name a single politician that really matched his or her pre-election persona. The fact is politicians rarely live up to their campaign image, and I don’t think Obama is any different. I think we will see more focus upon his poll numbers and I think we will hear more about his failed campaign promises but it isn’t that he is unique – it is just that those who dislike him seem to be much more vocal than they have been in the past. Seeing the outrage over his speech to school students is just the latest example of how divided some members of the public are and how unwilling they are to compromise or even consider rational debate.

I’m not naive enough for a second to think if McCain would have won the election that anything in this nation would be dramatically different. We might have fewer tea parties, but the nation itself woudl likely be unchanged.

The American public have been trained to expect instant gratification, and because we haven’t seen any significant changes from the new boss from the old boss and because the economy hasn’t improved and because we are still fighting a war and because we still have no real reform in healthcare of elsewhere in government – the people are starting to become upset.

The public is a fickle bunch, but if Obama succeeds in one of his major initiatives (healthcare reform is one example, the economy improving is another) I’d place money on the fact those poll numbers will reverse quickly.

Not that Obama should care about poll numbers however. The last I checked you don’t determine success based upon popular opinion.

#8 Sy on 09.09.09 at 11:47 am

Costner:

“The fact is politicians rarely live up to their campaign image, and I don’t think Obama is any different. I think we will see more focus upon his poll numbers and I think we will hear more about his failed campaign promises but it isn’t that he is unique”

But Costner, Obama pitched himself (or was pitched) as two distinct things during the campaign:

1. He wasn’t Bush, McCain was. Bush = Failure.

2. He WAS different. He highlighted this early and often. Do you recall the (paraphrasing) “I’m not like the Presidents on the money” line? Do you recall “Change we can believe in” even though the specifics weren’t there. Change by definition means to do something different.

Costner:

“I’m not naive enough for a second to think if McCain would have won the election that anything in this nation would be dramatically different. We might have fewer tea parties, but the nation itself woudl likely be unchanged.”

If you truly beleive that (and I think you do) that amplifies my point that Obama’s “Change” mantra was a huge, steamy pile of shit.

Personally, I think a McCain Admin. with the same Congress would be much different. I think the Stimulus would’ve been similar to Bush’s (perhaps $300 billion) and anything like what was passed would’ve been vetoed. I think we would’ve taken smaller steps toward reducing climate change vs. Cap & Trade. You would not have the “Union first” clause being snuck into legislation. You would see a more market-based (MSA’s, pooling & tort reform) version of Health Care reform that would’ve been passed the first go-round.

You would’ve also seen an “all of the above” approach to Energy that would’ve included drilling, clean coal &
nuclear alongside a Green push.

I think GM & Chrysler would’ve gone into Chap. 11, and unlike what happened, we wouldn’t have had a Govt. takeover with the stakeholders being rearranged as they were.

I think we’d still be in Recession, but I don’t think McCain would’ve allowed our deficit to go over a trillion, let along the 1.7 that is being projected.

I also think the Stock Market would’ve repsonded more positively to these policies and McCain in general as well. MSM, not so much. But with Palin as Veep, they’d have a target to constantly blast so McCain wouldn’t have been as beat up at this point and his approval would likely be higher than 50%.

#9 Costner on 09.09.09 at 12:05 pm

I do agree that Obama is far different than Bush than McCain would be – his statements and actions pertaining to Iraq support that. I’m not impressed with his actions regarding the economy thus far however and I don’t see much change there, but I’m hoping he proves me wrong and that the long term effects are more visible. I never expected the economy to right itself in six months and I’ve said from day one it could take 2-3 years best case.

It took us at least that long on the way down and in most cases it takes longer to climb out of a hole than it does to fall into one.

Also, it seems clear Obama’s tax policy is vastly different than Bush or most likely McCain, so in many ways he does offer “change”, but at the same time I never bought into the viewpoint he would be a total 180 from Bush or any politician. Campaign slogans are often catchy, but rarely accurate.

I guess we will just have to disagree about McCain being dramatically different. Yes they might have had different policies or different initiatives (although having ideas and actually implementing them are two different things), but I’d bet at the end of the day if you shut off the television and stopped reading the newspaper you couldn’t tell one from the other.

Your pocketbook, your family, and your values would remain unchanged for the most part… and that is sort of my point. I don’t think any leader whether it be Obama or McCain has nearly as much influence upon our lives as some would have us believe.

#10 Costner on 09.09.09 at 12:07 pm

By the way Lewis – since when is Hildebrand considered a “prominent Democrat”? I don’t exactly thing he has earned quite that lofty of a title just yet.

#11 l3wis on 09.09.09 at 2:12 pm

Really? I don’t think I need to explain my reasoning.

#12 Sy on 09.09.09 at 3:42 pm

I have to agree with L3wis, how many other locals are on BHO’s speed dial?

#13 Helga on 09.09.09 at 7:39 pm

Hildebrand was just on Keith Olbermann’s show. He said Obama hit it out of the park, it was a game changer. “I’m very pleased” Pres. Obama is a very “principled person.” Which is clearly the opposite of Cong. Joe Wilson republican from SC who yelled you liar during Obama’s speech. Whatta guy. I gather Gov. Sanford hasn’t brought enough bad publicity to South Carolina with his traveling affairs, Joe felt he needed to add to that. Nice job Joe. I hope he saves that video clip for his children, it will make them so proud.

#14 l3wis on 09.09.09 at 8:09 pm

I just got off work, but had a customer tell me about the whole incident. It just goes to show anyone can be elected to office these days, just look at our city council.

#15 Taunia Adams on 09.11.09 at 6:16 am

Nice post, Lewis.

Much better than PhPh’s. You must have worried him since he was the first to post.

Like Helga mentioned, Hilde is a little happier today, and so am I, after Obama’s speech. It makes me remember seeing him at the U of Missouri last fall, and the air was electric.