Why on EARTH is Bob Shrum still called "a leading 'democrat' adviser"?

[SoCalDem]

It's like a finger in my eye, every time I hear that phrase. he's a HAS-BEEN/NEVER WAS.. He's master of "failed-campaigns".

It's so obvious that any democrat with a strong voice and innovative ideas is shunted to the sidelines, in favor of Donna Brazile & Bob Shrum and Terry McAuliffe and "former-democrat-pollster-Pat-Cadell" and Paul Begala and some others I've forgotten.

These folks must be hurting for money and hanging around the stage doors day and night, in hopes that someone needs a "democrat" to be the Daily Pinata..

:grr:

C'mon Howard dean. start raising a stink and start offering up (insisting on) some powerful voices on tv , instead of these milquetoast retreads..

[NewJeffCT]

1. Maybe Shrum advises Joe Lieberman, a leading Democrat

who seems to be a popular voice on TV these days.

:grr:

[SteveM]

16. They fire football coaches for losing. Democrats? Raise their pay.

This tired outfit of wealthy consultants has been slopping at the trough for years. Frankly, it's a sign that the Dems are ineffective dead wood at the top. They don't object to their new appellation "Democrat Party" when called that by the RW; they don't object to the media-name "Democratic anti-war Left" when it is bandied around. These are sure signs that they have found their "comfort zone:" losing (and getting paid for it) and cowing and mumbling and waiting and mumbling and cowing and...

Doesn't bode well for 2008. Doesn't bode well at all.

[blondeatlast]

2. Let me guess--was this on FAUX?

The Democrats need a booking agency like the Heritage Foundation has--seriously.

Sad, but oh so true.

[SoCalDem]

5. Nope.. Wolfie Blitzer CNN

[blondeatlast]

12. Close enough for me. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Because whenever someone wants us to lose, they send in that guy. nt

[liberalnurse]

4. You know why.......

Can you say, DLC? All the above commentators you listed are DLC................:spank:

[LSparkle]

6. I'm with you there -- it's the lazy hosts like Tweety who can't be bothered

to get their bookers to call anyone else (or maybe there aren't any more relevant Dems who are willing to wade into the muck of Slimeball). Dean ought to start encouraging others to go on so at least we can pin this on the hosts/media ...

[rec_report]

7. The same reason Joe LieberBush is called a Democratic Senator.

n/t

[mitchtv]

8. and who??? is that Jenny Backus wimp?

she just appeared one day

[sandnsea]

17. She is from the DNC

I don't like her either. There are only 2 I like, Flavia and Larry O'Donnell. The rest suck ass and never know what the hell is going on. Just about any given DUer has a better grasp of current political facts than any of these so-called strategists and pundits.

[w4rma]

9. Big buisness is promoting their moles. (nt)

[underpants]

10. Do you really want an answer? Lazy use of the regular "informed source"

Watch this whole video all 13 parts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x18848

[dicknbush]

11. Bob Shrum....The go to guy......If...

YOU WANT TO LOSE THE FUCKING ELECTION!!!!

[napi21]

13. I've questioned that many times myself. I can only guess they all

have contracts with CNN. Hmmm...I wonder just how long those contracts are for?

[Straight Shooter]

14. Do I hate Bob Shrum? Yep.

The idiot who advised Kerry not to use Kerry's courageous investigation of BCCI in his campaign, because Shrum thought Americans were too dense and might confuse BCCI with the BBC.

:banghead:

[blm]

19. He's a great speechwriter who should stick to writing speeches - but, methinks Dem pollsters

are the ones who told Shrum that BCCI wouldn't be understood - and those Dem pollsters just happen to be Clinton loyalists and nobody around Clinton wants BCCI to be brought up. Clinton doesn't even mention it ONCE in his book, though he inherited all of the outstanding matters when he took office.

[Straight Shooter]

21. Well, then I hate the Dem pollsters, too.

:7

[blm]

22. So do I. I think they LIE about their research to favor a determined outcome.

I highly doubt that post 9-11 people couldn't get that funding terrorism, which was the essence of BCCI, was a HUGE issue.

I think the pollsters and focus groups monitors outright LIED to the campaign.

[Sir Jeffrey]

15. Older article from the Washington Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9.html

"Loss Leader" is about Bob Shrum's 0-7 record.

[Eugene]

18. Bob Shrum has memoirs to peddle.

(Associated Press)

Adviser regrets pushing Edwards on Iraq

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about
voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for
his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that
he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in
Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political
professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.

Edwards spokesman David Ginsberg disputes the suggestion that Edwards was
making a political calculation with the 2002 vote that he has called the most
important of his career.

"John Edwards cast his vote based on the advice of national security advisers
and the intelligence he was given, not political advisers," Ginsberg said. "He got
political advice on both sides of the argument, and made his own decision based
on what he thought was right, not political calculation."

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_iraq

Gee! Thanks a lot Bob! :sarcasm:

[flpoljunkie]

20. Too bad he didn't listen to Elizabeth who was "forcefully against it" according to Shrum

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/13/edwards_pushed_into_to_backing_iraq_war/

Shrum writes that Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, called his foreign policy and political advisers together in his Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. Edwards was "skeptical, even exercised" about the idea of voting yes and his wife Elizabeth was forcefully against it, according to Shrum, who later signed on to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

But Shrum said the consensus among the advisers was that Edwards, just four years in office, did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security. Shrum said Edwards' facial expressions showed he did not like where he was being pushed to go.

[lastknowngood]

23. Because he leads dems down the path to the slaughter house.

n/t