I just listened to Hillary Clinton's "pep talk" to her bloggers, it was just absolutely insane.

[Bread and Circus]

Her arguments and position are divorced from reality and disingenuous on so many grounds. Lately, I've tried to be nice to her and not disparage her reputation. However, I find her bizarre and legalistic approach divisive and corrosive. I cannot believe how she gets away with such duplicity with saying one thing in public and another in this "semi-private" talk. Further, that she thinks it will have any overall effect, is just stupid.

Nearly any respectable liberal or Democratic blog is or has been supporting Obama for a long time.

And that any of this is "anti-woman" is just ludicrous. Millions of people don't like her and it has nothing to do with her gender. Most of it has to do with what this "blogger talking point management" stunt represents.

Finally, she's NOT ahead in any reasonable unbiased metric, especially the popular vote. If she thinks it's fair to count 2 illegitimate elections (MI and Florida) - made illegitimate by the pledge she signed - but not count legitimate caucus elections, then she has a really bad sense of fairness. This alone disqualifies her from being President or Vice President.

However, if this is all a ruse and she just thinks she is going to pull the wool over everyone's eyes then she's got another thing coming. The blogosphere is not as stupid and ignorant as her "Obama is a muslim" base.

She is unfit for office, any office, at this point.

Sorry.

Turn out the lights, the party is over.

To diminish Bill, Hillary, Penn, McAuliffe, Wolfson, Ickes, and the rest of the assholes is a gift.

P.S. It's lame for her to be going down the tubes and taking money from children. How is that even legal? And if it's funneled through the parents, then the parents are guilty of child abuse. Hillary and Bill Clinton will have no problem bankrolling her debt all on their own. Bill's $200,000 speaking gigs aren't going away.

Shame on you Hillary.

[madfloridian]

1. Here is the audio.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/audio.php?audio=http://www.taylormarsh.com/podcast/mp3/stream.2008-05-16.134204.mp3

[K Gardner]

15. I just did a partial transcription in my post .. main insane points and fabrications..

it's truly unbelievable. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6003732&mesg_id=6003732

[mod mom]

138. thank you! I refuse to go to Taylor Marsh's site.

[MJJP21]

131. Delusional

I think at this point someone really needs to ask themselves if Hillary has become delusional. It is quite possible that she really cannot accept that the presidency is not nor will it be possible for her. For her I think it is almost like losing a child. Sad but she cannot accept the reality of the situation.

[Mimosa]

156. Delusional, and if she can't have it Obama won't?

MJJP21, you are so right:

"Delusional

I think at this point someone really needs to ask themselves if Hillary has become delusional. It is quite possible that she really cannot accept that the presidency is not nor will it be possible for her. For her I think it is almost like losing a child. Sad but she cannot accept the reality of the situation."

[ErinBerin84]

2. I can't believe she said

"We are ahead in the popular vote. It's been confirmed."

What am I talking about...of course I CAN believe she said it, but...I just can never make up my mind over whether the people are enabling her, or if she's enabling the people. That's a really inarticulate way for me to put it, but does anyone know what I mean? She has a very energized base, so I can see how she would want to continue on to win...but at the same time, I don't really feel like she's preparing them for the possibility that...she might not win. And that her not winning might just be fair. I'm all for her staying in until the end, but...I feel like the level to which she has divorced herself from reality is really irresponsible and dangerous.

[dchill]

4. "It's been confirmed." - That's a code phrase...

meaning, "I've decided which votes will be counted, and just as importantly, which votes will not."

[AllentownJake]

5. She's calculating

This isn't divorced from reality.

[ErinBerin84]

9. I know that she's calculating

but at the same time...just little things like Katie Couric asking her "What if you don't win?" and her saying "I WILL be the nominee. I WILL be." I know that this has been a part of her marketing from the beginning, but...I really hope that she does know that she has a future beyond this, if this doesn't "work out". I remember seeing a political analyst say that she has a better understanding of this concept than her husband does, so I just hope that she doesn't get too influenced by him being obsessed with his legacy over her well-being. And then another part of me tells me that this type of thinking is anti-feminist (casting Bill as the delusional one) and that I'm giving her too much credit/sympathy. The manipulation is chilling.

[AllentownJake]

12. She knows what she's doing

She's putting herself in a position where Obama can't ignore her and write her off. There will be a deal made and it won't be for the VP this is politics and the two of them are playing hardball with each other right now.

[ErinBerin84]

13. you're right. .

She knows what she's doing. I think that I'm just trying to be diplomatic and psychoanalyzing to the point where I'M the one divorced from reality, haha.

[AllentownJake]

16. Obama knows what he's doing too

and he wouldn't have had 40 super delegates endorse him since Carolina.

They have heard her argument and rejected it.

John Edwards isn't a dumb man either. They are playing chess right now.

These people are elites and for the most part they are smarter than us.

[ErinBerin84]

19. I don't doubt that Obama's the nominee

I guess I just don't feel like dealing with fucking pots and pans. Though they'll be around regardless, before they die down or turn to McCain. Whatever. I guess I don't really have to deal with them except to hope that they stick to some basic democratic principals by the time this is over. But if they don't, there's not much that I can do about it.

[AllentownJake]

20. The Pots and Pans

Are a very vocal and angry minority.

If they were effective she would have money and be in better shape.

[goclark]

54. Yes, where is the money, even pennies from

all these donors?

Show us the Money Hillary.

[Ken Burch]

90. I'll grant you they're "elites". Smarter? not so much...

:eyes:

[quakerboy]

120. I would hazard a guess

that they are more motivated than I. Have better connections, definitely. Smarter? Some of them. Not so much others. Access to information and power makes a huge difference though.

[ekwhite]

95. I don't buy the argument that they are smarter than us

The "elites" are more cynical, less ethical, hungrier for power, and more willing to do or say anything to win. With a few exceptions, such as Obama, and perhaps the Clintons, they are of average intelligence.

[Jester Messiah]

129. They're very good at what they do

That being politics. It doesn't make them smarter than any given one of us. (I'd like to see Hillary write a build script or code up a login page...)

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. She just THINKS she knows what she's doing.

She's been in the Washington playground so long that even now, after 5 months of primaries, she doesn't realize she's up against a Chicago politician.

She's toast.

[Cha]

24. Damn Straight it won't be for

the VP. She's setting herself up to make people pay her to go away..what a legacy, hilary..I knew ya had it in ya.

[CoffeeCat]

28. She's making really stupid decisions...

...because in her effort to get in Obama's face and force some kind of hardball negotiation--she is eroding
her credibility and stoking intense, white-hot rage toward her.

She's lying. She's being manipulative. She's suggesting that illegitimate elections should count.
She's accusing people of being sexist. She's telling bloggers to lie. She's being shameless.

If she continues behaving this way--with her eyes on some quid-pro-quo deal with Obama, then she's
missing the big picture--that she is flushing the entire Clinton legacy down the toilet.

She's a complete train wreck--oblivious to the damage that she's inflicting on herself.

[PassingFair]

83. Rage?

More like stunned disbelief, revulsion and pity!

[SwampG8r]

38. yeah but

the payoff for all her other"didnt work outs"was supposed to be the WH
thats why shes losing it
she sees that now
for her
its all been for nothing

[dchill]

128. It's legally separated.

:shrug:

[LTR]

55. It's the new 'Hillary Math'

Michigan and Florida count, but caucus states don't.

:eyes:

[Grinchie]

98. I believe she said, It's not in the Math, it's in the Map.

I see.

If I were asking the question, I'd say, how did you determine what color crayon to use when coloring the map?

Sadly for Clinton, she hasn't heard the Bad news that states like California have no intention on reproducing their vote for her in the General Election, and it's all due to the frivolous waste of money and the vicious and stupid way she ran her campaign.

She thinks this talking point about ensuring MI. and FLA is up to her staying in the race, it's a fallacy. It's her last gasp at trying to spin her failure into some Woodie Guthrie-esque march for the common man. She is no more interested in the Common man other than fooling them into voting for her.

Now she just wants a place in the History books as the energizer bunny android of 2008.

She probably has a Deal with Proctor & Gamble for a TV add to that effect.

For a lawyer to be taking this path is quite unnerving, and it shows very poor judgement.

[DeeDeeNY]

114. That is now the new talking point

"it is the MAP not the MATH."

[JVS]

62. Why does she never say the numbers? Is math too hard?

[AllentownJake]

3. Its the death rattle

of a campaign. When you know your going to lose some people go out gracefully others blow their futures trying for the hail mary.

[Bread and Circus]

6. Her supporters on that call sound like such a bunch of pathetic sycophants.

[Occam Bandage]

7. "Ahead in the popular vote" is hilarious, since they only get that number by:

1. Counting the MI/FL non-contests.
2. Not counting the Uncommitteds in MI.
3. Not counting the WA, NV, IA, TX, or ME caucuses.

[Bread and Circus]

8. If this doesn't work out, Hillary has a job lined up in Soviet State TV

[quantass]

23. Agreed..this baffles me how she can spread this lie so easily...glad the press ignores her

[Grinchie]

100. I was Happy to See ZERO devoted to her on Friday N/T

[jsmirman]

27. Are you serious? Is that really the math she's trying to pull?

And yet again, she manages to amaze. It's not that I don't think she's capable of all-time lows, it's just that she comes up with things I couldn't even dream up.

[Gore1FL]

105. And you left out

equalizing caucus attendance with primary votes.

[cliffordu]

10. She has NO MONEY. trying to manipulate the blogsphere is what's left.

It's free.

[Bread and Circus]

11. You are probably right. Taking money from children at such a time is pathetic and sad.

[madrchsod]

14. it`s been posted here by a du member....

interesting... spamming for hillary

[Swamp Rat]

17. SHAME ON YOU!!

:D

[JackORoses]

124. the Taming of the Shrew?

[Swamp Rat]

134. Shrill Shaming Shrew

:D

Breaking the law! Breaking the law! :headbang:

[tabasco]

148. Great movie!

Okay, not so great.

[ninja8590]

18. Don't we have bloggers too?

I'm thinking on this one......who cares? Hasn't Obama won & all that? I read somewhere we have our own bloggers (a few hundred or so...probably more if you don't count the official ones) out there getting those stupid Hillary people to convert back to us (since they aren't smart enough to convert back to us on their own). Is that not true? I've been hanging on the official site so this is my first time at this site...maybe I've missed something?

[gateley]

21. There are several threads pushing the ideas that caucuses aren't

really representative of voters, or whatever the campaign told them to blog. Sigh.

[WHAT]

39. she can't win with open, hand-counted, paper ballots...

in other words?

[mod mom]

140. I've been posting rebuttals on ER list servs today about the Texas Caucus-this is what they use as

proof that Obama folks stole the election (NOTE THAT THE WRITER USES BHO and HILLARY TO DEFINE THE CANDIDATES):

A Field Report on the Texas Caucus Fraud

Here's a link to a report from a voluntary field organizer who investigated the Texas Caucus fraud:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/2/22818/72392

"Texas Caucus Fraud (Updated)
by Pacific John, Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:08:18 PM EST

. . . .

On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see. It was far worse than any GOP campaign I have organized against on the Central Coast, worse than Tom Bordonaro's, worse than Andrea Seastrand's, worse than the Dole campaign whose supporters vandalized our headquarters.

We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am. Some of this was presented in a press release from Clinton Campaign Counsel Lyn Utrecht, but I witnessed worse than what she disclosed.

In one example of fraud that I witnessed, one of my precinct captains, an elderly Hispanic woman, called me to report that BHO supporters had illegally seized control of the convention. During our series of phone calls, Mrs. "A." reported that the Obama people took the convention materials and did not have a legal election of officers. Like nearly all of El Paso, BHO people would have lost such an election in this majority-Hillary, Hispanic, mostly elderly precinct convention.


HERE WAS MY REPLY:

March 01, 2008
Read More: Hillary Clinton

Texas caucus hardball

The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training
materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural
control of caucuses.

The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another
candidate to serve in leadership roles."

It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the
Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary,
in the interest of fairness.

"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the
delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the
Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary
supporters hold these positions."

Some of the moments on the ground in Nevada showed how crucial
technical control can be, particularly when -- there, as expected in
Texas -- nobody has any idea what the rules are. Really makes you love
the caucus process.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html

Clinton and Obama Supporters Accuse Each Other of Breaking Texas
Caucus Rules
By Sarah Lai Stirland March 04, 2008 | 10:17:56 PMCategories: Election
'08
Local television station Kvue reports that both the campaigns of
senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are accusing each other of
breaking the Texas Democratic Party's caucus rules even before Texans
started caucusing. That caused the Texas Democratic party to send out
a memo telling both sides to behave.
Because of the high stakes and potentially decisive nature of the
contests, everyone's on edge, quick to try to seize an advantage, and
quick to point fingers.
There are 141 delegates at stake for the Democrats in Ohio and 193 in
Texas. At stake in Rhode Island, which also held its primary today,
are 21 delegates. Vermont has 15 Democratic delegates.
A Democratic presidential candidate must have the support of 2,025
delegates to win their party's nomination.
Real Clear Politics has a breakdown of the delegate count for the two
Democrats so far here.

The Dallas Morning News reported over the week-end that Clinton's
caucus training materials instructed supporters not to cede leadership
positions to Obama's supporters:
"DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in
leadership roles ...
If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of
our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of
fairness. ... The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement
of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions
of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that
Hillary supporters hold these positions."

-snip
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/clinton-and-oba.html

[2rth2pwr]

22. How is it that we can have posts here on DU disparaging our possible nominee?

These vicious, personal attacks are vile and feed the right wing machine.

What the hell?

[GarbagemanLB]

26. We're talking about Hillary, not Obama. Hillary is an ex-candidate.

[walldude]

40. Let's rephrase shall we?

How is it the moderators can allow someone to use the "possible nominee's" own words against her? Is that more like it? I see no "vicious personal attack" here, I see a desperate candidate who once again shows us her brilliant campaign strategy. Make shit up.

[Genevieve]

69. " possible nominee" WTF??

Hillary lost a long time ago.

[D23MIURG23]

71. Obama could still get hit by a meteor.

Thats about what it would take at this point.

[PassingFair]

84. LOL...is that figured into the math?

Let's see, if

CAUCUSES = 0

and:

METEOR = 1,000,000

then:

She is AHEAD in the popular vote!

[Prophet 451]

143. Maybe not even then

Since the nature of campaigning means that candidates are mostly surrounded by fans and staffers, I wonder if Hillary realises how much she's pissing off party loyalists (the "activist base") and many of the superdelegates. Sure, other candidates have dragged it to the convention floor before but all of them were resented for it (with the exception of Kucinich, who made it entirely clear that he was just doing it to raise progressive issues). Come to think of it, that may be why Obama is starting to get so many superdelegates, the party's subtle way of saying to Hillary: "Look, it's over, please just drop out gracefully before we're forced to knock you out".

After this campaign, I think that even if somethign tragic happened to Obama, the party may ring Gore and beg him to accept the nomination instead.

Hey, how does a Gore/Edwards ticket sound?

[Ken Burch]

91. You have got to accept the fact that your candidate won't be nominated.

You're loyalty is admirable, but she doesn't deserve it. If a real progressive feminist had run, most of us would have backed her.

Please begin working through the process of acceptance. You'll feel better when you do.

You're candidate doesn't have the votes and has no chance of getting them. There's simply no reason to keep this going.

[Lord Helmet]

25. she's a tool trying to mess up Obama

[newmajority]

29. I wonder if Peter Daou is posting at DU this time around

I'm assuming that's him who is coordinating that teleconference. He posted here regularly in 2004 (as Pete NYC) when the DLC had him doing similar operations for the Kerry campaign. I believe he also calls talk radio shows, sometimes in a character voice known as "Pete from the Bronx". He's made some angry Hillbot calls to Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes in recent months.

[ErinBerin84]

30. that occurred to me too

I wonder how much he gets paid.

[newmajority]

36. Yeah, it is him

He gave his e mail addy out at the end of the call.

So does that mean that Pete is behind all the internet spamming AND the calls to talk radio? Or is he just leading one of many "Hillbot Call Center Commando Units"??

[sandnsea]

37. Pete is Hillary's internet director

Has been for a very long time, maybe a year or so.

[Botany]

31. She is nuttier than a squirrel turd

Total lies and pure bull shit she is staying in to get money to pay her debts.

BTW the first call was totally staged ... time for the super delegates and the
party to put an end to this shit/

[Blue_Roses]

42. Sorry...but...

"She is nuttier than a squirrel turd":rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Okay, I mean no disrespect to Hillary, but just that comment...the visual...:rofl:...I've never heard it before. My spouse is busting at the seams now...:D

[ima_sinnic]

68. bwahaha!!

:spray:

[Arugula Latte]

32. At the end the campaign guy running the call says: "Senator, are you still there?...

I think we may have lost the Senator."

It was almost ... sad. And prophetic.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[saltpoint]

35. Look, I'm sure Lee Mercer is a very nice guy, but no, I don't think his

odds are good for the White House in November.

He just isn't that well-known.

[saltpoint]

34. There wasn't an overwhelming rationale for her candidacy all of 2007,

despite her commanding lead in the polling from January of that year to Christmas Eve.

Progressives never liked her in the first place. And although she and her husband lived in the White House for 8 years her handling of a national health care policy was a complete failure. Did Right wing interests align against her? Yes. Nevertheless, she was at the helm and the boat crashed.

Then on Jan. 3rd of 08 Barack Obama and John Edwards defeated her in Iowa. You can be sure that was not supposed to be the outcome in Iowa at all from the Clintons' perspective. They had nudged Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack out of the race to clear a centrist path in Iowa and Iowans chose two more vivid candidates, one fresh and new from Illinois and the other a man of residual affection from the 04 contest.

She eked out a win in New Hampshire.

She got blown out of the water in South Carolina, thanks in large part to her husband's big mouth.

On February 5th she took some states, but Obama did too, and his were interesting and impressive wins. One would even say historic.

At 11:59 p.m. on the night of Feb. 5th Hillary Clinton realized that one minute later her gleaming coach would revert to a pumpkin once again. She had no plan in place -- at all -- to contest any caucus or primary post-Feb. 5th and it showed.

In Wisconsin, Barack Obama defeated her soundly. Very soundly.

She launched the plagiarism charge. Didn't work.

We heard shortly afterward that "words don't matter" that "mere speeches" don't match McCain's patriotism.

That failed as well.

There was the Rev. Wright dust-up which Hillary Clinton should have helped knock down but told an interviewer that she did not believe Obama was a Muslim, "AS FAR AS I KNOW," as if in this modern age she or no one on her staff could have googled Obama's bio to learn his church affiliation. A disgusting, weak-spirited performance by Clinton.

Since then we learn that she's a duck-huntin' shot-and-beer-guzzlin' shoot-em-up-babe, a "fighter," who "won't quit," but there remains no overriding theme to her campaign apart from her husband's political celebrity and her shabby race-baiting and less-than-truthful assertions of her foreign policy creds, the fake sniper fire in Bosnia chief among the examples.

And still no speech writers to frame a theme for her campaign or to communicate its urgency or point to voters.

And she's running a budget deep in the red.

D minus, and that's on the curve.

[PassingFair]

86. You had better take something for your "anger" issues...

Your facts speak VOLUMES about your state of mind.

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

108. We can discuss each point one by one if you wish.

[K Gardner]

89. This really should be an OP, OC.. bravo !

[ExPatLeftist]

111. Excellent summary, Old Crusoe

Thanks!

I really agree that this should be an OK.

And damned if I hadn't temporarily forgotten the "plagiarism" thing. Hopefully the other mud globs she has lobbed will be forgotten as well - nothing of merit there. Kitchen sink, indeed.

Have a good weekend.

[lsusteel]

41. First person to produce a good photoshop...

...of Hillary Clinton's face on the following picture:


will forever be my best friend.

[martymar64]

103. Here's a quick one for you - I'm a photoshop amateur

I'll work on a better one, but here you go!

[tabasco]

146. LOLOL!

Pretty good!

[iconicgnom]

43. she can't figure it out that she's being ignored because she lost. n/t

[Two Americas]

45. she is doing what any candidate would do in a similar situation

Other candidates have taken the fight to the convention who were much further behind - Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Jerry Brown, Dennis Kucinich to name a few. No one screamed at them that they were "divorced from reality" or "absolutely insane."

[Occam Bandage]

46. Lie her ass off about "being ahead in the popular vote,"

by counting MI/FL, discounting Obama's MI votes, and discounting the ME, IA, NV, WA, and TX caucus results?

Every second-place candidate does that?

[Two Americas]

49. of course

Are you claiming that Clinton is the first politician to stretch the truth to fit their agenda, or to do underhanded things to advance their career? I don't support either candidate, and as far as I can see an equally valid case could be made against the politician you happen to be supporting. I would guess that if people printed out this thread and then read it 5 years from now they would be embarrassed.

[Occam Bandage]

50. You find me evidence of another second-place candidate publicly attempting to

invalidate the electoral process, then by all means, show me and I'll admit she's simply an unexceptional fraud.

[Two Americas]

56. Kennedy

Ted Kennedy tried to have the rules changed at the convention.

Look, I am not defending Clinton nor do I support her candidacy. But we need some proportion and perspective here. This is way over the top. Clinton is getting a worse beating here than Bush ever has. She is a politician, better than some and worse than others. She is not some demon or right winger or racist demagogue, and she is not worse than Bush, but you would not know that from reading many of these threads. Much of the scathing criticism of her is just a whipped up emotional frenzy, amplified by being bounced around in an echo chamber. She doesn't even get criticized for the things she - and ALL Democratic party politicians - should be criticized for, the things I was criticizing her for months and months before the Obama campaign took off, and for which I got little support. Most of the talking points against her that are repeated and repeated here originated with mass media pundits.

I agree that she is an unexceptional fraud - a run of the mill politician.

[Major Hogwash]

60. Kennedy never said he had to "duck sniper fire". Hillary did and she's the one running today!

Hillary plans to go to the credential committee and have Michigan's popular vote ratified - that's insane.

When the committee refuses to do that, she'll go to court to sue Dean and the Democratic Party.
Wolfson has already said as much all week long.

[Two Americas]

77. that is true

He did get drunk, drive his car off a bridge, kill the young staffer he was partying with, and try to cover it up. We don't try to toss him out of the party or say he is unfit for office, and we argue with the Republicans who say that.

47% or whatever of the Democrats who went to the polls voted for Clinton. She has an obligation to represent them as long as she can. All candidates try to do whatever they can to get favorable rulings from the party or courts, and there is always a lot of infighting and jockeying and delegate credential fights are very common.

[JMDEM]

66. Hillary's getting worse treatment here than Republicans because...

Many of us view her tactics as traitorous. You tend to hate traitors worse than the enemy itself.

[Two Americas]

78. that is funny

With all of the betrayals by so many Democrats over the last few years, obsessing over Clinton and calling her a traitor seems to me to be nothing but scape goating. It would be wonderful if all of the frustrations and heartbreak we have all experienced at the hands of the party could be placed on her, and we could solve everything by just getting rid of her. But that is an illusion, and not a very constructive or useful one. I think that all of the hatred directed at Bush was wasted energy and a distraction. Hating one personality and loving another one doesn't help us produce any results - it hurts the effort, actually.

Clinton is seen as an obstacle to Obama. That is her only real crime. Obama is the love object, Clinton is the hate object.

[cui bono]

92. No, sorry. Clinton has done lots of terrible things. It's not that she's an obstacle.

I think in your effort to be reasonable, which I commend, you're taking it too far in defense of her.


She flat out said that McCain is more experienced than Obama and all Obama has is a speech.

She's made many race baiting statements in an effort to split the party over race and gain votes.

She completely fabricates stories about sniper fire in a failed effort to demonstrate her non-existent foreign policy experience.

She has her husband saying the Republicans are more progressive than Democrats in an attempt to smear Obama and paint him as not wanting to allow Michigan and Florida votes to be counted.

Rather than point out what a non-issue Rev. Wright was she fans the flames in an attempt to stomp out Obama.

She couldn't even bring herself to state the truth, that she knows Obama is not a muslim.

She keeps desperately trying to find some way to make her the leader in this race and it's really sad and pathetic.


There's plenty more but I can't remember it all right now, but really, that's enough. She is out for herself to the detriment of the party and the country at a time when it could not be more important to have a strong Democratic party so we can take back our country. She is thinking of no one but herself and her husband's legacy when she does these things. I truly believe at this point that all she cares about is being president for the power and the history books, she cannot possibly care about the country and behave the way she is behaving at this point.

[Two Americas]

116. that is so tame

If that is the list of her sins, can't you see how mild and tame that is? We need some perspective and proportion here. You could put together a list like that about any politician. You would think she was Cheney the way people talk about her. It is absurd and over the top.

I am not defending Clinton, I am criticizing the way people are attacking her and her supporters - both the ferocity and the "causes." You want Obama to wrap it up? Stop attacking Clinton and her supporters and let them up off the floor. You want to win the general? Start mending fences and building bridges with Clinton supporters. Carry this crap into the general - and that is becoming more and more likely in my view - and we are all toast.

[cui bono]

150. I would say if it were someone going up against a Republican then yes, it would be business as usual

but since this is a primary and she's doing this against a fellow Dem, who at this point is going to be the nominee, and who isn't doing the same things she is, who is showing restraint and dignity, it looks and feels a lot worse.

I think we hold the Dems to a higher standard and when a primary turns to cannibalism and begins the hurt the party's chances in the general it becomes beyond inexcusable.

And it still hasn't stopped! She's got Bill out there talking like a crazy person, again saying Republicans are better than Obama. No, he didn't say his name, but it was clear that's who he was talking about when he said that the Dems don't want to count every vote.

If she and her most ardent supporters would just stop people would ease up on them, but they won't. They have crossed the line and they just don't care. For Hillary it is all about her and that's why people are so angry at her now. Her continued behavior is going to potentially hurt the party and create/exacerbate racial divisions that are not what the Dem party is supposed to be about.

[Two Americas]

151. that is your take

That is all just an opinion as to how you see the drama. You have a highly emotionalized and slanderous scenario worked up in your mind about Clinton and Clinton supporters. People are resisting having that narrative forced on them and accepted as "the truth." You should understand that, because you are resistant to it when it comes from the other direction.

As one who is not partial to either candidate, I think that an equally valid case can be made that everything you are saying here about Clinton and Clinton supporters applies at least as much to Obama and Obama supporters.

[cui bono]

153. Well that is your take, and I completely disagree.

There is still a reality in this fair and balanced world. Just because there are two points of view doesn't mean one of them isn't further from reality. The Clinton campaign has been MUCH worse than anything the Obama campaign has done. He didn't jump on the sniper fire story, the hospital story, he hasn't played the gender card. She has used EVERYTHING possible against him. Sure you see that. That is not "my take", that is the truth. You might still find someone who believes the sun revolves around the earth, but that doesn't make each perception valid, we all know the truth is that it doesn't, that the earth revolves around the sun.

I've only recently become an Obama supporter. I have mistrusted Clinton for a long time. Her actions during this campaign season have caused me to come to loathe her. And it's all because of her, not the media, not sexism, nothing but her lies and smear attacks.

Obama's actions have had the opposite effect. I have grown to genuinely admire him as a person. He has kept his integrity intact by choosing not to take the low road against Clinton. As a result I like him more with each passing day. I wish he were more progressive, but as for character he is fantastic.

That is not merely my perception, that is a fact. It's all there, in the news. I know you've heard about it. There is no way it is equal between these two campaigns regarding the smear attacks and sinking to new lows.

[Two Americas]

155. I am not a Clinton supporter

I am not saying "she is better than he is!" I am not claiming that my perception is more valid than yours, or saying that I have a superior view of things, I am merely saying that I am not certain that your view is correct. I am not comparing the two candidates, or obsessing at all over the race. If Clinton is as bad as people claim, that kind of takes the starch out of using Clinton as a comparative example to promote Obama. If she is that bad, then anyone would be better, yes?

Oh, I have "heard everything about it" all right, over and over and over again. When you track down the charges from the howling mob to their source, you find that Clinton was a sleaze bag, but that the outcry is way, way out of proportion to the offense, and nothing she did was that out of the ordinary for any politician in any campaign.

You have feelings of trust and admiration for a personality - I respect that. But that is not "facts." It is valid and legitimate, but you can't expect or demand that everyone feel the way you do, nor call your feelings facts and the opinions of others delusional.

I am not opposed to the Obama candidacy, do not dislike him, and am not trying to trash him. I am just not in love with him, and I am questioning the methods that many of his supporters are using.

[Grinchie]

104. Actually, I see Hillary as a Corporate entity

Interested only in the bottom line, but has decided to cut costs in the accounting and research department.

Without the been counters, the money ran out. Without the researchers, the credibility ran out, and now the Corporation in trouble is shopping around for a takeover. Unfortunately, the liabilities incurred are so great, that her Corporate image is not worth much. We are returning the defective politician to WalMart where she came from.

Obama has nothing to fear from Clinton, and all this thread is doing is talking about Hillary's delusion in regards to trying to milk a few more kids out of money for a lost cause.

Hillary just happens to have chosen to Brand Herself "DLC Approved" and guess what Two Americas, the DLC has been responsible for the majority membership of the Democrats that betrayed us.

She made a decision to move toward the middle and split the Democrating party, and it hurt America deeply. She does not get a "Do Over" this time. America desperately wants accountability, yet Hillary wants us to agree to binding arbitration.

No Deal.

[Two Americas]

112. well sure

The entire Democratic party is a "corporate entity."

The Obama candidacy is not to the left from the Clinton candidacy, and she has not run to the center any more than Obama has. Obama has made more comments disparaging the left and talking about cooperating with Republicans than Clinton has.

Clinton is running far, far closer to the leader than dozens and dozens of candidates from the past who fought just as hard as she is. Ted Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Robert Kennedy, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Teddy Roosevelt and on and on and on. Many nominees who were successful in the general over the years were selected in bitter convention battles.

Pro-DLC anti-DLC is not a useful or meaningful battle to be fighting. There are as many DLC people supporting Obama as there are supporting Clinton. Some left wing politicians have been members of the DLC, some right wing have not. It just doesn't tell us anything, unless we are trying to make a comic book drama out of the race with cartoon-like larger than life heroes and villains. We may as well fight against the "Illuminati" or the "Free Masons" something.

The party was already split before the primaries started. That deep and growing divide is merely becoming visible now. Clinton didn't cause it.

Id Obama has nothing to fear from Clinton, why are so many Obama supporters in such a continual and frantic uproar?

[pompano]

154. Nope, won't fly.

There are lines she crossed that make the "politics as usual" meme mute.

Ted Kennedy never said his Republican opponent brought a lifetime of experience and another Democrat brought a 2002 speech.

To my knowledge Ted Kennedy has never stood up in front of the world (others do watch BTW) and made the most outlandish and ridiculous remarks, destined to insult the intelligence of anyone far removed enough to listen, about these wild Bosnian sniper fire tales and then go on Leno and make a mockery out of it.

Ted Kennedy has never signed a pledge agreeing to something he thought he wouldn't need and then when he needed something forgot all about the pledge he signed. If he did I'll stand corrected.

[Grinchie]

102. Then May I Ask You What You Are Doing Here?

Bush stretched the truth, and we want him out.

We don't want another one thanks, so defending Hillary is no win situation, since she seem's rather comfortable with "Stretching" the truth, or perhaps, quashing the truth as well.

[Two Americas]

109. begging your pardon?

Are you suggesting that I should not be here? Upon what basis?

I am not a Clinton supporter, and never have been, and am not so much defending her as I am cautioning people about this ongoing hate fest - and I don't think that is too strong of a word - against her. Why would I do that? Because in my opinion it is doing far more damage than it is good, to the party and to all of us.

We may disagree as to what is best for the party, but merely because my opinion about that differs from yours does not mean that I shouldn't be here.

Bush stretched the truth and that is why we want him out? My, my, I don't know who your "we" is, but that is the least of the reasons why I want to see the Republicans - not merely Bush - removed from power. If McCain follows the exact same policies as Bush, but never lies, would that then be a case of problem solved? Hardly.

[eridani]

58. Kucinich did not insist that by some weird metric he was winning

He stayed in to take progressive issues to the floor, and was perfectly upfront about that.

[Two Americas]

110. I was there

I understand. I listed the candidates who have run right on into the convention, I didn't say that they were all identical to Clinton. What Ted Kennedy did was probably much more quixotic and destructive than anything Clinton has done. Many many candidates did what they could to maneuver and strong arm their way into the picture, including Dennis and we cheered him on. Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown played hardball politics at the convention and we cheered them on.

We want politicians to fight for their supporters - if only more Democrats had done that lately. We can't criticize Clinton for fighting for her supporters - she has a surprisingly high percentage of the votes for this late in the primaries - nor are her political tactics and strategy atypical or shockingly unusual. The difference, the reason there is such an uproar and so much controversy, is that many Obama supporters are hyper-alert and sensitive and egging each other on in a feeding frenzy, in my view.

I don't want the future of left wing politics in this country to rise and fall on the success of one personality - a politician who is pretty much a centrist, and whose positions differ very little from Clinton's - do you? What is wrong with cautioning people about this?

By the way, I think that "by some weird metric" Dennis was winning, myself. He was so shut out in the media, that in polls the most common answer was "who?" when people were read a list of candidates and Kucinich was mentioned. In areas where he could directly reach a reasonable percentage of the voters, he could be competitive and win those districts.

The media chooses our candidates, and it surprises me that people are still naive about this. We can hope that Obama is an exception, but a hope is all that it is and a little healthy skepticism would do no harm.

Clinton voters have as much right to have representation in the convention as we Kucinich voters did in 2004, even though we disagree with her politically.

[eridani]

122. The reason that there is an uproar is that she is campaigning on REPUKE frames

This seriously damages the party's GE chances when one candidate goes shouting from the rooftops that Dems are wrong and Repubs are right. I wouldn't care how long she stayed in if she quit doing that.

Obviously there are no significant policy differences between the two. There are overwhelming distinctions in commitment to ongoing party organizing. Clinton has utter contempt for active party members ("elitists") and the 50 state strategy and refuses to share voter information with the DNC VoteBuilder project. Obama is organizing massive voter registration drives and devoting serious money to training organizers.

[Two Americas]

141. not seeing it

I am not seeing the "repuke frames" any more from Clinton than any of the rest of the Democrats, and I am no fan of Clinton and very alert to right wing framing. Obama's rhetoric is packed with right wing frames. I don't like it from any of them, but it is a stretch to portray Clinton as any worse than the rest of them, including Obama. To my mind, dissing the 60's activists is much more right wing than dissing the current activists. Transcending the divisions and excesses of the past and reaching across the aisle panders to people with right wing ideas and reinforces those ideas.

[eridani]

145. Trashing 60s activists was not nearly as damaging as Clinton attributing her current losses

--in caucuses to PRESENT DAY "activists." The frame that participating in ordinary citizenship activities is "elitist" is one of the most damaging frames that any candidate could conceivably use. Obama is counteracting that by the very existence of the massive voter registration drives he has organized. The REPUKE "elitist" frame is the single most destructive meme that has worked against Dems for 30 years. Clinton is pushing it and Obama is making fun of it.

The other disastrous REPUKE meme that Clinton is pushing is fear. Obama is directly opposing it. Her 3am ad will cost us as many GE votes as Gephardt's Osama ad against Dean in 2004 cost us. Obama is running for the presidency, and Clinton running to be "commander in chief", which is a thoroughly REPUKE concept of what the office should be. Have we learned from that Kerry "reporting for duty" horsehit or not? Clinton is giving us the same disastrous frame here that allowed 2004 to be close enough to steal. Here's a clue--there is no conceivable WAY that Dems will get more votes from fear and chestthumping than the Repukes get.

[Two Americas]

149. both are bad

That is interesting eridani, thanks. I think that trashing out the political movements from the 60's is much, much worse than criticizing our modern liberal activist organizations, and much more in alignment with the Republicans, who have built their political fortunes on reaction to the 60's for the last 40 years and are still fighting those battles.

Moveon.org and other modern liberal organizations are no threat to the right wingers and their clients - the wealthy and powerful few. Hell, they are "working within the system" and becoming "winners," and they appeal to a very narrow demographic. Modern liberal organizations should be criticized, in my opinion, as they are the key barrier to the political left. Most modern liberalism is libertarianism with an "organic" label slapped on it.

Surrendering on the causes of the 60's, however, is a complete surrender to the right wing. This is interesting, because we had the same arguments in the 60's - the new movement: SDS, the Yippies, and other groups ascending over the old school Labor fighters from the 30's. I made the same argument then that I am making today, and I was correct back then. The modern and new organizations, just like the Obama campaign - made up of younger people and tossing away the past, "transcending the old divisiveness of the past" had no political staying power, were more of a fad, and quickly collapsed and all of the "radicals" got corporate jobs and moved to suburbia. Labor and civil rights people were left in the lurch, the young radicals abandoned the fight, and the right wing has been growing in power ever since.

Bringing more people into politics and registering new voters is a good thing, a very good thing. We shall see if that was solely for the purpose of helping Obama win the nomination, which there is much evidence of, or if it has broader political significance. I don't know one way or the other yet, but talking to Obama staffers, who brag about their clever strategy for winning the nomination - as opposed to making any important and lasting political impact - it sounds much more like the former than the latter.

The reason that the Republican theme of "elitist" has worked is because there is so much truth to it - the left and liberalism have become increasingly elitist over the last few decades - arrogant, condescending, upscale. That is the not the strongest Republican theme, it is our greatest weakness and flaw.

I agree with you about the "3 am" ad and fear mongering - that to me is playing into the Republicans greatest strength right there. But as near as I can tell, Obama is 90% of the way there as far as reinforcing the right wing "war" theme - even calling what is happening a "war" is s strong reinforcement of the right wing propaganda.

[eridani]

152. And yet, Obama was right when he said that lots of working people--

--noticed that the Dems betrayed them on issues like NAFTA, and many took to voting on the "culture war" stuff that seemed to be the only difference left between the two parties. We also know that the original "top three" candidates would not have even been labelled that by the MSM had they not done the requisite warwhooping required for that status. Even the far more populist Edwards did exactly as he was told to in this area.

I know that Obama has often gone along with RW framing, but my point is that he occasionally breaks it whereas Clinton never does. The only Dems to whom the "elitist" frame really applies are the NAFTA loving DLC types. My own state Dem platform looks a lot like various socialist party platforms (minus the obligatory ranting against the burgeoisie), and practically identical to that of the Greens. Our state party structure heavily weights the influence of more socially conservative Dems from eastern Washington, and our platform still looks pretty much like your generic progressive lefty wet dream.

My perspective is that of a very committed long-term state-level party organizer. Obama has been nothing but strongly supportive of that, willingly sharing outreach and voter contact information. Clinton won't even use our voter database, let alone feed information back into it. Most of our county and LD organizations have for years trended toward being a lot older and whiter than their voting populations. Don't think that a lot of caucus conveners like myself haven't noticed that this year's caucuses were a lot younger and way more "colorful," so to speak. Come 2009, plenty of the newbies will have noticed that actually changing anything is going to require a lot of boring hard work, but I'm betting that more than a few will be sticking around. For once I feel confident that there will be a lot of replacements for some of our old PCOs who have had to call off actually walking precincts within the last few years. If us issue junkie traditional lefties can't pull them into ongoing issue involvement, there will be nobody to blame but ourselves.

[Two Americas]

158. good points there

I agree with everything you are saying. Thanks.

Changing of the guard, eh? Well this old dinosaur is happy to pass the torch and get out of the way lol.

[jgraz]

61. Um... yeah, people (The Clintons) called Jerry Brown insane from the start

Along with pissing on anyone who dared to support him.

[Mimosa]

157. I remember that clearly

Jerry Brown was right about the Clintons from the beginning.

[ExPatLeftist]

113. Relative morality is no morality at all.

People that say, "everyone does it" seem to have no moral compass of their own. Aside from that, it is not true. Plenty of people have not and would not do this same thing. Cases in point: Every candidate on either side that has already dropped out.

It is really sad when all you have left as a "defense" is that "everyone would do this" - AKA "I know it's shit but the only way I can rationalize it is to imagine that others would do the same."

[Two Americas]

118. politics is not religion

I am not excusing Clinton. I am not saying that something is OK if everyone does it. I am saying that Clinton is no worse, and that many Obama supporters, in their zeal, have lost all sense of proportion and perspective.

I am not defending Clinton, nor do I support her. Casting anyone who is repelled by much of the rhetoric from Obama supporters as a defender or supporter of Clinton is a transparent and dishonest attempt at deflection and misdirection. Ironically, responding to criticisms about the way Obama supporters are acting by attacking Clinton is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. "She is worse! She did it first!" See the logic there? You are excusing the behavior of Obama's supporters by saying that others do it, too. That is what you said I was doing - but I am not a Clinton support, so your attack on me disintegrates in the face of that.

Accusing me of having no moral compass is an unfair personal attack.

[ExPatLeftist]

121. No, politics is not religion.

But IMO morality applies to both, especially considering that the politics of the One Superpower ultimately and directly often result in life or death.

My statement about morality was my general opinion of relative morality pleas across the board, and those that live by them (which I did not intend to direct at you personally, but that was unclear and I apologize for the insult). Basically, I would say that by definition a relative morality is not a morality at all because morality is conviction from within, not a cynical internalized manipulation of the external situation in order to excuse any action for personal benefit. It was not directed at relative morality specifically as it relates to politics or religion or anything else. When I hear excuses or explanations based on "well, they did worse!" or "everyone does it", it instantly repulses me. I do not think that a person's actions should be determined by those he detests. An example I almost always think of is the argument during the first phase of the new and improved Iraq War that torture and almost anything else is OK because "they" beheaded someone live on the Internet. When we go just as far as we can before we get to "their" level, we become just slightly less 'evil' than those we oppose. And it is a downward spiral because there is always that one step worse which becomes justified. I know this is an exaggerated example, relatively, but I think the same thing applies in politics as well. We have become all-too-accepting of dirty tricks and lowest-common-denominator thinking.

Everyone has their own limits to what they will accept from a politician. Hillary Clinton, who I have long admired, crossed those lines for me. And I disagree wholeheartedly that all other politicians would do the same thing. Of course, we will never know so it is a moot point for me. Hillary crossed my line a few times, unlike any Democrat ever has. And I think many others feel the same. I know you do not support her, and I did not say that you did (though I of course leaned that way due to your defense of her). But I also know that our perceptions of this are quite different, as we are different individuals, and all of us have our own limitations. I find it ironic when people try to convince me that I "shouldn't" be offended by something that offends me.

I hope that I can remain unbiased enough to see when the candidates I support use dirty tricks as well, because I will (and do) call them on it. But as long as I can spot it, I will never accept anything that bothers me by rationalizing it with "well, everyone does it". I believe that the tone can change in US elections, but not as long as we accept the lowest common denominator.

Sorry again, and also sorry for this long rant. I can't seem to think in soundbites. :)

[Two Americas]

123. I agree completely

Thanks for the clarification and for going into this in greater detail. I agree with everything you say here.

Yes of course morality applies to politics, as you say.

I understand that Clinton crossed the line for you, and I respect your view. It is not that I think more highly of Clinton than you do, rather it is that I have not yet been convinced that Obama is significantly better. Not that it matters, as I will vote and canvass and help as always in the general. Obama is certainly no worse (as in more difficult to promote) than many we have had in the past.

[DesEtoiles]

47. Hillary's campaign is pure garbage at this point

[Terran]

48. She actually believes her own shit

She *actually* said that because she won the WV primary that she'll win WV in the GE. Like the two are inextricably linked, somehow. Jesus Christ, I really think she's lost her fucking mind.

[Harry Monroe]

130. Just like George Bush believes his own shit

Hillary and Bush are exactly alike, IMHO. We don't need her, we've had 7 1/2 years of deceit and lying. Time for a change.

[Eurobabe]

51. She better watch out or she will become irrelevant

just like her whacked out husband and his insane comments of late.

[SlipperySlope]

52. Hillary is a troll.

Like any troll, the best thing would be for the country to ignore her. Giving her any attention only encourages her to continue her disruption.

[Hoof Hearted]

53. yes. we should all rely upon you for unbiased..... . ... .

Oh. Nevermind.

[bhikkhu]

57. Agreed. It is late in the game, and she's become a farce and an obstacle

Not much more to add, but looking forward to the run-up to November, and away with the baggage already!

[Kahuna]

59. When I hear her callers on talk radio they all sound alike and hit

the same points. They are like fingernails on a chalk board with their grating, whining voices.

[Window]

63. Dear Lord! This is just sad and pathetic.

[Orsino]

64. No need to question her sanity.

She's simply in a position that's hard to sell, and the spin is necessarily forced.

[CoffeeCat]

65. She is a complete joke, by now...

...and listening to her delusional supporters egging her on--was revolting.

It was like watching enabling freaks supply a raging alcoholic with
ten martinis an hour.

"You beautiful, beautiful person!! Shaken or stirred this time? I am
in awe of your sipping prowess your highness! I got you some of those
little olives you love so well...can I rub your bunions while you slam
the next one?"

:puke:

[cyberpj]

67. Truly, I was a Hillary fan before the primaries. Now I'm ashamed of her. nt

[DesEtoiles]

70. kick

[earth mom]

72. Don't kid yourself! People on DU hate Hillary because she is a woman. A white woman.

Look no further than this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5992053

:puke:

[AntiFascist]

80. If I were advising Obama's (other) bloggers...

I would recommend that they not use the term "that woman" in posts about Hillary. This is likely a ploy used by members of Operation Chaos who hate women.

[Pisces]

81. Has nothing to do with her gender or ethnicity. It is called "ACTIONS AND WORDS"

[mrreowwr_kittty]

82. Obviously the point of that OP sailed over your head. nt

[grantcart]

127. and it has nothing to do with the air of entitlement that she wore from the begining

Now here is the problem. For the last six months she has polled between 42 and 47 points and today she is back down to 42.

Why is it that she hasn't been able to move an inch?




Now here is the problem if you say that it is because of misogyny then that means she isn't electable in the fall like she claims.


And if there is so much misogyny how did she start so far ahead.


Rather than get so angry at Obama supporters why don't you address that anger at the Clinton campaign. Why did they run such a terrible campaign?

Why after losing 8 straight campaigns did she cut back on her time in Wisconsin and treat it like a side show when the told the press that it was her firewall?

[stillcool]

139. Wow...that is so nasty...

kind of funny in a sick sort of way...

[merkins]

73. bump

[Bread and Circus]

74. LOL. I didn't know my rant would get so many replies. I kind of embarrassed. :)

:rant: << LOL!

[K Gardner]

75. It was a good rant !

[Major Hogwash]

135. Well, it's kind of odd for Hillary to tell her supporters to flood the series of tubes.

Some of it makes sense, but there was a definite coordinated effort the other night after Edwards endorsed Obama and that just looked pathetic.

[JMDEM]

76. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Error: You've already recommended that thread. In fact, you've tried to recommend it 14 times this morning and you keep getting this message. Wazza matta with you? Party too much last night?

[happygoluckytoyou]

79. DOZENS OF MORE QUALIFIED RUNNING MATES...

AND SEVERAL WITHOUT A HILL-O-BAGGAGE.

WE CAN FIND MANY WOMEN... HISPANICS... PROBABLY EVEN A GECCO... WHO HAVE A BETTER FOLLOWING...

....I DONT THINK BARACK HAS TIME IN HIS 8 YEARS TO WORRY ABOUT OVER-THE-HILLARY'S ISSUES

[AtomicKitten]

85. I don't trust her as far as I could throw her.

Some of her supporters are trying to convince us she is going to do the right thing. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, Barack better watch his back because she'll shiv him for sure if she gets the chance.

[williesgirl]

87. She's probably having a hissy fit over being left out of the */BO stuff yesterday. Hah! rec'd

[gbrenna]

88. Blogger Remarks

She has a better chance of winning in November. If Obama had any sense he would realize that and bow out to the superior candidate.

[Faygo Kid]

93. Obama is going to smoke McCain in November. Hillary had her chance, and it's over.

You're reduced to arguing that he should bow out with the nomination in hand?

Pathetic. Where's your sense?

[Prophet 451]

144. Enjoy the granite cookie n/t

[rateyes]

94. Re: Popular vote:

It looks like the old adage is coming true: Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

[ekwhite]

96. That first question from the "Talk Left" guy

was turbo 'butt kissing.'

[netgui68]

97. They call us Kool Aid drinkers...

Based on their irrational arguments and departure from reality...I would have to call them acid heads (delusional) they are seeing shit that simply aint there. Hell we all know the popular vote does not decide the candidate even if she was leading. I have a question, I believe that I heard that caucuses are not counted in the popular vote totals...can anyone confirm this as true or false...thanks.

[ekwhite]

99. I loved the "no one has won the White House since 1916 without W VA spin

That was factually incorrect. According to 270towin.com, West Virginia voted for the losing candidate in 1968, 1980, and 1988. North Carolina voted for the losing candidate in 1992 and 1996, only, for comparison.

[Gore1FL]

106. I think they meant no Dem has won since 1916... but it is important to note:

All the times a Dem won with WV, they were more than WV's electors over the top anyway. They like to reverse the logic on the WV spin.
I don;t understand why some people fall for logical fallacies, but as many time as I have seen the WV argument used I have to admit, a lot of people do.

I'd like to have WV's 5 electors in 2008, don't get me wrong. But WV's electors are not the deciding factor that the HRC campaign claims them to be.

[ekwhite]

107. Exactly.

The fact that WV has voted for the winning Democrat has been indicative of an electoral sweep, perhaps. It does not mean that there is some magic to West Virginia's 5 electoral votes that makes the candidate that wins West Virginia win the White House. I could have used many other states than North Carolina to make the same point. I just chose a recent Obama win.

[invictus]

101. K & R. Shame on Hillary Clinton! n/t

[zulchzulu]

115. Who? That candidate who lost the race a while ago? She still around?

I thought she dropped out by now. Hasn't she gotten the memo?

:rofl:

[helderheid]

117. toon

[barack the house]

119. I disagree with the campaign but the last part maybe a little over stated...

I'd say if grown adults are not donating to her, the "sold his bike " story presses my skepticism button.

[phrigndumass]

125. Giving bloggers talking points smacks of Faux News' Roger Ailes ...

and her bloggers actually using those orchestrated talking points reminds me of Faux News "personalities"

:puke:

[ExPatLeftist]

126. And in sports news...

In the last seconds of the 4th quarter of a playoff football game, the team which is obviously going to lose starts petitioning the referees to call the game for them. They claim that the points on the board are not really what matters, nor are the statistics. What really matters is who has the better chance (in the losing team's own baseless imaginings) to win the next game. (Less than half) The crowd cheers and the game is overturned. The league comes together to face the next opponent and everyone eats pie together.

And now, back to REALITY, already in progress...

[bulloney]

132. What will all of this do for Hillary's bid for re-election for her NY Senate seat?

I've gotta think this will leave a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. During this presidential campaign, I think a lot of her supporters have seen a side of her, Bill and her campaign staff that they hadn't seen and it ain't pretty.

[Stephanie]

133. I think we should get a New Yorker in that seat.

Someone who shares our values.

[McCamy Taylor]

136. Shame on this OP. It is a "circus" in the "Bread and Circus" tradition of Rome.

"Lately, I've tried to be nice to her and not disparage her reputation."

By writing Hillary-Bashing material like this? In the first paragraph alone she is "divorced from reality", "disingenuous" , "bizarre and legalistic", "divisive and corrosive", guilty of "duplicity" and "stupid". Note that I have done what Bread and Circus failed to do. I showed rather than told that Bread and Circus attempted to disparage Clinton in the first paragraph, in direct contradiction to his own words. Show don't tell is a problem for novice fiction writers and for political writers who have no facts to back up their assertions.

"Nearly any respectable liberal or Democratic blog is or has been supporting Obama for a long time."

Only if your dictionary defines "respectable- adj. supportive of Obama" and "long time" is the English system unit of measure that equals four months or less.

"Millions of people don't like her and it has nothing to do with her gender."

Millions of people at sites like C.U.N.T. do not like the human being called Hillary. Millions of right wingers and Republicans call the human being Hillary "bitch", "witch" , "shrew", "ice queen" , "Lesbian", "castrating"....but it has nothing to do with gender.

"If she thinks it's fair to count 2 illegitimate elections (MI and Florida) - made illegitimate by the pledge she signed - but not count legitimate caucus elections, then she has a really bad sense of fairness. This alone disqualifies her from being President or Vice President."

I call this one the Hillary is not in charge because she is in charge argument. She personally and solely with no one else decided to tell voters in Mi and Florida to piss off, because she rules the world. That means that she does not rule the world.

"The blogosphere is not as stupid and ignorant as her "Obama is a muslim" base."

Wow! Just wow! I believe that 10% of people everywhere--not just in West Virginia---think that Obama is a Muslim. But West Virginia voters are "stupid and ignorant". Way to court the blue collar vote for this fall. With bloggers like these working for the Democrats, I guess our troops in Iraq can look forward to four more years of war.

"She is unfit for office, any office, at this point."

In other words, "burn the witch". Dualistic thinking is never pretty.

"Sorry."

No you aren't. People who engage in hate mongering are not sorry. If they were, they would not say what they say.

"Turn out the lights, the party is over."

"In light of knowledge attained, the happy achievement seems almost a matter of course, and any intelligent student can grasp it without too much trouble. But the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alterations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light -- only those who have experienced it can understand it." Albert Einstein

"To diminish Bill, Hillary, Penn, McAuliffe, Wolfson, Ickes, and the rest of the assholes is a gift."

"On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!" Mother Theresa

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/teresa94.html

"P.S. It's lame for her to be going down the tubes and taking money from children. How is that even legal? And if it's funneled through the parents, then the parents are guilty of child abuse."

Remember the glass houses rule?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102301882.html

Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.

Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.

"Shame on you Hillary."

Shame on you, Bread and Circus for the divide and conquer post designed to create internal division within the Democratic Party at a time when the candidates are trying to unite us. I listened to the whole 26 minute pep talk. Clinton's only criticism of Obama was that he would not debate. When the last caller ask for oppo, she hung up. Most of her criticism was reserved for the press. She said "If you have voted for Barack or me you have more in common than you have with McCain" and she made a good point about how the press does not usually get up in arms with minority status candidates (of either party) who decide to go to the convention to have some effect on the platform or the convention. Look at Ron Paul. He is still out there criticizing the Republicans and no one is giving him any grief.

This OP is a circus designed to distract people with flashy, visceral rhetoric that does not stand up to a second, close reading. Like so much that I read these days at DU, its effect is to drive a great big wedge into the party so that we are incapable of effective action on the issues that matter, because we are too busy fighting each other.

[Catherina]

137. !

:wow:

I'm listening now. This is unbelievable!

[Limelight]

142. Quick Announcement: SHE'S NOT WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE!!!

I'm sooooooooooo sick of hearing this horse manure I don't know what to do. Here are the numbers:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

The only way she can claim that she's winning the popular vote is if we count FL & MI. Now, now, hold on Hillary supporters. See the only way she's even winning then is if you don't bother counting IA, ME, WA and NV. Why? Cuz they haven't turned in their final popular vote tallies. The page above estimates what the popular votes were coming out of those 4 states, of which Obama won 3 out of 4.

Ironic she whines about not counting certain states, but the only way she can get any kind of lead whatsoever is by not counting other states. I guess because some of them have the horrid and terrible caucuses that have only been going on for decades upon decades upon decades and they were fully aware existed, but failed to create the organization on the ground it took to win those types of contests.

Either way, bottom line is this. She's losing.

Delegates.

Super Delegates.

Popular Vote.

Game Over.

:toast:

[geiger]

147. Her dishonesty continues to apall and offend me; I too was trying to stay away from

pointing out the obvious, but the most obvious thing of all is that she intends to continue the misrepresentations (lies), trying to change the rules (cheat), and disparage fellow Democrats that don't want to go along with her antics.