Donna Edwards, Congresswoman Concedes Maryland Senate Race

Well it’s EVIDENT that Donna Edwards did NOT TOW the Democratic Party line.

Donna Edwards-untitled

Are you “TOO PROGRESSIVE for Maryland,” Ms Donna Edwards?

And the Establishment sent out the CBC to discredit Donna Edwards, just in time for last night’s primary.

From the Atlantic:

Why Donna Edwards Can’t Count on the Congressional Black Caucus

In her fast rise, Edwards has made enemies within the CBC and the Maryland delegation. That may hurt her Senate chances.

Excerpt: “Donna Edwards has always been an outsider to the caucus,” said the former staffer with CBC ties. “The CBC overwhelmingly doesn’t think that Donna Edwards has managed her relationships well or even developed one. “¦ I have heard members say that they will go and campaign for Van Hollen before they will support Donna Edwards.”

Edwards responded to such criticism in a statement, dismissing her anonymous detractors. “Whenever I’ve taken on a fight for the people of our state, I’ve done so proudly and put my name on it,” she said. “Marylanders do not need more backroom politics, they deserve a senator who will have their backs regardless of the circumstances. Maryland’s working families will always know where I stand—with them.”

Apparently, having her constituents backs doesn’t bode well for Ms. Edwards, according to the CBC!

So what is it going to take to elect another BLACK female senator?

YearofthewomanThe five women elected to the Senate in 1992, the “Year of the woman.

Patty Murray of Washington, Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both of California.

Senate_women_March_2009

By the 111th Congress (2009-2011), the number of women senators had increased to 17, including four Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Liza:
“So, I wonder WHO in the Democratic establishment decided that Donna Edwards should not be a senator?

All of this ESTABLISHMENT push back against progress and 21st century realities really needs to end. It will stop eventually, of course, but how? Democrats sure as hell do not believe in a soft landing as evidenced by their ramming Hillary down our throats and NOT supporting true progressive candidates.

This election. Damn.”

SG2:
Madeline Albright: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other”.

Is there a special place in hell for the women like Hillary Clinton, Barbara A. Mikulski, Nancy Pelosi who did not support @DonnaFEdwards in her bid for the US Senate?

Black people have ALWAYS been told…wait your turn, time isn’t right, not now. As a black woman I feel betrayed by the Democratic Party. And we’re the most loyal voting block, the base of the Democratic Party. But we get no help for a seat at the table.

Ain’t Donna Edwards a woman? If the Democratic Party can’t support black women and help elect them to office, then find my ass at the polls. I am no mule for the Democratic Party.

rikyrah:

The most disturbing thing to me was the lack of support from the CBC.

What was Donna Edwards’ crime?

That she had the nerve to challenge and defeat Wynn?

Wynn was a sellout to Republicans, i.e, Bush’s WARS & BIG BUSINESSES.

That really is her sin. Because, you can’t say that she came into the Congress voting like Harold Ford, Jr.

That’s not the case – at all.

Donna Edwards challenged one of their corrupt buddies and HOW DARE SHE!

They think those jobs are lifetime appointments, and Edwards coming in showed them that they could be beaten.

They really do disgust me.

I won’t even get into the feminists not supporting Edwards. I never thought they would to begin with.
Always expecting Black women to show up for whatever White female candidate they throw up there….

But, suddenly…when it’s a Black woman coming around asking for Sisterhood, they’ve got 10,000 reasons why. Always quick with the explanations.

Uh huh.

Uh huh.

About Ametia

I am a Spiritual traveler, a devoted wife, mother, sister, lover of dream study, reading, theater, music, dance, and thought-provoking discussions on love, life, humor and service.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Democracy, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Donna Edwards, Congresswoman Concedes Maryland Senate Race

  1. Ametia says:

    We’ll ASK again: AIN’T DONNA EDWARDS A WOMAN?

    Women matter in Maryland
    By Kathy Szeliga, Diana Waterman and Aimie Hober

    May 2 at 2:20 PM

    Maryland is on the verge of a very disappointing precipice. After the November elections, the Maryland congressional delegation could have no female members — for the first time since 1973. This is especially troubling in Maryland not only because women make up about 60 percent of the electorate but also because of Maryland’s long history of supporting female elected officials.

    As Marylanders, we pride ourselves on our diversity and inclusiveness. For more than four decades, we have understood the value of having women among those representing our state in Congress. That’s why it’s noteworthy that the Democrat congressional ticket has a glaringly obvious hole – no women. In other words, if Democrats were to sweep all of the congressional elections except the 1st District, as some pundits are predicting, our congressional delegation would be made up entirely of men. That is why we agree with Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who said, “What I want to know from my Democratic Party is . . ,. when will the voices of women . . . when will our voices be effective, legitimate equal leaders in a big-tent party?”

    Maryland is filled with intelligent and successful women on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat, and Marjorie Holt, who, 40 years ago, was the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Maryland. Holt paved the way for other Maryland women to get involved in public service, including Reps. Helen Bentley, Beverly Byron and Connie Morella, Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey and our current female members of Congress, Edwards and Mikulski. All of these women paved the way for us. It is unbelievable that Maryland Democrats do not have even one of the many strong, capable, intelligent and thoughtful women in our state among their nominees. In stark contrast to Democrats, the Republican congressional ticket includes a woman running for Senate and a woman running for the House.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/women-matter-in-maryland/2016/05/02/78f69722-107a-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns

    Like

  2. rikyrah says:

    The Increasing Irrelevance of the Congressional Black Caucus
    The group has failed to connect with young voters, which is not a good sign for its future.

    On January 25, 1972, Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to the United States Congress, announced her candidacy for president in a stump speech that sounded very much like those of today’s presidential candidates. She told the Brooklyn crowd, “I am not the candidate of any political bosses or fat cats or special interests. I stand here now without endorsements from many big name politicians or celebrities or any other kind of prop.” She also stood there without the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, which she helped found the previous year. The reason? Some of the CBC’s members thought Chisholm’s focus on gender and outreach to other groups subverted the caucus’s mission and explicit focus on race.

    Four decades later, Representative Donna Edwards sought to become the first black senator from Maryland and only the second black woman ever elected to the body. Like Chisholm, she also did not enjoy the explicit support of the CBC. Edwards confronted CBC members, and they cited her “difficult nature” and failure to establish good relationships as reasons for not endorsing her. On Tuesday, Edwards lost her bid for the Senate seat in a close primary race that may have turned out differently if she’d received the endorsement from more members of the nation’s most powerful body of black legislators.

    Among young African Americans, there is a growing sense that there are significant generational differences with the CBC and that the organization may have lost its conscience. Hillary Clinton has taken heat for the 1994 crime bill that led to the disproportionate incarceration of black people, but the bill was only assured passage once the CBC withdrew its opposition. CBC members have clashed with Black Lives Matter protesters. And activists have criticized the CBC Political Action Committee, a separate but associated group, for the board’s ties to private prisons and big tobacco.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/congressional-black-caucus-donna-edwards-black-lives-matter/480180/?utm_content=bufferdea35&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    Like

  3. I can’t get over this and I’m going there with it. How can black folks allow a white man to destroy a black woman’s exemplary record?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ametia says:

      The CBC were certainly in LOCKSTEP with Van Hollen, sullying her service to her constituents and claiming she couldn’t relate to people. They painted her as difficult.

      Getting work done for the people doesn’t sound DIFFICULT to me.

      Like

  4. Whew lawd!

    Eliihass brought out her paddle today!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Ametia says:

    Please remember, ALSO TOO, that the Democratic Party has not whole-heartedly supported President Obama in the last 7 1/2 years. They’ve ran away, skirted around him and are just as guilty as the GOP obstructionist to stunt any real changes in this administration.

    Donna Edwards knew this, and refused to play the status quo game, running on her integrity. We can’t have this, now can we?

    The Democratic Party needs to be fumigated. The CBC needs to be dismantled. The NAACP? What good are any of these organization in the 21st century, when at their core, do NOT want to move forward?

    Like

    • Liza says:

      Yeah, I keep looking at who is running the show right now, the “Clinton” Democrats. And this means that conservative is in, progressive is out. Hillary will talk up a storm (running her mouth is her stock and trade), but anyone who thinks that she and Bill are anything but conservatives is delusional. Donna Edwards was essentially blacklisted, what else could possibly explain the almost total lack of support for her from the Democrats?

      I was thinking about Rep Raul Grijalva here in AZ, also a true progressive. I believe the same thing would happen to him if he tried to run for the senate. The message to progressives right now is, “We don’t need you, stay in your district.”

      I also believe the fumigation of the Democratic party is going to happen, but I can’t guess when. Hillary could lose the election, even to Trump, if enthusiasm for her doesn’t pick up. And what can she do to generate enthusiasm? If elected, she will be as good a president as she was a senator and SoS. So, where does that leave the Democrats? They can either learn to live in the 21st century and try to work with demographic realities instead of against them, or they can lose elections.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ametia says:

        Spot on, Liza. I appreciate the varying perspectives here on 3 Chics

        This is essentially what the Dem party is telling it’s leaders who wont’ tow the line:

        Like

      • Liza says:

        Look at how they’ve treated Bernie. He’s not a challenger, he’s a bug to be squashed. That’s why they’ve made a mantra of telling him to give it up, he can’t win, and so forth. And those superdelegates, for crying out loud.

        There will be a back lash. I can’t say when but treating people this way is not sustainable. I can’t explain all the black folks supporting Hillary, that will be one of life’s mysteries. But I have to believe that even they will defect when they get absolutely nothing in return for all of their support.

        Like

      • Liza says:

        And here’s another thing that I’ve been meaning to bring up. What about that SCOTUS appointment? Why aren’t the Democrats raising hell and more hell about this? After all, PBO is a sitting president until January, 2017. Scalia died, PBO gets to replace him, it is his right and obligation. Now, could it be that the Democrats are so certain of a Hillary victory that they want this appointment saved for her? What else could be going on here?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ametia says:

      Because they think Americans are FICKLE, DISTRACTED… while they attempt to shove the Hillster down our throats.

      I heard someone from the Sanders campaign this morning say he’s staying in to get the delegates and present their platform at the convention.

      You’re on to something about them not raising more concern over PBO’s nominee Merrick Garland, though.

      It’s the Clinton way to roll up in the place and declare their supremacy over the Democratic Party.

      I LOATHE THESE FOLKS.

      Like

  6. eliihass says:

    This is more than just about the Democratic party…this is also about black folks..

    The Democratic party and the party hierarchy can only get away with what we allow them to..

    Women and black folks voted for Van Hollen over Donna Edwards…

    If black people look down on and reject themselves…why won’t everyone else…?

    Even if this was as a result of the negative narratives Van Hollen and his cohorts pushed and insidiously wielded against Donna Edwards, where was the push back and outcry from ‘feminists’ and black folks as they’ve so slavishly done on behalf of an unworthy Hillary Clinton…

    Where were the cries of sexism and misogyny – and especially, blatant racism that was so obvious in this instance…

    In the end, let’s face it, the same Democratic party that turned its back on Donna Edwards and instead chose to support the white male establishment candidate to replace a woman – even as they insist that more women are desperately needed in elected office and representative government …and even as they make that bold-faced woman argument the cornerstone of their weird and dubious consolidation of the establishment behind Hillary’s Oval office ambitions…

    The hard and uncomfortable truth is this, America and the Democratic party prefer their ‘blacks’ – if they must – not entirely black…but more acceptably mixed and tolerably watered down with something else …and able to partially claim some other more ‘acceptably superior’ race that ‘elevates’ them over other black folks …a racial mix that is obviously more appealing to white folks and automatically earns the mixed ones a higher place on the racial totem pole complete with the extras and privileges the ultimate ones bestow…And don’t for a minute think that this is lost on those who occupy that slightly higher spot on that racial totem pole…they do get their kicks out of be trotted out to that ‘advantage’ and effusively invoking that preferred ‘other’ whenever it suits their purposes…And no, it’s not because they in principle, ‘refuse to deny half of who they are’…Rubbish…it is nothing more than a very conscious and cynical ploy that seeks to exploit every advantage and ‘privilege’ invoking that other supposedly ‘better’, more ‘acceptable’ and more ‘superior’ racial composition automatically confers…and permits…

    As the Democratic party rejected Donna Edwards even with all her requisite experience – after serving 8 years in Congress – and for what would have been thought to be the logical move to replace the longest serving woman in the Senate…one can’t help but be amused at how Barbra Lee and Karen Bass of California, have also been preemptively sidelined and commanded to smile, be ‘good sports’ and cheer-lead if and when called upon…as the Democratic party establishment once again decides to hand-pick and coronate their convenient token and preferred and acceptable version of ‘black’…

    As the June California primaries near, the Democratic establishment – in all their self-awareness deficit – and without any iota of shame – will soon be out in force touting their pick for Senate as ‘history in the making’…the same folks that brazenly undermined and dismissed Donna Edwards, and passed over Barbra Lee and Karen Bass, will tout and wield their ‘black’ candidate for Senate as if there were no other even more obviously qualified, capable and logical choice than this …and folks will be cajoled and bullied to try to get them to rally around the ‘black’ woman in the race ..or else…

    Suddenly, ‘black’ and ‘woman’ will be forcefully and positively wielded and relevant to the argument once again…in ways that black women like Donna Edwards, Barbra Lee and Karen Bass were completely denied … pity they’re just black women – and none of them had the good fortune of being able to claim ‘black’ or ‘East-Asian’ depending on what day of the week it is, what crowd they’re playing to, and how many black firewalls are necessary win an election for an unearned promotion to a position they don’t deserve…

    At some point black folks really need to wake up…

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Liked by 1 person

  8. Liked by 1 person

  9. Like

  10. Liked by 1 person

  11. Liked by 2 people

  12. GrandCentral says:

    This is very upsetting. What’s the point of the congressional black caucus. There are no black women in the Senate and they decided to go against her and support Chris Van Hollen. I’m just blown away. They have really sold us out.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Ametia says:

    Where’s Liza?

    Like

  14. There is a “special place in hell” for all the ones that black women brought to the dance and then they danced with someone else.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Ametia says:

    The Democratic Party does NOT want anymore OBAMA-LIKE folks to step up, climb the ladder, and actually get SHIT DONE.

    And especially the NEGROES. They want the 3 Piece & Biscuit Negroes, who will do just enough to get by to make it look like they are LARGE & IN CHARGE.

    But they aren’t doing JACKSHIT, except helping to MAINTAIN the STATUS QUO.

    Like

  16. Why Donna Edwards Lost—and Why It Matters for the Future of the Democratic Party

    Black women are the bedrock of the party, and yet Edwards’s loss is a sign that they still don’t have a place at the table.

    Donna Edwards Senate

    http://www.thenation.com/article/why-donna-edwards-lost-and-why-it-matters-for-the-future-of-the-democratic-party/

    In the end, the bitter Maryland Democratic Senate primary came down to this: Representative Donna Edwards, the exemplary progressive outsider, couldn’t defeat the ultimate insider, Representative Chris Van Hollen, the well-liked scion of the state’s Democratic establishment, with ties to big party donors he forged running its congressional campaign committee. To be fair, Van Hollen’s record is nearly as progressive as Edwards’s.

    Nearly as progressive—but not quite. The insurgent Edwards would have been only the second African-American woman in history to serve in the Senate. Her campaign placed that argument front and center, and in the end, Van Hollen used it against her, with allies decrying “identity politics.” But in “a message to my beloved Democratic Party,” Edwards used her fiery concession speech to warn that Democrats “cannot celebrate inclusion and diversity” while snubbing the multiracial, majority-female base that elects its leaders. “Maryland is on the verge of having an all-male delegation in a so-called progressive state,” Edwards warned. The diverse and grieving crowd of Edwards diehards roared its anger. “Let’s hear it!” an older black woman shouted from the balcony.

    As Hillary Clinton rides to the Democratic nomination on the strength of African-American support—and with the backing of almost 80 percent of black women in Democratic primaries—the Democratic Party’s candidate diversity is an issue that will define the party, and may divide it, in years to come. There was a stunning racial gap in the race: Van Hollen won three-quarters of white voters, while Edwards won almost two-thirds of blacks. And among voters who supported Clinton, he beat Edwards by 13 points.

    Though polls showed Edwards leading Van Hollen as recently as three weeks ago, the weight of the Democratic machine came down behind him in big and small ways in the closing days. Local elected officials who endorsed him—and he had most of them—distributed Democratic “slates” that listed him, though he was never endorsed by any official party apparatus. Powerful Maryland Representative Steny Hoyer officially stayed neutral, but was widely perceived as supporting Van Hollen. The leaders of Maryland’s House of Delegates and state Senate formally endorsed him and threw their full support behind him. “She was up against the Democratic machine, and party leaders here hate—really hate—when minority candidates try to play up the historic aspect of their candidacy,” said former state delegate Gerron Levi, a staunch Edwards backer.

    Like

  17. Ametia says:

    CBC HAPPTY MEAL

    3 peice & biscuit

    Like

  18. Ametia says:

    The CBC are DEADBEATS, who SHUCK, BUCK, & JIVE for a seat at the table to collect those crumbs. I’d like to know exactly of what use have these NEGROES been to their constituents.

    Please feel free to drop links, commendations, photos, awards of these folks actually ACCOMPLISHING something NOTEWORTHY.

    I’ll wait.

    Like

  19. What the Democratic Party did to #DonnaEdwards was a royal fuck up. Publicly celebrating diversity but closing the door on black women? WTFF is wrong with you Democrats?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. rikyrah says:

    it is very telling. And, it does make me sick. Donna Edwards would have been a great Senator. A good, positive, progressive Senator.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ametia says:

      The Democratic ESTABLISHMENT talk ‘Progressive” nonsense, but they’re not into to

      PROGRESS. PERIOD. They want things to go back to BUISNESS AS USUAL, PRE-OBAMA

      Look at who they’re backing for 2016 presidential bid. A tired, mediocre white woman, who LIES and is still re-hashing sweet-nothings from the 1990s

      Like

      • Liza says:

        A tired, mediocre former First Lady who rode her husband’s coattails into the Senate where she accomplished nothing. It was her steppingstone to the presidential nomination that she didn’t get in 2008. And her whole life, or whatever is left of it, is about proving that the people got it wrong, she should have been the nominee. She must now prove to herself that she was always the better candidate and she just knows she will be the better president. This is all about HER. She must ERASE her failures and become great.

        Of course, she can’t do that. She’s going to be herself, she can’t change her spots. Anyone who thinks Hillary is going to surprise us is a damn fool. And a lot of folks think that way, which is delusional, and they have some hard lessons ahead. But who suffers?

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s