White House distancing itself from Deeds

posted at 10:12 am on October 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Two weeks out from Virginia’s election, the prospects for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds look so bad that the White House has bugged out early from Deeds’ side.  The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration has become worried about how a Republican will make them look, and have begun leaking criticisms of the campaign.  The leaks intend to pre-empt any analysis that uses Virginia as a measure of how Barack Obama’s power and popularity have weakened since his inauguration:

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

Senior administration officials have expressed frustration with how Democrat R. Creigh Deeds has handled his campaign for governor, refusing early offers of strategic advice and failing to reach out to several key constituencies that helped Obama win Virginia in 2008, they say.

Democratic strategists said that over the summer, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) offered Deeds advice on winning a statewide election. Among other things, Kaine, who is also chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Deeds that he should lay out more of his own vision and stop attacking Republican Robert F. McDonnell so ferociously. But Deeds did not embrace the advice, according to a national Democratic strategist.

A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not doing a better job of coordinating with the White House. “I understood in the beginning why there was some reluctance to run all around the state with Barack Obama,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly about the race. “You don’t do that in Virginia. But when you consider the African American turnout that they need, and then when you consider as well they’ve got a huge problem with surge voters, younger voters, we were just a natural for them.”

A second administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “Obama, Kaine and others had drawn a road map to victory in Virginia. Deeds chose another path.”

Not only have they not waited until the body was cold, the White House couldn’t wait until the corpse actually died to start burying Deeds in criticism.  As for not embracing Obama enough, that will come as some surprise to Deeds.  He has embraced higher taxes, which the Post used for its endorsement, remained open to the public option for health care reform, and embraced Obama on stage.

Everyone understands what was at stake for the Obama administration.  Even if Deeds ran a campaign that was as arms-length as the White House claims, they would have trumpeted a win in Virginia as an endorsement of their agenda.  They want the press to either make the same claim in a defeat — that Deeds ran against the Obama agenda and lost because of it — or that it has nothing to do with the White House at all.

That’s simply hogwash.  Virginia has been a blue state for the last two cycles, at least on a national level.  Obama won the state by 230,000 votes in 2008, about seven points, and Virginia has two Democrats in the Senate.  If Deeds loses Virginia in a landslide, where many Beltway insiders live, that says quite a bit about the prospects of Barack Obama around the rest of the country.

Update: I meant to say, “If Deeds loses Virginia in a landslide,” but having it as Obama losing it is almost equally applicable.  I edited the passage to bring  it to my original intent, but there’s little doubt that a Republican landslide in VA means Obama lost the state.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Besides, there isn’t a very strong ACORN presence in VA, so they are screwed.

uknowmorethanme on October 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

No unionized state employees either. That is a huge, huge thing and Deeds has promised the unions that he will change it if he is elected. Reason alone to vote for McDonnell.

Bob McDonnell is just a good guy. I wish I still lived in VA so I could vote for him. I liked George Allen and Jim Gilmore, but I really love McDonnell. It’s been impossible for the Democrats to demonize him, and that’s the only way the Chicago gang running the DNC knows how to operate. That’s why I think he has national potential. There isn’t anything else the Dems can dig up on him, and if Obama tries to go after his thesis, well…..when do we get to see Obama’s thesis, or any of his college or law school records? I don’t think Obama wants to go there.

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

It’s not that Ed rushed out to blame Obama for Deed’s impending defeat; he opened his paper and read how the White House wants y’all to know Obama TRIED to save Deeds but the patient resisted.

Chris_Balsz on October 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Can I just say that Virginia is not a real state, and I would hope the rest of the states don’t follow their lead.

Doughboy on October 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Yep, Virginia is a ‘Commonwealth’.

I’ll be voting in the Commonwealth of Virginia next month. You should hear the 2 main radio ads that Deeds is playing on the radio. A woman with a deep smokey voice complaining that McDonnell hates women or something… annoying ad, very annoying.

bbordwell on October 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Right, and it’s totally a coincidence that you’re not a fan of Obama’s, right? Your political analysis and your opinion that he is a “filthy lying coward” are entirely separate from one another, hmm?

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

They gave Kaine the DNC because it gives a young, promising Dem a good job to put on his resume once he’s out of the governor’s office in 2009. I mean, what’s he gonna do? Go work at Hunton & Williams? Become a lobbyist? Presumably the guy has his eyes on the White House as well, and even though he has no chance in Hell, this is a good placeholder job for him, since who else is on the Democratic bench at this point for 2016?

Ed’s point was that Deeds’ loss was due to a failure of Obama. To put it as nicely as I can, that argument strains credulity.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM

And to put it as nicely as I can, you are wrong. Obama made a couple of major speeches on behalf of Deeds, and right up until this morning the White House was insisting that it fully supported him and was confident in his victory. You think Bill Clinton would have gone into Virginia without the White House’s approval?

And yes, they did hand Tim Kaine the DNC chairmanship expressly to oversee their building of a permanent Democratic majority in Virginia and other border states. They are megalomaniacs who think they can paint the Republican Party into a corner of the deep South and thus ensure electoral victories forever. Bob McDonnell’s election stomps all over that plan.

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM

When the campaign was getting under way, Obama came to a fundraiser for Deeds and told anyone who disagrees with Obama to get out of the way.

uknowmorethanme on October 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM

More specifically, the filthy lying coward came to the McLean Hilton and told the crowd that he didn’t mind cleaning up the mess he inherited but that the people who made that mess needed to shut up and get out of his way.

That, I would argue, did not help Deeds among Virginians. I think it was about the last campaign visit until just before the end of the campaign. The Dems are only running to statewide races this year- with Kaine as their chief fundraiser (for all but the few hours a month he’s doing his real job) you would think that they would have put in more effort.

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Obama won Virginia by over 200,000 votes. Deeds may lose by more than that. You really think that is just an ordinary reverse-the-party result? Can I have some of what you are smoking?

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM

No, I don’t think it is an ordinary reverse the party result. In addition to the fact that the GOP had a huge advantage this time around, Deeds was an awful, awful candidate.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

No, I don’t think it is an ordinary reverse the party result. In addition to the fact that the GOP had a huge advantage this time around, Deeds was an awful, awful candidate.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

And McCain was an awful, awful candidate.

bbordwell on October 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

He has embraced higher taxes, which the Post used for its endorsement, remained open to the public option for health care reform, and embraced Obama on stage.

Sounds like a wining strategy to me…

….. just make sure all the Democrats in 2010 get the memo.

Seven Percent Solution on October 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Your political analysis and your opinion that he is a “filthy lying coward” are entirely separate from one another, hmm?

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Of course not. The filthy lying coward in the White House hurt Deeds chances. Virginians are reacting to what they see happening in DC and they don’t like it. McDonnell had some advantages early and Deeds has run a poor campaign. Nevertheless, it would have been much closer a race if the filthy lying coward had some coattails.

It’s a little more complicated than this but you wouldn’t get it.

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Funny, I just got an email from the Hampton Roads Tea Party stating Obama will be in Norfolk, VA on Tuesday stumping for Deeds. Also, as of yesterday, I noticed the airwaves being inundated with commercials with Obama asking Virginians to vote for Deeds.

Christina_M on October 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Deeds surprise win in the primaries should have been a wake-up call for Kaine and his party…

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Ahem!

I called this on November 6th of last year.

It wasn’t a surprise to everyone. :-)

/horn tootin’

Abby Adams on October 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Who is that bastard? Virginia elected a black governor ten years ago! Who is the bastard that wants to put this on race?

Chris_Balsz on October 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I’m pretty sure it said the source would speak about the race, meaning the Govenor’s race, not about race meaning black and white.

SittingDeadRed on October 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Pinning Deeds’ lousy campaign on Obama is just nonsensical.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I agree. As much fun as it is to blame Democrats losing on Obama, lets not be dishonest like the Rat Party is. It does show that there is no new Democrat majority but just a bunch of dumb young people who fell in love with Obama and Obama alone. He can’t transfer his popularity when he isn’t on the ballot.

Speedwagon82 on October 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Bush made speeches on behalf of Kilgore, and Kilgore lost too. Was that Bush’s fault? No. That’s a terrible analysis.

The fact that Kaine comes from a swing state is obviously a plus factor – I’m sure the Democrats would like to build permanent majorities there as they would every other state, just like Republicans would like to do the exact same thing. That’s politics. Not really very interesting.

Ed’s point was that Obama *lost* the election for Deeds. Deeds is a bad candidate in a politically advantageous year for Republicans regardless of whether Obama was in the White House, especially so since a Democrat was the in the White House, and Obama’s support has been pretty tepid.

Look, I like McDonnell and despite some very deep reservations about him, I’m going to vote for him. I’m doing that because I think he’d be a better governor than Deeds. That’s all it comes down to. It has nothing to do with Obama for me.

Unless Ed or you can illustrate some kind of logical tie between Obama and Deeds’ loss, that kind of reasoning, as I said, strains credulity.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM

And McCain was an awful, awful candidate.

bbordwell on October 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Couldn’t agree more. This VA Gov election is a lot like the 2008 Presidential Election in terms of the types of candidates and the circumstances – the parties are just reversed.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Seven Percent Solution on October 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Actually the WaPo endorsement of Deeds wasn’t all that strong. They essentially said that McDonnell ran an issues campaign while Deeds was stuck on stupid with the thesis attack strategy. They ended up endorsing Deeds because they didn’t like McDonnell’s ideas.

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Of course not.

highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Right, so the fact that you don’t like Obama means that you would really like it if Obama was the reason Deeds loses. So why bother responding to you? Your analysis is based on your emotional reaction to someone you don’t like. As a result, it’s useless. Thanks for playing.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Here in NOVA Deeds campaign signs outnumber McDonnell signs about 10-1 yet McDonnell has a firm 10 point lead in the state polls! Let’s hope that holds…

I did an unofficial count in Norfolk a couple weeks back because the imbalance of McDonnell to Deeds yard signs seemed so striking. In the part of Norfolk where I was that day (Ghent), McDonnell signs outnumbered Deeds 2-1. I was shocked. Obama carried Norfolk by over 70% (and is going to be there Tuesday, campaigning for Deeds at ODU). I was back in Norfolk a week later (closer to ODU that time), and while I didn’t count signs that day, I again noticed that the enthusiasm all seems to lie with McDonnell. (But I did finally see my first yard sign for the Dem lt. gov. candidate — in an empty lot!)

CJ on October 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM

It does show that there is no new Democrat majority but just a bunch of dumb young people who fell in love with Obama and Obama alone. He can’t transfer his popularity when he isn’t on the ballot.

Speedwagon82 on October 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I don’t think that’s all of it, but that plays a role as well. A lot of people went out to vote because they like Obama and not because of any deep tie to the Democratic party. Unless they see Obama on that ballot, they’re gonna stay home.

Although, honestly, I doubt we’ll see them in 2012 either.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Hard for a Dem to stay and smell clean so few miles from the cesspool.

seven on October 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Can’t really blame the White House for dumping Deeds. I live in Maryland and have watched the absolutely awful campaign that Deeds has run. He has the double curse of a bad campaign for an uninspiring candidate. Not only that, McDonnel has run a top-notch campaign, and he’s an attractive candidate without that ain’t-I-cool schtick of Obama.

Of course the Dems will learn nothing from this experience and not use it as a way to plan for 2010. What’s Obama going to do next fall, throw all the losing Dems under the bus?

EMD on October 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Also, the “Obama endorsed him and therefore he owns that candidacy” doesn’t really fly for me. Have any of you ever voted for anyone because someone else you like endorsed him?

I voted for Bush in 04 but voted for Kaine in 05. I voted for Obama in 08 and will vote McDonnell in 09.

I don’t vote for candidates because other politicians tell me to and I doubt any of you do either.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:55 AM

It’s a combination of both Deeds bad campaigning and voters souring on Obama. The 1993 Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races (along with the NYC and LA mayoral elections) were canaries in the coal mine for the Democrats that they failed to heed prior to the 1994 changeover in Congress.

The sub-par candidates the Democrats ran in ’93 was part of the reason for the loss, but the failures of the first year of the Clinton Administration depressed Democratic enthusiasm and turnout, and with Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress at the time (as they do now), there was no Republican ‘higher power’ for Democrats at the state or city level to pass off the blame for their failures on, in trying to keep the moderate, swing voters on their side.

So while Deeds’ campaign may be flawed, Democrats alibi their way out of saddling Obama’s failures as part of the reason for Deeds’ woes at their own peril, looking ahead to 2010. The GOP has more negative baggage with voters now than it did 16 years ago, which might help Democrats next year, but the excitement for Democrats in turning out to vote that was there in 2006 and 2008 is gone for all but the truest of true believers.

jon1979 on October 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Mr. Deeds goes to town. Apparently not so much.

“Under the bus, Deeds, it doesn’t matter if it hasn’t stopped!And say “hi” to Rev. Wright when you get there.”

– Obama

bradley11 on October 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Present his own vision – that’s to laugh! That’s the problem democrats have always had, they can’t provide their own visions because they have none. They only win elections when they lie, cheat, distort, smear, use ACORN tactics like registering corpses and illegal aliens. Look at what they’re doing in NJ with that sleazy Corzine. That’s more their style.

mozalf on October 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM

highhopes, keep calling him a “filthy, lying, coward”–it really PO’s Proud Rhino!

Does she even read what she writes?

Right, and it’s totally a coincidence that you’re not a fan of Obama’s, right? Your political analysis and your opinion that he is a “filthy lying coward” are entirely separate from one another, hmm?

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

No, I don’t think it is an ordinary reverse the party result. In addition to the fact that the GOP had a huge advantage this time around, Deeds was an awful, awful candidate.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

lovingmyUSA on October 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM

It really doesn’t take this election to tell us Obama is sliding. Just look at the libs coming here to post. It’s a marching order, and they know it’s happenening, as well as anyone that’s been paying attention.

It’s not necessarily Obama that’s being rejected, but his policies are definitely not what the majority of Americans want. It also doesn’t help that Obama has shown his radical partisan self, and his tactics, manipulations, lies, and bullying aren’t helping his case either.

capejasmine on October 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Deed is really just a victim of timing. The peak of Teaparty anger was this campaign time.

But what is clear is how the administration plans to address these obvious political stories. Every president has them. How you react is the tell-tale sign of your administration.

He’s going to attack anyone who doesn’t take his “help.”

Now, contrast that with Palin. She offered to help. Got no takers. Just endorsed a Conservative. His coffers are now being flooded.

And you tell me whose smarter.

AnninCA on October 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Deeds….sorry.

AnninCA on October 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Here’s a link to the Obama ad for Deeds that is in heavy rotation now in my area of Virginia. It doesn’t seem like the White House is distancing itself too much from Deeds. More like trying to close the embarrassing poll gap so Deeds will not lose by a landslide.

Obama for Deeds ad.

Christina_M on October 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Is Deeds really polling that badly?

Jerricho68 on October 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I don’t think that’s all of it, but that plays a role as well. A lot of people went out to vote because they like Obama and not because of any deep tie to the Democratic party. Unless they see Obama on that ballot, they’re gonna stay home.

Although, honestly, I doubt we’ll see them in 2012 either.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Well, I certainly agree with you about that. Obama ran a celebrity campaign and that’s what he got, a bunch of voters who came out once for the cool famous guy or to help elect the first black President. But his campaign organization had the hubris to claim that they could keep those voters turning out for Democrats for the next umpteen years.

He’s installed political hacks all the way up to the highest levels of the White House, and EVERYTHING that has come out of the White House has been blatantly political, designed either to pay back campaign supporters, punish opponents, or buy off voting groups. Guess what? That doesn’t work in Virginia. It’s a real “good-government” state and people really do want to vote FOR someone who will solve problems. They don’t see politics as an effort to buy votes with public funds, they don’t go for “paybacks” or “payoffs” and they don’t appreciate the kind of ham-handed thuggishness that Obama and his Administration have been doling out. I don’t think even Mark Warner could have won this election with that sort of weight on his shoulders.

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Just keep being as effing stupid as you are right now dems and libs. We’ll clean it up for you in January.

Mr. Grump on October 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Is Deeds really polling that badly?

Jerricho68 on October 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Yes. When you have video of Deeds saying he might raise taxes just minutes after saying he wouldn’t in a speech it’s pretty much a campaign killer. Especially when your only rebuttal is some paper written two decades ago.

Oldnuke on October 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Yes. When you have video of Deeds saying he might raise taxes just minutes after saying he wouldn’t in a speech it’s pretty much a campaign killer. Especially when your only rebuttal is some paper written two decades ago.

Oldnuke on October 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM

“Yes and that’s why the failure of the Deeds campaign is Obama’s fault.” -Ed Morrissey.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM

I love all this “Deeds is a terrible candidate” stuff. Did any of these people actually ever see a Tim Kaine speech or see him in a debate? Yeesh. The only reason he got elected was because Mark Warner couldn’t run again. There’s a reason we don’t see Kaine all over the Sunday talk shows even though he is DNC chairman. He’s terrible. Mark Warner got him elected, period.

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Here’s your fully-deciphered, “real” message:

I don’t vote for RINO candidates because other RINO politicians tell me to and I doubt any HOPE ALL of you WILL do either THE SAME … ‘COZ I’M A PROUD RINO.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Don’t worry! It’s for free.

Today is the National Free Proofreading and … Unabashed Honesty Day in honor of soon-to-be Congressman Hoffman.

TheAlamos on October 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM

It’s also important to note the Creigh Deeds has been a favorite of the nutroots, going back to the 2005 election. Kos and other lefties backed him heavily in 2005 and claimed credit for his almost-win against McDonnell. They backed him in the primary this year as well and claimed credit when he won. So this is a giant FAIL for them too.

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I love all this “Deeds is a terrible candidate” stuff. Did any of these people actually ever see a Tim Kaine speech or see him in a debate? Yeesh. The only reason he got elected was because Mark Warner couldn’t run again. There’s a reason we don’t see Kaine all over the Sunday talk shows even though he is DNC chairman. He’s terrible. Mark Warner got him elected, period.

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Kaine was not great and Warner helped, but he was a zillion times better than Jerry Kilgore, regardless.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Deeds embraced typical obama/axelrod strategy, politics of personal destruction, lies and distortions. He ignored real issues and promoted obama’s agenda. This strategy failed, and in a bluish state of all things.

runner on October 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Deeds was an awful, awful candidate.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Both Kaine and Mark Warner ran against terrible GOP candidates in Virginia. I lived in Virginia at the time and had no enthusiasm for either of the equally forgettable candidates.

The lesson here is – put up a good candidate and he can win!

Now if the RNC would just learn that.

NoDonkey on October 23, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Virginia is hardly a blue state. Warner & Webb ran on moderate agendas, and quite frankly, have been moderates in Congress.

Kaine/Warner ran on moderate gubernatorial agendas and governed as moderates.

Obama didn’t win Virginia, McCain lost Virginia. He and Sarah only came twice and by that time, it was too little too late. Sarah could have taken VA for McCain, but it wouldn’t have helped.

Deeds didn’t have a chance this cycle. McDonnell is too favorable and has been elected twice – he beat Deeds once already.

Shape up, Ed.

mmoran0226 on October 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Ed’s entitled to his opinion, as are you. As a Virginian my opinion is that the reason Deeds is losing is that he’s a loser candidate who ran a crappy campaign against a popular opponent. Obama’s support or non support is irrelevant in this race IMHO.

Oldnuke on October 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM

rockmom on October 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Rockmom, I’ll cast your Virginia vote for Bob McDonnell. This will be my first chance to vote for Governor since hubby and I moved to VA in 2006. We moved here from Maryland and I was looking forward to finally living in a “red state”. It didn’t work out in 2008 but I’m thinking 2009 and out the prospects are looking better and better.

Greyledge Gal on October 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Deeds is losing exactly because he is running using obama strategy and platform. If Deeds was not an acceptable candidate to the WH and DNC, why did they embrace him ? They have no qualms about discouraging gubernatorial candidates they deem unpopular/unelectable from running – see Gov. of NY, David Paterson.

runner on October 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM

If Deeds was not an acceptable candidate to the WH and DNC, why did they embrace him ?

Because he won the primary. Why did all of you vote for McCain if you didn’t like him?

Ed’s entitled to his opinion, as are you.

Oldnuke on October 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM

That’s true, but if he wants to be taken seriously he ought to come to conclusions grounded on some kind of, I don’t know, factually or logically valid basis.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

That’s true, but if he wants to be taken seriously he ought to come to conclusions grounded on some kind of, I don’t know, factually or logically valid basis.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Based on this comment, what proofs do you offer for the “factually or logically valid basis” of your contention that Deeds impending loss would not be based on the seeming withdrawl of suppport from the WH?

massrighty on October 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM

massrighty on October 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Oh great, where did I say, “Deeds impending loss is based on the seeming withdrawal of support from the White House”?

Once we can nail that down, since you said I said that, I’ll take you seriously. Until then, I won’t.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Right, so the fact that you don’t like Obama means that you would really like it if Obama was the reason Deeds loses. So why bother responding to you? Your analysis is based on your emotional reaction to someone you don’t like. As a result, it’s useless. Thanks for playing.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM

WaPo says Obama’s crew is dumping on Deeds as a preemptive measure.

Apparently the WH don’t think such emotional analysis can be ignored.

I think your own bias towards Obama prevents you from realizing this whole discussion is a reaction to Obama’s White House. If that leak hadn’t been planted nobody would be talking about Obama’s ties to Deeds today.

SittingDeadRed on October 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Ohhhh…never mind.
Shouldn’t read before coffee.

Chris_Balsz on October 23, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

You don’t take me seriously?
Then I am ruined.
And have no reason to exist.

massrighty on October 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

For the cognitively challenged PR: obama/dnc liked and supported Deeds (don’t tell me he was not their candidate in the primaries – he was), and now are dumping him, claiming it is his own fault, when in reality it is their and obama’s failure. they are afraid that this failure will become known to the larger public and are shifting blame.

runner on October 23, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Your not the only one. Gore didn’t even carry Tennessee in 2000, his home state!

Phil-351 on October 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM

The only time Algore was in Tennessee was when he was there collecting money for his father before inheriting his father’s Senate seat. The rest of the time he spent in luxury at The Center of the Known Universe aka the fever swamps of D.C.

SeniorD on October 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Rove, you magnificent bastard….

Sgt. Hartman on October 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I Don’t Know about Hope, but This Is Really CHANGE [Michael Graham]

Obama’s fundraiser in Boston today isn’t sold out.

Tickets still available as local libs protest Obama’s appearance. Wow

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20091023bay_state_liberals_shun_barack_obamas_visit/srvc=home&position=also
Bay State liberals shun Barack Obama’s visit

lovingmyUSA on October 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

Did it ever occur to EgObama that the only way Deeds could have won in Virginia was to distance himself from Obama?

Among other things, Kaine, who is also chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Deeds that he should lay out more of his own vision and stop attacking Republican Robert F. McDonnell so ferociously

This was probably good advice. It’s difficult for a candidate from the same party as the incumbent to win with a NEGATIVE campaign, and much easier to tout the achievements of the incumbent and vow to continue them.

Steve Z on October 23, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Obama dumping on Deeds reminds of Dr. Evil dumping Mustafa into the fiery pit from the boardroom chair.

“Look what you did to Mr. Bigglesworth!”

the_souse on October 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Kaine, who is also chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Deeds that he should lay out more of his own vision and stop attacking Republican Robert F. McDonnell so ferociously.

But, but, that WAS the “senior administration officials’ strategic advice” on how to run the campaign.

mrt721 on October 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM

The VA race is indicative of the larger problem for Democrats across the country. If the DNC can’t bring home VA…when the current governor is the head of the DNC…something has gone seriously wrong. Call it what you want, Deeds supposedly being a poor candidate, or that he didn’t have WH support, it just goes to show that the DNC’s dreams of having a permanent majority just hasn’t materialized.

blamegame on October 23, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Because he won the primary. Why did all of you vote for McCain if you didn’t like him?

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Many of us didn’t. If Hillary were the dem nominee I would have voted for her and I really wanted to not vote for McCain but Obama as we are seeing was going to cause too much damage and he nominated Palin. My vote wasn’t for McCain it was for my country and Palin.

Ed’s entitled to his opinion, as are you.

Oldnuke on October 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM
That’s true, but if he wants to be taken seriously he ought to come to conclusions grounded on some kind of, I don’t know, factually or logically valid basis.

Proud Rino on October 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

And with that you’ve shown you’re not worth the time to debate.

jarodea on October 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2