That is a legitmate question.....

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The ignorance and myths this so-called "journalist" couldn't take the time to check, tells us you need to know about the state of political discourse in this country.

As was the case in Georgia and in other racially diverse states where Democratic candidates for Senate and the governor's office were trounced last night, the issue wasn't whether or not Pookie (the president's favorite election-season punching bag) stayed on the couch. It was candidates' failure to win the votes of the elusive white swing voter. They also failed to motivate the 63 percent of eligible voters (not all of whom are Cousin Pookie, I assure you) who stayed away from the midterms.

Here's one idea why the Democrats lost swing voters and failed to attract many new ones: because they didn't say anything of substance. White voters want something more than bromides, and the voters of color whom the Dems have come to take for granted deserve it. What would have been the outcome yesterday if Democrats had directly spoken to working-class and impoverished voters being crushed by the economy and by harsh policies that penalize poor people? After all, bold initiatives that unabashedly set out to benefit low-wage workers and people caught in the jaws of the criminal justice system won big Tuesday. Minimum-wage hikes in Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota passed, as did California's Prop 47, which challenges mass incarceration by reducing some petty crimes now classified as felonies to misdemeanors. New Jersey reformed its bail system, a move that will mean pretrial release for low-income, low-level offenders who sit in jail because they don't have thousands of dollars at their disposal. Washington, DC, voted to decriminalize marijuana, a move that could shift policing in the district, given that black residents there are eight times more likely to be arrested for possession than white residents, despite equal use of the drug across race.

Democratic candidates seem to assume that those are the types of issues that only motivate the types of voters they already have in the bag. So they opt instead for mealy-mouthed nothingness, a play for the middle in the quest to wrest white undecideds from the hands of Republican candidates. But as Zaid Jilani pointed out in his close look at the Georgia Senate race, this type of calculation will continue to lead the Democrats to crushing defeats in that Southern state and in other parts of the country where demographics are shifting rapidly.

And just because the party, as you say, has been the champions of minorities (I think that's what you meant), doesn't mean they can't offer something to people who are not minorities.  I thought the Democratic Party stood for what was good for all Americans.  Silly me.

Newsflash:  No Democratic nominee can win with just the AA / Hispanic / college-educated women / millennial coalition (especially since they are losing support among those groups as well).  They are going to need the votes of many of those older and white voters that they have lost over the last few elections (mid-term and presidential).  And if HRC or some other candidate can resonate with people in West Virginia and Nebraska and South Dakota, as well as with people in NYC and SF, please tell me why that's a bad thing.

During the Nevada Caucus campaign, Obama did the big rally and Hillary was seen sitting in a living room talking to a Latino family tell them their tale of woe....I noticed that.   I knew she would do well.

And, among Mexican Americans in particular, she just is the strong mother figure who will take care of the probrecitos.....very powerful stuff.

I think questioning the likely Democratic nominee on the use of force and war and peace is a mainstream Democratic tradition.  Going back to Gene, Gene, Gene....McGovern and Kucinich....and many others....Just tossing us into the rubbish pile of "emotional" voters is interesting......That appears the take on how to categorize Obama voters....This will apparently be quite some ride.

Why don't you answer the question rather than attack the questioner?