Dude, you just totally plagiarized Ross Perot with that "giant sucking sound" line. Hillary is so gonna nail you for that.

Plus, we're allowed to mention Stephen Glass here? And why would a guy fabricate stories when he also had Jedi force powers and the ability to teleport himself?

Anyway, it's generally a true point: people fabricate and bullshit because it's easier. But not always. That has been the truly impressive thing about the Bush administration's penchant for fabrication and bullshit: Often, the Bush administration has behaved dishonestly even in circumstances where honesty would have been easier and more advantageous. That, for me, is the great mystery of George W. Bush that likely will never be solved. Why go around just making stuff up in cases where the true facts would have backed your arguments anyway? That goes beyond the laziness and incompetence of the normal fabulist, possibly into the realm of the compulsive or the psychopathic.

With the Clintons, somehow it always comes back to sucking.

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

Hilarious. It reads like a C- paper in a freshman comp. class.

Psychopathic.  The psychopaths were Cheney and Rumsfeld, driven insane by Watergate.  Bush is just an amiable, undeducated dunce who really believes stupid things like "looking into Putin's eyes" and "making decisions with my gut."  After Cheney gets done telling him how his gut feels, its a done deal.  Bush probably cannot even read through a one-page summary before his eyes glaze over.

FACT: I am awesome.  Seriously, I rule.  This is true, because the statement was preceeded by the word "fact' in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, followed by a very official-looking colon.  Can't argue with that.

Good grief, what a waste of bits that site is.  Not only are the facts a mix of opinion and fact, some are ridiculous:  "FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates." but then this non-sequitor: The Obama campaign is trying to shut down the Democratic race before the rest of the country votes." ER, yeah, and so is HRC.  The sooner the better in most candidates' minds...  In fact, HRC was pretty confident that after Super Tues it would all be over.  

The opportunity to parody this site is abundant.  

And, er, why wouldn't Obama make arguments for why supers should vote with him, that's the PURPOSE of the supers, no?  FACT.

PS: rat: funny!

Jason's post points to what I think is an underlying irony of the whole " work, not words "

I'll through my vote in for psychopathic.  Damn it, somehow, somewhere in this primary season my vote has got to count for something.  It sure won't count in my state's primary, if the powers that be get their way, and they always do, despite being ignorami.

Rhubarbs, I've got to hand it to you, you're on a roll today.

psychopaths on parade.

Uh, isn't the HRC campaign ignoring the 50-state strategy by dismissing as irrelevant about half of the states in the country?

Some people are liars/criminals because of their contempt for others.  It fits under 'psychopath' but that may be too clinical.  Nixon, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and Hillary C all have demonstrated a contempt for their audience.  The easy lie - easy to disprove - shows their contempt for the listener.  

That's what makes me so mad about the Clinton campaign.  Whenever they're presented with a choice to be respectful or resentful, they seem to choose resentment/contempt every time.

Why can't she give a concession speech?   Why can't her campaign say that the voters in the state's she "lost" matter.  I mean, 452,757 people voted for her in Wisconsin... THANK THEM.

Bush will lie to us because he doesn't think we're worth the truth.  More and more, Hillary walks, and talks, like that lame duck.

To me, the core difference between how Clinton and Obama have run their campaigns is that Obama sees politics as a mechanism of persuasion, while Hillary sees it predominantly as a managerial task; you take the hand you're dealt (i.e., however many people are willing to vote for you) and use that as grist to work the media, expectations, delegate rules, other candidates, as best you can.  The notion that she might actually win by just *persuading people to vote for her* doesn't seem to enter into the picture.

you forgot this fact.

FACT: Pledged delegates are pledged to support a Democrat in the Democratic party.

(more)

they are free to rightly and justifiably go with Hillary Clinton, as she is a Democrat, if as their principles dictate that they must. Or they can go against the will of the party and obstinately stay with Obama. The question is who respects the principle of one delegate, one vote?

It's scary, having voted weeks ago already, watching this drawn out attempt on the part of HIllary Clinton's campaing to throw something that sticks at Barack Obama.  I can't help but fear that they'll find some crappy meme that signifies nothing, but drags him down enough to keep this thing deadlocked into August.

I've said for over a year that I'd prefer Oboma or Edwards or Biden to Clinton, but that I'd give time and money to see her elected in the fall if she wins the nomination.  Her campaign is within a hair's breadth of losing me though - not because I disagree with her on policy matters - but because she looks decreasingly like a potential leader and increasingly like a retread of George Bush in slightly left-of-center clothing.

The Clinton campaign accuses Obama of being all words, and no substance, but the essence of what she's trying to do is to get ANY negative word or phrase to stick to him, regardless of his content.  It's Karl Rove redoux, and it stinks.

word on the street is that Hillary is going to change her campaign song to "Only women bleed" in protest to Obama's sexist use of the words "the" "down" "Candidate" and "periodically" "wisconsin"

Does this sound like a campaign that's going to give up quietly at some point? Are the Clintons really willing to do this much damage to the party?

I recently wrote to all of the Democratic superdelgates from  the state where I live encouraging them to keep an open mind and to vote in the best interests of the party.  (I made other specific suggestions.) I told them that I would proudly support either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama against the Republican nominee.  That may not be the case if Senator Clinton steals the nomination by changing the rules ex post facto to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.  First and foremost I have to respect the candidate I am to vote for.  I disagree with Senator McCain on nearly everything yet I still (barely) respect him.  The proposed shenanigans are likely to lose Senator Clinton both my respect and my support.

This kind of crap is a classic example of why so many people - including many democrats - just can't stand the Clintons.  And the more they are exposed, the more crass their lies become, and the whole thing just snowballs.

I mean honestly, from the beginning, the fundemental rationale for her campaign has been inevitability. I mean, she's going to win, so you'd better get on-board. Except, when she didn't...

One of the biggest "fairy tales" of this whole primary election narrative is this idea that it has been a back-and-forth, up and down, unpredictable race. Er...no. If you look at the race since November, it has been a pretty consistent pattern. Last November, Obama was 20 points down in national polls and in virtually every state not named Illinois. But he'd built an operation - a pretty amazing one actually - and with the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, began pulling voters in his direction.

He won Iowa, which was a national wake-up that nearly handed him New Hampshire (Clinton only won by 3 points after having been up double digits a month earlier). Then Obama closed the gap in NV (he was never really up there either and the Culinary workers endorsement came too late to move enough people.) Then in South Carolina, African American's became the next demographic to move his way.

A month before Super Tuesday, Clinton also had leads in virtually all of those states, in most by double digits. Yet, on Feb 5 Obama won 13 of those states. And even where he didn't win -places like California - he cut his deficit in HALF during the two-week run up.

Oh, and since Feb 5 Obama is 10 for 10, and the SMALLEST margin of victory was last night's 17 points.  So this whole narrative that the race is back and forth - he's up, she's up - just doesn't square with reality. The fact is that the flow has been all one direction.

Based on that, it is virtually inconceivable to me that Clinton is going to reverse this in Ohio and Texas. In fact, the polls there are beginning to show the same kind of movement we've seen everywhere else. And now Obama has 2 weeks to basically LIVE in those two states.

If this was anyone but a Clinton, the pundits would have called this thing over a long time ago. But there is somehow this mistique about BIll and HIll that somehow she is going to come back. If she does, it would be one of the greatest political ressurections ever, but I just can't see any evidence of it. She looks increasingly desparate and he looks like a winner.

In a group I sang with in college, we had a catchphrase: "Walk off the stage." It could be