TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM
January 08, 2009 | 5:59 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
31.05.2008
Scenes From Today's RBC Hillary Protest

Howard Dean may hope that the "healing will begin today," but two blocks away from the northwest Washington Marriott where the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting right now to try to figure out Florida and Michigan, the Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally's speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of "promoting equality and fairness for all"; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball. 

"They almost made me cry this morning when they told me to get out of there," the blond Sinclair--who's looking roly-poly and giddy in a blue-and-white striped shirt with a pack of Marlboros protruding from the breast pocket--says, referring to several nervous protest organizers who tried to evict him when he first showed up at the rally site early this morning carrying a box of "Obama's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" fliers. Since then, though, he goes on, "I have been totally surprised by the reception I have received!"

He's not kidding. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. "You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs," sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair's credibility doesn't seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he's treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is "good in bed."

Earlier, he claims, he even got to take a picture with Charlie Rangel. "I love him!" Sinclair chirps, though, it must be said, not as much as he loves Lanny Davis.

Has it come to this? We tend to assume the Hillary camp's hot rhetoric--that Obama's less ready than McCain to be commander-in-chief, that the DNC in Florida is like Mugabe in Zimbabwe--is studied, purposeful, that they can't really believe it. That may be true at the Lanny Davis level, but by the time it trickles down to Hillary's most grassroots supporters, it becomes deadly serious.

Of the eight Hillary supporters I quiz at the protest (six of them women), only one says she'd even consider voting for Obama in the fall. "It's sad. I'm a lifelong Democrat and the party's been taken over by these Obama people who say they want 'change,'" gripes Linda of Horseheads, New York, outside the Marriott as a honking car decorated with a painting of Hillary, a glued-on bust of Cleopatra, and a tampon drives by. Linda, she says, has already gone to the state Board of Elections to learn how to write Hillary's name in in November. "So much has been stolen from her."

Justine, a self-described "diehard Democrat" from Greensboro, North Carolina, objects to the write-in idea. "It's gonna help Barack if you don't vote against him," she says. She and her friends got Sinclair to autograph their copies of the "Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" flier. One of those friends, Jeannie, is living proof that, at least for some people, the long primary has done its damage. "When [Obama] first came out, we just thought he was too young," she explains. "But now I don't think he's qualified at all." 

It's easy to sink into despair here. Standing and watching all these Democrats chat up Sinclair--who's retained Montgomery Blair Sibley as his lawyer and says the Republican National Committee has also been in touch with him--makes me want to fall to my knees, rend my garments, and start insanely screaming, "Wake up! Wake up! You'll hate a President John McCain!" But the rhetoric from the top has imparted its poison below, and the bitterest criticisms of Obama gain traction as they circulate through the virulently-pro-Hillary echo chamber. "Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. "That's a good point," he replies.

Following instructions from Obama HQ, almost no Obama supporters have shown up to protest, amplifying the impression of the alternate Hillary universe. But around the edges, a few small signs of the other universe peek through, the one in which Barack Obama leads and most Democrats don't suspect him of multiple felonies. Inside the Marriott's gift shop, the sales clerk tells me that Democratic bumper stickers have been selling like crazy today. "Mostly Hillary?" I ask.

"Actually, mostly Obama," she giggles.

--Eve Fairbanks

Posted: Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:04 PM with 139 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Wandreycer1 said:

Linda Horseheads!  Could this be any more perfect?

May 31, 2008 2:46 PM

scire said:

Sigh. This is depresssing.

May 31, 2008 2:52 PM

WoodyBombay said:

"You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs," sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup.

Hey -- is that a pccostello sighting?

Seriously, extreme Clintonites - thanks for elevating the discourse, acting like smart, mature adults, and helping to bring the party together. Let the reconciliation begin!

May 31, 2008 2:53 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Ironic isn't it Eve? Remember back when Hillary was the murderer - Vin Foster?

Great last sentence.

May 31, 2008 2:55 PM

dylanposer said:

Eve,

This exposition reaches the level of Joan Didion--I had to read it twice!

Amazing work.

May 31, 2008 3:11 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Meanwhile, in the meeting, the Obama side is graciously, generously conceding Florida and generally doing all it can to compromise fairly. And the Clinton folks are acting like spoiled, greedy, petulant  children. I wouldn't be surprised if Blanchard brought Larry Sinclair in to testify.

May 31, 2008 3:13 PM

michael said:

As I've pondered for a week or so, we'll know a lot more as we see who stays in the bunker with the Clinton's and who walks out. Staff and non-officer holders can and will hang around.  A week from today it should be a small and insignificant group that remains with the Bills..

Who will be of consequence, who will have any influence even if mobs continue to wail? They'll be screaming at people who don't matter. Or, a hint why it may be foolish to dare the same at the convention.

May 31, 2008 3:41 PM

roidubouloi said:

Yup, this is exactly what could have been expected from the dirty campaign to nowhere that Hillary started to run after she had already lost the nomination.  But, she couldn't really help herself.  That's just her nature.

May 31, 2008 3:58 PM

darieff said:

Unfortunately for all of us, this will end up being Hillary's 2008 legacy - an agitated, angered base of supporters who are less interested in balance, updated information, or even the fact that HRC's and Obama's policy platforms are remarkably similiar. Instead, taking cues from their flame-throwing leader, they have lapped up all the culture-war and victimology messages that were intended for them: Women must stick together, Hillary is being disrespected and her young, arrogant Obama is leading the way, if you're middle-aged, female and less than glamorous, people will undervalue you and try to muzzle your voices, etc. ad nauseum. Leaving aside how bitterly comical it is to watch Hillary morph into the feminist icon of working-class white women, what's even MORE absurd and frustrating is that the culture wars that used to be fought between Republicans and Democrats are now being waged inside the Democratic Party - with "victory" for these women being the idea that they could derail an Obama presidency come November. .................................................................Unbelievable. Where is the awareness of what our continued presence in Iraq will cost us in blood and treasure? ........................................Where is the desire for a revamped health care system -- a goal that , allegedly, was/is the pet issue of their fearless leader? ................................................Where is the hesitation about electing a man who vows to pack the Supreme Court with more conservative judges? ............................Where is any evidence of thoughtful decisionmaking AT ALL?................................ .........................................Veteran political operatives like Lanny Davis may be able to turn the outrage and rhetoric on and off like water from a spigot, but it's clear that these rank-and-file Hillary diehards are able to do no such thing...................................................................................It's the most depressing display of stupidity since Intelligent Design. Ugh. Wake me in November when it's all over.

May 31, 2008 4:13 PM

Political Animal said:

UMMM..... I briefly considered driving down to DC to check out the protests at the DNC meeting, but thought better of it. But Eve Fairbanks was there: "Howard Dean may hope that the "healing will begin today," but two blocks...

May 31, 2008 4:14 PM

scire said:

I'm curious -- who exactly is Obama supposed to have murdered?

May 31, 2008 4:15 PM

roidubouloi said:

When the Rules Committee is done, Obama will be 60-70 delegates shy of a majority, depending on just what they decide to do with Michigan.  He can expect at least 22 out of Puerto Rican, bare minimum.  What he should want is to have the two primaries in SD and MT put him over the top.  He wins at least 16 there, probably 20.  So, I predict that between tonight and Tuesday we will see another net 35 super-delegates declare for Obama.  That way, he will go into the last two primaries just shy of a majority and it will be the votes in the last two states that will put him over the top.  Then the Hillaristas will net be able to claim (ridiculous though it would be) that he was "selected" before he could be "elected."  Then we will see a flood of supers piling on so that, long before the convention, the other half of the MI/FL delegates become irrelevant.

And Hillary will keep fighting.

May 31, 2008 4:25 PM

scobb20 said:

"scire  said:

I'm curious -- who exactly is Obama supposed to have murdered?"

Democracy!

I'm kidding.

These protesters are nuts.  Interesting, but nuts.

May 31, 2008 4:26 PM

roidubouloi said:

Scire, What a stupid question.  Vince Foster.  Everyone knows that.

May 31, 2008 4:26 PM

roidubouloi said:

darieff,

Hillary is a Republican, and so she has brought the Republican race-baiting, culture-war campaign inside the Republican party.  THIS is why find her so utterly repellent.  For some of us, it has been clear for a long time that she was not a real Democrat.  Others are just finding out.  Count on everything to get worse as Hillary melts down and tries to take the party with her.

May 31, 2008 4:29 PM

scire said:

Remember when Rachel Maddow predicted that Hillary wouldn't stop fighting and would take it to the convention, and the other MSNBC pundits were skeptical? I was hoping she was wrong, but in my gut knew she wasn't.

I hope the superdelegates have some sense and don't let themselves be bulldozed by the Clintons. I see a few have gone to Hillary this week, and I'm wondering (nervously) why?

It must feel good to know that the loudest chunk of your base is chock full of people who are crazy.

May 31, 2008 4:40 PM

ironyroad said:

You know, more recently the unbidden thought has come to me that one possible source of the increasingly personal hostility in the middle-aged Hillarista camp is that Barack and Michelle are a young, good-looking couple and -- who knows! -- might still enjoy each other sexually.  You can't have people having fun in the White House.

May 31, 2008 5:00 PM

scire said:

ironyroad -- that thought has occurred to me on more than one occasion. It's also occurred to me that Hillary herself may share this resentment. Especially given her husband's philandering.

Not charitable thoughts, but I comfort myself with the knowledge that those in the Clinton camp have no reservations about publicly sharing their uncharitable thoughts.

May 31, 2008 5:17 PM

ralphnelle said:

It's awfully priceless to listen to Ickes pontificate about the rule of law and the importance of rules when this whole debacle is the result of Hillary's disrespect for the rules. Why is nobody in that meeting capable of pointing out this important hypocrisy? Rhetorically, Obama's people are conceding the moral high ground to these slimeballs, and it's making me ill. Hillary likes the rules when they serve her, but otherwise she's ready to burn any legal document that stands in her way. Imagine what she'd do with the constitution.

May 31, 2008 5:29 PM

miceelf said:

Well, not to be the ray of sunshine in the cloudy sky, but we ARE talking about people who were stupid enough to go "protest the injustice" of the enforcement of DNC rules. One hopes that Eve's sample isn't representative of most Clinton supporters.

May 31, 2008 5:38 PM

kgrant1054 said:

And people call the Obama supporters Kool-Aid drinkers?  

Months ago it would have felt too much like hyperbole to talk about Senator Clinton as another George Bush/Dick Cheney, but it seems all too depressingly accurate today.  As with others commenting on this train-wreck in progress, I am more than a bit nervous about the possiblity that Senator Clinton could become President Clinton; afraid mainly due to her blatent disregard for rules.  She would take the power that BushCo has accrued to itself and attempt to build on to its knavish treatment of the Constitution.  If she is willing to go this far in order to get the nomination, what would stop her from a true abuse of power.

That said, I am still not convinced that she has even really given a thought to governing.  This is about winning, not leading.  

Donna Brazille said it best today, "My momma always taught me to play by the rules."

Pity Senator Clinton cares not a whit about them.

May 31, 2008 5:53 PM

sabatia said:

Eve hit the nail on the head: The damage has been done. That's what Hillary set out to do and that's what she did--on her march to the Presidency--to damage Obama. I too find it depressing. I read the John Heilemann piece yesterday about what Hillary wants. Even more depressing. She would rather see Obama lose and she will do everything subtley, very subtley to cause that to happen, even after she withdraws.

I'm a life-long D, first campaigned when I was 13 and I'm now 60--I have never been more depressed about the prospects for this party. Very imperfect though it is, it is the party of decency and I would like to see it victorious. Hillary has run a negative campaign--I think she is still running one--using wedge issues. The result--and its what wedge issues do--We are now more divided by race, class, and gender than at any point in our party's recent history. I think its really unfortunate and I wish someone could point out a real remedy

May 31, 2008 5:53 PM

sabatia said:

Hillary used to be a decent person. Her blind ambition for the most powerful office on the planet has caused her to lose sight of the higher values that are at the heart of the modern Democratic agenda.

May 31, 2008 6:03 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

If you've ever worked on a campiagn, you know that politics draws in some of the world's biggest lunatics. Most of these mental patients will move on after next week when the primary ends. Hillary is toast and has been for some time. It just takes a little longer for the pathological to square themselves with reality.

Don't panic.

Having said that, let me say that I have a new found hatred for Harold Ickes. What a cynical asshole. He votes to strip both states of their delegations and then screams bloody murder that doing so would amount to a major injustice. He's the perfect rep for HRC.

May 31, 2008 6:11 PM

anonevent said:

roi, I am hoping for the same thing, that just enough supers will declare for him before tuesday that the primaries put him over the top.  Let's hope the remaining supers are thinking along those lines:  let one person win due to the primaries.

One of the stranger conspiracy theories I am seeing on other sites concerns Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot.  Supposedly, Obama and Edwards got together and agreed together to pull their names off the ballot.  I could possibly see both of them getting together and agreeing because a candidate wouldn't want to be the only one off the ballot.  And I can concede the idea that they may not have talked to Hillary, because why would they:  If they were looking for a partner to get off the ballot with, they would need only one.  Here's we're the entire issue gets a little loony.  The reason, according to the sites, for pulling their names off the ballots is so that they could embarrass Clinton and it would allow Obama to gain delegates that he didn't earn through votes.  I personally believe Obama is good at campaigning and will be a good president, but if he has the ability to see that far in the future, and arrange primaries and caucus so that we end up with FL and MI having to be reconsidered to determine the nominee, then he is a god and should only not be president because the office is beneath him.

May 31, 2008 6:16 PM

roidubouloi said:

Looks like Obama's magic number of additional super-delegate commitments is going to go up to 32.  Why?  Because the Rules Committee is fixing to seat all the super-delegates from both MI and FL while they cut the pledged delegates in half.  I should have realized that the party leaders who are responsible for the fiasco would excuse themselves totally while dinging the voters 50%.  How could it have been otherwise?  I mean, if the DNC wanted to punish only the guilty, it could have seated all of the pledged delegates (leaving aside the problem of giving full weight to a corrupted outcome) and declined to seat any of the super-delegates.  That would have been fitting.  Instead, they wack the voters and pardon the hierarchy.  

Yuck!  If the alternative, the Republicans, weren't vastly worse, I would happily abandon the Democratic party.  

May 31, 2008 6:30 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Irony - I always that Team Menopause had it in for Obama because he's skinny - and because he had the gall to lose weight under enormous stress rather than gain it like most of us hapless Menopausals.  Men!  They even have hormonal advantages, the bastards.  

Only Hillary can protect us from the unfairness of our metabolisms.

May 31, 2008 6:36 PM

roidubouloi said:

False alarm.  The FL and MI supers are going to be cut in half too.  Harold Ickes is incredibly icky and made a declaration of war -- they are taking the fight to the convention.  You could knock me over with a feather.  Got anything to say Tammy if you are out there?  Hillary is doing EVERYTHING I predicted she would do, only nastier.

So, Hillary picks up 24 net delegates and the magic number is 18 supers, unless of course Edwards can get his delegates to vote for Obama on the first ballot in which case it is over already.

No we get to watch Hillary spend the summer sliming Obama.  I really hope that Pelosi and Reid get all the supers off the fence right awsy so that it is at least clear that the MI FL fight is moot and that Hillary is fighting only out of spite.  Maybe her big supporters will finally wake up and abandon her to sit alone in her bunker.

May 31, 2008 7:04 PM

Crock1701 said:

Anyone else think James Roosevelt looks at Ickes and says "My granddad and your father are both rolling in their graves at how you're behaving." ?

May 31, 2008 7:12 PM

scire said:

and should Obama lose the election in November, she thinks she'll be electable in 2012? What koolaid is SHE drinking? She thinks she can say, "I told you so." But just like with everything else, she'll be wrong, because she and Bill will be total pariahs if she does indeed take this to the convention.

May 31, 2008 7:30 PM

blackton said:

scire read the Sinclair ads for who Obama killed. And don't you know that Sinclair is telling the truth, because (as he says) he took a polygraph and the COMPUTER said he was telling the truth? No Shit! The Computer. Just like when the photocopier on the wire was used as a polygraph.

I think I have the most depressing line though, my mother actually believes most of this crap. She thinks Bill Ayers is Obama's best friend. She is of the generation who thinks if it is on the news, it must be true (granted, she grew up with Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, people who had integrity)

I am convinced that Hillary thinks she has hit her stride, that she is a working man and woman's champion, that she truly wants Obama to lose in November so afterwards people (her supporters) will say she was right all along. Hillary will feign modesty and say yes, and launch her next bid. I am convinced that she thinks blacks will come to see her as their champion too, in time, and in 4 years will rout an old McCain.

I don't think she has any realization that if she succeeds in her attempt in inflicting this wound on the party, she will be destroying herself as well. She will find she is left with her radical base of about 10% and nothing else, that a Mark Warner would crush her before she even got out of the gate. But 4 years is a long time to wait.

It is almost appalling to say it, but I hate her even more than I hate George Bush, because in the end I think Hillary is a truly despicable person, along the lines of a Dick Cheney.

May 31, 2008 7:32 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

I grieve the energy and emotion I expended defending these totally amoral cretins during the 90's.  The wacka-doodle right winger were actually right.

May 31, 2008 7:43 PM

ralphnelle said:

Another thing: the democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee couldn't have been less impressive. If these are the people working behind the scenes, it's no wonder we can't win elections. What an embarrassment. The only person who made a reasonable, unemotional case all day was Carl Levin.

My guess is McCain gained 5 or 6 points today. The average person's reaction: "Whoah, those are the democrats? Um...hmm...I guess this old guy seems ok."

May 31, 2008 8:12 PM

scire said:

Wandreycerl, I gotta say, I feel somewhat  vindicated because I ALWAYS thought they were amoral trash. Not cretins, 'cause they are clever, but trash. Nothing she has done in this campaign has surprised me. Nothing.  But I'm not happy I was right. I would have much preferred to have been proved wrong.

I'm now waiting for her next devastating tactic.

But if she bows out gracefully next week, I'll willingly eat crow.

May 31, 2008 8:17 PM

blackton said:

ralph, you really watched it? Who ran it? On CNN and Fox they only had snippets, at least what I saw, I was in an out.

May 31, 2008 8:19 PM

peter1943 said:

Oh, so we're going to judge candidates by the extreme fringe supporters of their candidates? So all of you who tried to minimize Rev. Wright are now saying the 600  freaky folks protesting now represent HRC? That's awesome!

And this just in. With heavy turnout in Puerto Rico, Clinton might pass Obama in the popular vote. So all of you who were arguing last month that it would be a crime if the pledged delegates overturned the will of the people now all hold your breath for next Thursday or Friday when a pledge delegate puts him over the top?  Oh wait, what was that? Obama just quit his church and perfectly timed it so it would be buried by the DNC controversy. That sounds like a perfectly ingenious pr move and perhaps slightly cynical. Oh I'm sorry, Obama doesn't practice the politics of spin and he decries cyncism for corrupting our democracy.

And Blackton, you now hate Hillary more than a guy who launched us in a desolate war with lies and deception that will haunt this country for the next fifty years. Now, that's spectacular.

Don't mistake me for thinking Hillary has run a campaign that will be remembered for either its strategy or benevolence. It won't, he ran a better campaign. But keep on demonizing her for pursuing her interests while pretending Obama isn't doing the same--notice how much time he put into pursuing re-votes in Fla and Mi--and you're just promoting the disconnect between the Obama wing of the party and the 49. 5% of the rest of the party you need to get him elected.

Have a nice day.

May 31, 2008 8:22 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Really, ralphnelle? You think this kind of thing will be bad for the Dems?

www.youtube.com/watch

(Turn your speaker volume down before clicking, unless you really like unbridled, unadulterated lunacy.)

May 31, 2008 8:22 PM

ironyroad said:

To be honest, I almost don't believe it's come to this.  If you (Wandrey, scire, anyone) had said to me last November that, before June, a losing Clinton campaign would be prepared to eviscerate the party in order to prevent Obama getting the nomination, and that Hilllary would herself be riding the lowest road of a paranoid and quasi-racist populism -- the very roots of the hatred that the Right has orchestrated against the Democrats over the years -- then I'd have told you that you were nuts, or needed to take a long vacation.

Not that we take long vacations in America.  No, we want to work all the time.  And we'd hate it if we had a functioning universal health care system.  No, really we would.

Sorry, I got distracted for a minute.

But this is something that is could be dangerous.  I think Howard Dean has let this one slide beyond any point of responsibility as DNC chair, and he's allowing an atmosphere of incoherent chaos to develop that allows Clinton to strong-arm people and institutions on spurious grounds that five minutes rational discussion would obliterate.  A whole new dimension of Democratic politics for the future has opened up with Obama, and the Clinton camp wants to close it down asap.  That the national leadership has to remain somewhat neutral in these contests, ok -- but it can't remain neutral when one contender is willing to destroy the party's electoral prospects out of pure spite.

May 31, 2008 8:27 PM

BHLnyc said:

Wandrey,

Another way to think about the Clintons is that they're like abused children who later go on to abuse others themselves. I think that might be a more accurate reading of why they've become such miserable cheats and liars. (At least I hope so, because I, too, spent much of the 90s defending Bill -- and I'm a Republican.)

May 31, 2008 8:38 PM

peter1943 said:

Tell me again how exactly she has destroyed his electoral prospects? By what, contesting all the primaries? By pushing for her share of the Mi/Fla delegates? How did she strong-arm anyone? CNN said right afterward it was a compromise favorable to Obama. So much for the Clinton Fix! Obama has raised, what, almost a quarter billion dollars? He has received better than most coverage by the mainstream media. He has an influential cable network, MSNBC, and websites, Huffington Post, The Drudge Report, bending over backwards to give him wet kisses. TNR loves him and hates his opponent. So how exactly is she destroying his chances?

May 31, 2008 8:47 PM

scire said:

Ironyroad: You are so right about Howard Dean. I have been so disappointed in his leadership(or lack thereof).

Peter1943: YOu are right, Hillary isn't responsible for the behavior of her supporters, but she certainly is responsible for encouraging it. She told her supporters to go protest, she has brought up issues of race and sex, she has run her campaign in a totally negative way, she has complained that this process hasn't been fair, etc. , etc. By behaving badly, she has encouraged her supporters to behave badly. By trying to destroy her opponent by destroying her party after it became evident she was not going to win, Hillary is responsible.

ANd honestly, look at the way Obama has behaved. Do you think if his supporters acted like this so publicly, he'd tolerate it? If you say yes, you are being disingenuous or deluded. Even if you don't want Obama to be the nominees, you have to admit that he's run his campaign with class and grace, and she has not.

Oh I give up. I'm inarticulate in my outrage . . .

May 31, 2008 8:48 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

It will be all over be next week. She might sit on the sidelines carping about sexism and her showing in Kentucky, but nobody will give a rat's ass. McCain and the Republicans will turn their considerbale energies on Obama and everyone will remember why we all hate the nuts on the right more than each other.

Still, Harold Ickes is an unmitigated asshole. I'd like to give him a smack.

May 31, 2008 8:49 PM

ironyroad said:

peter 1943 writes:  "Oh, so we're going to judge candidates by the extreme fringe supporters of their candidates? So all of you who tried to minimize Rev. Wright are now saying the 600  freaky folks protesting now represent HRC? That's awesome!"

Let's leave them aside, then.  What do you think of Ferraro yesterday -- are we entitled to bring that little effort into our considerations?  What about "hard-working, white Americans" from the candidate herself?  What about the continual attempts to invoke Mugabe and the pre-Civil War South just because Clinton may have to abide by rules she agreed to in the first place?  What about the casual dance on TV around the "Muslim" accusation when she had the chance to bury it and say that she wasn't going to run a campaign on slurs from the lunatic Right?

I don't need the 600 lunatics -- but until Clinton does with them what Obama did with Wright, I'll remain less than impressed by your argument.

May 31, 2008 8:49 PM

peter1943 said:

Wow, it's like we're living in a parallel universe where all the rules have changed! Prior to this campaign, protesting seen as the American way! I just watched the HBO movie Recount and there was tons of protesters on both sides. Now, Hillary's people have a few hundred folks protest at a DNC meeting and its a sign of the apocalypse? Good lord.

You say Ferraro, I say Rev. Wright so lets call that even. And bad historical analogies by candidates on the stump? That's pretty much happened in every American election since the beginning of time. I can't even get into the culture of victimology that turns a half-second pause in her Muslim response into some kind of Nixonian momnent. I leave that to Keith Olbermann. And I hate to break it to you, I'm pretty sure the hard working white Americans if it was a slur to anyone it was at the white American creative class that supports Obama 80-20. Don't believe me, well that's your right, and I choose not to believe that Obama never heard hate-filled speech or wasn't aware of it for his twenty years at Trinity.

May 31, 2008 9:04 PM

blackton said:

The reason I hate Hillary more than Bush is because Hillary at least pretended to know better. Republicans acting like Republicans might be worthy of some derision but at least one can respect the consistency of incompetence. Bush has been an 8 year blight on the country, but one the country can survive. If Hillary in her spitefulness "proves" that a black can not be elected, and hence should not be nominated by the Democratic party, well then that is just an evil that will have long lasting repercussions. No one seriously believes the same can be said about a woman. In fact, I daresay we have reached a turning point that a woman will be on the ticket in some fashion for both parties generally from now on. There are just too many white women in power for that not to occur.

As I have said before, the notion that I should have sympathy for wealthy, elite women who are frustrated at this glass ceiling at the top floor at the expense of the minorities who are stuck cleaning the basement is risible. Black women uniformly abandoned Hillary, they abandoned sexual solidarity for racial solidarity because in the end they know that Hillary is only about Hillary and her cohorts of white, wealthy elitist women.

I for one shall not kowtow to these women in their SUV's with their illegal Mexican maids just to stroke their egos. They want to vote for McCain, guaranteeing a radical right supreme court for a generation because of their wounded vanity, let them.

I sure as hell can live with a McCain Presidency. But I would also want McCain to win based on an affirmative act by Americans, not some spiteful women. It would bode ill for the Republic, and is frankly unfair to John McCain as well as Obama.

May 31, 2008 9:08 PM

sabatia said:

Again, I have been a Dem(I must admit I voted for Ed Brooke, and Frank Hatch I think it was against Ed King. Damn me if didn't even vote for John Silber over Bill Weld) for 47 years. I have been up very close to politics and a registered lobbiest for some years. Still I try to make the world a better place and so I am a Democrat. Harold Ickes comments were the most violent remarks I have ever heard within the party. And that woman RBCer who spoke near the end of the Michigan vote--this is terrible for our party.

This makes our presumptive nominee's task that much harder. Then again, they have now made it clear that they will keep on trying to damage Obama because they believe that Hillary should be the President. But it sure will make it harder for the presumptive nominee. They don't care though.

Instead of dealing with our nation's and the world's problems which are legion, its all about Hillary. She must win. End of Discussion. And anyone who disagrees is the enemy. You're with us or agin' us! Hillary is winning. Hillary has won. Hillary will win. What's good for Hillary is right. What's good for Hillary is always right. And God help the person who would try to stem this.

Its Hillary's turn. If she were a man it would be her's. There's lots of sexism. That's why their trying to steal this election from her.

Like the King who commanded the tide to stop are all the lightweight young guy's supporters in terms of stopping the tide of Hillary to victory. Hill will win. "Whatever it takes." (God help us and all the world of tender human beings and nature.)

May 31, 2008 9:08 PM

liberal reformer said:

WoodyBombay: What a nutball Harriet Christian is. Thanks for the entertainment. It was loud, alright.

May 31, 2008 9:17 PM

blackton said:

"So how exactly is she destroying his chances?" My God, have you been in a cave. Read anything by Lanny Davis, go to Taylormarsh.com. I don't think she is destroying his chances, I just think she is doing her best to destroy his chances while maintaining (in her mind, not sure how many others will buy into it) plausible deniability.

If she shocks me and folds next week, and her and Bill actually do behave, then the Clinton's can do quite a bit to restore their reputations. I will admit my fears about her were misplaced, that her down and disgusting campaign tactics were confined to the primary race alone and as such can be excused and forgiven, especially if Obama wins in November. Then fine, I would have been wrong in the extent of my condemning her.

But frankly, who the hell cares what I think anyhow? Effectively being nobody I need adhere to nobodies standards. I hope though that Hillary adheres to the Democratic parties own standards from here on out.

May 31, 2008 9:20 PM

lamh31 said:

I'm sorry to have to tell the Clinton campaign this, but as a member of the African American community, I can tell you that for every 1 Hillary supporter, there is a least 9 AA supporters of Obama who will never again vote for a Clinton, if Obama loses in November.  

After 300 years of oppression, African American have long memories, we will forgive, but we never forget.  She, nor the democratic party, will never get the large substantive AA vote that they had before this election year.   And she will need them in 2012

May 31, 2008 9:24 PM

hemlock41 said:

Peter1943 wrote: "And Blackton, you now hate Hillary more than a guy who launched us in a desolate war with lies and deception that will haunt this country for the next fifty years. Now, that's spectacular."

Remember, Hillary Clinton voted for this desolate war and so she bears some responsibility for launching it. And she has never straightforwardly admitted that it was a mistake or accepted responsibility for the horrific consequences that her vote helped bring about. I'm not saying I think she's been as bad for the country as Cheney has been. I think she hasn't, by a long shot. But the war issue is not the best grounds on which to defend her against this comparison.

And for heaven's sake, nobody thinks Obama is an angel who never uses spin. His campaign obviously understands the business of communications and public relations pretty well and spin is part of this business. But there are degrees of spin. So far he seems to have stopped short of the point beyond which routine spin shades into cynical manipulation or outright deception.

May 31, 2008 9:29 PM

hemlock41 said:

By the way, Peter1943, I agree with you about her "he's not a Muslim" response. I think she deserved the benefit of the doubt on that one -- and did not get it from a lot of Obama's supporters.

May 31, 2008 9:36 PM

rozenson said:

lamh31: I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think it's just African Americans who feel betrayed by Hillary. I think a majority of the Democratic Party feels like she's jumped the shark and gone crazy for power, if she wasn't already. You'd better believe in four years that if Obama loses, nobody will have forgiven her. She has burned so many bridges in this campaign, and African Americans are a very high-profile example.

May 31, 2008 9:38 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Peter - you are being utterly dishonest.  There is such a thing as objective truth. Not everything devolves into strategy versus non-strategy.  There are concepts called "right" and "wrong."  

Obama's mistake, everyone's mistake - was assuming that the Clintons were capable of thinking in right and wrong terms, that there was some bottom to their shamelessness and dishonesty.  

Protesting is the American way, my ass - these people are bullies who need to be punched out or arrested, period. They are nothing but brain dead menopausal Brown Shirts and they disgust me.

They simply want the rules that existed changed and are bullying because they are not getting their way. These are rules the Clintons agreed to and only decided after the fact that they didn't fit because it doesn't suit them. This is objective truth, you need to practice remembering what that is.

These people do not care one whit about disenfranchised voters, they are so transparent - if they did, they'd fight for the people who stayed home because they were told to.  Or they never would have agreed to punish them in the first place.  

This whole melodrama stems from one simple fact only: Hillary Clinton ran a horrible campaign she assumed would be a coronation and didn't bother to do the work in the caucus states and had no plan post Super Tuesday. The circus is not because she's suddenly morphed in to Sojourner Truth.  This is objective truth.

Anything goes with the CLinton and their Brown Shirts - invoking charges of sexism (a bunch of hooey) and demonizing the presumptive nominee as much as humanly possible - a two time President four speeches a day in four states, no less. It's despicable.  

I will do everything in my power to organize here in NY to make sure Hillary is thrown out of her Senate seat after this and don't think I'm alone.  We're an army too - growing every day.  Bullies must be stood up to and the time has come that we will start doing so.

Reverand Wright? he has nothing to do whatsoever with the dangerous circus of idiocy that the Clinton campaign concocted today and bringing him up shows the utter shallowness of your arguments.  

Obama himself gave a beautfiful speech on why Wright was wrong and that was it.  500 of us did not show up at a Cliinton rally, let alone a DNC meeting, accusing her of murder and gay sex after she banged on about Wright, nor did we show up after her hateful performance on 60 minutes, her hard working white people racist crap, the bird whistle to the kooks out there thinking assasination - NEVER once have there been protesters causing scenes and trying to tear apart this party.  

This lies purely in the realm of Clinton Land, where the world revolves ENTIRELY around them.  The ridiculous part is her (and yours presumably) assumption that she'd have a shot in hell of winning the Presidency ever, now or 2012 after this.  There would be such an uprising against this woman, she wouldn't know what hit her.  

Maybe she could go back to Arkansas and practice law, I hope so.  I want her out of my state and out of the Senate, she's an amoral disgrace to this party and she can take her winged monkeys and freak show with her.

May 31, 2008 10:03 PM

ironyroad said:

peter1943, you asked me why the lunatic fringe was being made into a kind of symbol for the candidate herself.  In response, I wanted to point out that, as far as it goes, I agree that that is wrong, but that that wasn't why I'm opposed to Hillary.  I set out a number of other reasons, which you can disagree with as passionately as you like.  But don't tell me I'm looking at the fringe, then after I give you a list of things that are not the fringe, you lecture me on the fringe's rights in American history!  Finally, either we scrap Wright as an issue or not, but I remain unimpressed by your arguments if you agree to pass on him at the beginning of the paragraph but suddenly bring him back on stage at the end.

To make it more practical, here's the reason I really dislike Hillary at the moment:  if she's the nominee, she won't win.  Obama has a better chance -- all signals point this way at least -- against McCain because the Republicans can't re-activate the anti-Clinton machine against him.  He throws them for a loop, and they don't know how to deal with it.  They know *exactly* how to deal with Clinton, and she'll find the faux-populism she's been throwing around like it's going out of fashion will come back to bite her.  She is an intelligent person and should know this.  I believe she does know it.  She's not acting on that knowledge, however, because she believes the party owes her the nomination, and she won't accept that she's not getting it.

Simple enough for you?

May 31, 2008 10:05 PM

scire said:

wandrycerl, you said everything I wanted to say to Peter1943 so much more eloquently.

ironyroad, would you agree that Hillary isn't thinking that far ahead? Do you really think she's that intelligent? I think she's clever  and articulate, but I'm seriously beginning to question her emotional IQ.  What I do think is that she's only thinking about the present. She is so intent on winning, she has no vision about five months down the road, let alone four years. She wants to win. It's no longer about what she will do when she wins (and maybe it never was). She's so blinded by her desire, she can't see that she's damaging herself. And for me, her behavior over the last four weeks in particular (but actually during her whole short sighted campaign) is evidence why she should not be the nominee. In my opinion, her lack of managerial skills, her fiscal irresponsibity, her lack of vision, her stubbornness (if nothing else convinces voters that Clinton should not be the nominee, I would think her stubbornness would do the trick -- after the last eight years, stubbornness should be a political albatross for any candidate), her shameless willingness to abandon moral principle and democratic values to pursue her personal agenda,  are all serious impediments to her candidacy.  I'm guessing that the superdelegates have got to be thinking the same thing. She keeps thinking that if she takes it far enough, she can bully people into seeing it her way. What she doesn't realize is that if she does take it to the convention, she won't get a different result, she'll just alienate delegates in the democratic party so much that she's likely to DECREASE whatever chances she had of getting the nomination.

Look at her responses to the last few primaries. Everytime she appeared to be seeing the reality of things (she'd tone down the rhetoric, she'd seem chastened or subdued), after a few days she would re-charge and go into destruct mode again. It's almost as if she ruminated and stewed over the fact that she wasn't winning, and she would get pissed and go at it full tilt again. What I'm curious about is, did Ickes and Bill and McAuliffe fuel her sense of outrage, or did they just cave into it?

My mother's take: They are like spoiled children: They've gotten everything they've ever gone after in their lives. Everything. Bill was so young when he became governor of Arkansas, and their only failure was that one Arkansas term, and even then, he was able to get elected back into office. So they had an experience of managing to get back into power after losing it. Then, consider that they were able to survive scandal after scandal: He became the democratic nominee despite sex scandals, they survived the White House years despite scandals and shameless behavior (remember pardons, taking stuff from the White House), with not only their reputations unsullied, but Hillary elected to the Senate with almost no competition, and Bill making hundreds of millions of dollars through his charm.  So they don't know from losing, and they think that they can commit any sin and still be forgiven. Because that's what's always happened before.

May 31, 2008 11:00 PM

tomeg said:

peter1943:

"Wow, it's like we're living in a parallel universe where all the rules have changed!"

Coming from a Clinton supporter, this is a remarkable statement. With regard to the nominating process the DNC set from the get-go, that both Obama and Clinton agreed to abide by - it has been a level playing field from the beginning - it is Clinton and the states that flouted the rules they clearly understood when they set their primaries' dates ahead of the date their national party set for the earliest primaries to take place.

Speaking for myself, I don't hate Clinton. She is a politician as is Obama. Neither is a saint but each has h(is)er strong (and week) points as prospective nominees. (Good Lord if anybody still believes that one or the other candidate is really unqualified - or disqualified - they can vote for McCain or another candidate of their choice. What they don't get to do is overturn the result of legitimate process, or change the rules mid-contest to suit their feelings or opinions, essentially nullifying the end result of the entire process itself.  Sorry, you can squawk and rail and rant and vent your rage and whatever other acting out you choose, but you're still going to have to abide by the decision of the DNC.

I have nearly run out of patience with the infantile behavior of supporters of both candidates. It's time for the adults to take over for the good of the party.

May 31, 2008 11:31 PM

chmclean said:

I know it's tilting at windmills, but I just sent an email to the WomenCount PAC that organized the demonstrations today, letting them know they don't speak for me as a feminist, a woman or a Democrat. Any of my fellow Talkbackers who'd like to do the same can email them at info@womencountpac.com.

Carol

May 31, 2008 11:33 PM

tomeg said:

tomeg corrects:

...each candidate has h(is)er strong (and [weak] points)...

May 31, 2008 11:44 PM

ralphnelle said:

Yes, Blackton, I hate to admit it, but I watched most of it on C-SPAN. Afterwards I could feel the dead braincells rattling around in my head.

Human incompetence is obviously rampant. It's fun to wonder why more planes and buildings don't fall from the sky. But when you see it at the upper level of one of the country's most powerful institutions, it gives you shivers. Or it does me.

Wandry, that was one hell of a post. Thanks.

May 31, 2008 11:46 PM

peter1943 said:

Oh Wandry, thanks for making my point while I was out having a lovely dinner. You sound like Air America's last listener.

Yes, you're right,  Hillary is just like the Brownshirts! I mean seriously, really that's your best rhetoric?  I think on this website's posts she's been compared to Atilla the Hun, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Now she's like a Nazi? I don't even have the energy to make fun of you. I'd suggest getting out a little more into the actual world where people live in poverty or have actually been oppressed by fascists and despots.

This is like in the Spanish Civil War when the Stalinists tried to kill the Trotskyites in Barcelona while Franco conquered the rest of the country.  Someone much wiser than me once said you know you're not dealing with a rhetorical genius when they go to the Nazi metaphor. But brain menopausal Brown Shirts is excellent!  There's going to be a Jon Stewart skit about activist wingnuts at some point and I urge you to contact Comedy Central.  Obama would dart into incoming traffic before he'd have anything to do with your kind of talk.

June 1, 2008 12:07 AM

jacksondyer said:

"To make it more practical, here's the reason I really dislike Hillary at the moment:  if she's the nominee, she won't win.  Obama has a better chance...."

This contradicts what I read elsewhere:

"The Argument for Nominating Hillary"

By LANNY J. DAVIS

online.wsj.com/.../SB121219030144534313.html

June 1, 2008 12:21 AM

ironyroad said:

"ironyroad, would you agree that Hillary isn't thinking that far ahead? Do you really think she's that intelligent? I think she's clever  and articulate, but I'm seriously beginning to question her emotional IQ."

scire, I'm not sure.  I don't have access to her head.  I can't believe that her political attention span is so short that she has no space in her thinking for the general election, but it could well be that she has had to tear up so many plans over the last while that she's on Plan W (aka the desperate plan) now, with only a couple left in the bag.

But I agree about her stubbornness, and how that should be a red light on the dashboard this year.  And I'd just add to that something others have said, about her belief that she would have it all sewn up by Super Tuesday and thus didn't have to make any organizational or financial plans for the period thereafter.  That kind of poor planning and blank assumption of success (on weak grounds) is the last characteristic we need in the next president.  That fact alone speaks volumes against Hillary Clinton.

June 1, 2008 12:23 AM

ironyroad said:

JD, for clarity, I'd re-title Davis's op-ed "The Argument for Nominating Hillary -- Why the Republicans Really Really Want Her To Be the Candidate"

June 1, 2008 12:30 AM

liberal reformer said:

Peter1943: Great post. It is just amazing the number of people who cannot think straight. It would be nice if time travel were viable, so that those who talk about Brown Shirts in the context of US politics could be sent back to, say, 1938, to experience the original Browns and then be brought forward again. The lesson hopefully would be learned. Every person out here who is given to say batty things should read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell. Of course, that probably wouldn't do any good , often enough. Fevered minds are resistant to elegant intellects.

June 1, 2008 12:41 AM

peter1943 said:

Wandry, sorry, I forgot this one!

"I will do everything in my power to organize here in NY to make sure Hillary is thrown out of her Senate seat after this and don't think I'm alone.  We're an army too - growing every day.  Bullies must be stood up to and the time has come that we will start doing so."

Man, that sounds like an army of one.

Yes, I'm sure Hillary is shaking with fear. Love her, hate her, she's literally the most famous woman in America. Good luck with trying to beat her in a New York Democratic primary.

After you do that, I suggest you finish your other longterm projects: digging your way to China and building a time machine.

June 1, 2008 12:46 AM

peter1943 said:

LR, I was just reading Orwell's Catalonia book which is what made me think of that comparison. Just great stuff.

June 1, 2008 12:48 AM

WoodyBombay said:

Oh, jackson, you had me at "By Lanny J. Davis."

Peter,

Doesn't it bother you that someone can use extreme imagery like the Brownshirts when talking about Hillary and her loonier supporters and *still* sound more rational than you? That would give me pause.

June 1, 2008 12:49 AM

peter1943 said:

And I'm sorry for this last post. But didn't Obama get exactly what he wanted today? Buried quitting church story and half counts for mi amd fla. What is everyone so up in arms about? He got his way. Everyone should get some sleep because I'm coming back around 4 pm and I'm expecting some excellent 'Puerto Ricans are not real Americans' rheortic. Please don't disapoint!

June 1, 2008 1:02 AM

peter1943 said:

Woody, I'm just pausing before I drop another 50 points on the Stump team. You guys are weak and lack a defensive stopper. It's like no one can stop me; you can only hope to distract me with your Nazi analogies and tepid comebacks. It's like I'm coasting  through an NBA expansion team.

June 1, 2008 1:10 AM

hemlock41 said:

WoodyB: "Oh, jackson, you had me at "By Lanny J. Davis.""

:-)

June 1, 2008 1:10 AM

WoodyBombay said:

Now, *that's* what I like to see from my Clinton supporters - excessive false bravado that is not at all grounded in reality!

On to San Juan!

June 1, 2008 1:30 AM

roidubouloi said:

Figures that Hillary would have her shill making her case in the WSJ, the house organ of the Republican party.  The only reason he bothers to push the Obama-Clinton ticket at this point is just to piss off some more women when she not only loses the nomination but isn't tapped for the VP spot either.

Peter, consider it an army of two.  I guarantee you that Clinton will be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2012.  It's just a question of who can do it and who is willing to do it.  She is going to do her best to undermine Obama, both before the convention and afterwards, and he is going to win anyway which is going to make the Clintons and their shrinking group of supporters not very popular or powerful in the Democratic party.  She can be had.  It's not as if she knows how to run a campaign.  In the last one she had to spend $30 million to beat someone whose name no one can even remember.

June 1, 2008 1:37 AM

roidubouloi said:

Where did peter1943 come from? Is this really pccostello?

Just to get you started again, peter, or pc, or whoever, no one gives a crap about the popular vote in Puerto Rico -- not because they aren't Americans, but because they cannot vote in the general election.  Their opinions are about as significant to the outcome as those of Canada.

There, that she get your engine running.

Obama needs about 18-20 more super-delegates to commit and he will have won the nomination.  Hilllary has already lost the popular vote in the fifty United States of America, including the corrupted tally in FL and her margin in MI.  That's all folks.  Now it is just a matter of watching the show as Hillary shows us how spiteful she can be and how uninterested she is in the success of the Democratic party.  Hold onto your seats.

June 1, 2008 1:44 AM

AlanSP said:

I actually agree with peter insofar as his point that we shouldn't take the lunatic fringe supporters to be representative of Hillary supporters as a group (and by the way irony, I would include Ferraro among her fringe supporters).  And I'll preemptively say that Puerto Ricans are real Americans, and they'll be represented at the convention by the pledged delegates they elect.  Regardless, Hillary has little if any chance of winning the popular vote, even if you include Florida; the only way she could come out ahead is if you count Michigan as a 328,000-0 win, which is, of course, utterly absurd.

I also disagree with all the predictions about Hillary continuing to campaign until the convention.  The simple fact is that within a week, Obama will have enough delegates, pledged and super, that he'll have the nomination mathematically locked up, even if Hillary could work a miracle and get the credentials committee to fully seat the FL and MI delegations.  At that point, what could her possible rationale be for continuing to campaign?

The essence of campaigning is convincing people to pick you.  Within the next week, there will be no voters left to convince, and the superdelegates will have decided as well.  So if Hillary were to continue campaigning, who would she be trying to convince?  Once it gets to the point where she can't win, even if she got everything she wants, she'll concede and start working to bring her supporters around to Obama.

June 1, 2008 1:46 AM

fwslusser said:

People who would rather vote for McCain than the democratic nominee, if it's not their candidate, shouldn't have a role in choosing the nominee.  And if they're simply chanting his name for the emotional impact, thinking it has no real meaning, let's hope it's true.  

June 1, 2008 1:54 AM

roidubouloi said:

I don't think so Alan.  Listen to Harold Ickes.  Read the Lanny Davis piece.  It is a declaration of perpetual war on Obama.  Hillary will continue to campaign on the pretext that she can turn enough super delegates around once they realize that Obama cannot win, even while she is busy yelling nigger and sliming him so that his political fortunes fall.  While she probably doesn't think she can damage him enough to steal the nomination, she thinks she might damage him enough  while "fighting" so that he loses the general election.  While people here may think that would make her a pariah in the party, she's betting that 4 more years of Republican presidency will make the party do desperate that all will be forgiven by 2012.

Watch.

June 1, 2008 1:59 AM

Crock1701 said:

This is really a case of life imitating art: In Al Franken's "Why Not Me?" his spoof of a successful 2000 Franken run for President, the primaries are given a series of newspaper headlines.  Even as Franken wraps up more and more victories, one headline pops up every time: "Gore vows to 'fight on'."  This culminates, of course, with Super Tuesday: "Gore, mathematically eliminated, vows to 'fight on.'"  Seen the headlines much these days?  Al Franken, prophet!

June 1, 2008 2:39 AM

jacobt1 said:

Dear Obama cultists,  Please continue a a good work  of demonizing Clinton and her supporters.

Foolish progressive democrats is about to choose the worst possible candidate,  while republicans choose the best candidate. Obama cultists know that their candidate is very week.They already started to blame Clinton for the inevitable defeat Only mindless  robot can prefer Obama over McCain. I'm glad to hear that not all democrats are  mindless  robots.

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die".

June 1, 2008 2:43 AM

ironyroad said:

I find some recent posts give me a really odd feeling in that, like LR and peter1943, I'm an admirer of George Orwell and I love both "Homage to Catalonia" and "Politics and the English Language."

And remembering that brings to mind that one of the things that Orwell found striking in his own time was the way in which ideologically obsessive groups and individuals on the Left (although it applies across the board, I think) would often accuse the opposition of exactly the offense that they were committing themselves -- a kind of schizophrenic pre-emptive attack on what your worst characteristic was, by ascribing it to your enemy.  One example (which I think GO uses) would be the way in which Stalinists accused those in the communist movement who insisted upon a more open and critical attitude to the Soviet Union of being rigid and slavish in their thinking.  It was the Stalinists who were rigid and slavish, of course, but they muddied the waters by accusing the others of that offense.

Just free-associating, I find it very striking -- almost eerie, in fact -- that peter1943 imagines in his fantasy that Obama supporters on the thread would be planning accusations that "Puerto Ricans aren't real Americans" when (a) it's the Clinton campaign that has been heating up a divisive and paranoid rhetoric of who's a real American or not, and (b) Puerto Rico is in many ways one of those odd sides of American reality that Obama's supporters would probably be a lot more comfortable with than Clinton's.

Which tells me a lot.  But not as much as I'd like to know.

June 1, 2008 3:06 AM

jacobt1 said:

ironyroad,

I'm sure you don't want support of Stalinists  Clinton supporters. Let Obama win without them.

June 1, 2008 3:15 AM

ralphnelle said:

Yawn.

There is only one event that would trigger the claim that "Puerto Ricans aren't real Americans," and that's an unexpected Hillary loss. Peter sounds like Ferraro: all rhetoric, no examples, and lots of projection.

June 1, 2008 3:51 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Jacob, that's deep - Platoesque.

June 1, 2008 6:02 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Peter - yeah yeah, you're right - you are the MAN.  You showed us!

Whatever you are smoking, it seems to be doing wonders.  

June 1, 2008 6:03 AM

peter1943 said:

Wandreceyer, All I'm trying to show you is that your rhetoric is so over the top that it dilutes whatever point you are trying to make. Your guy is winning, will win, and has a strong possibility of becoming the next president. Why not just enjoy that rather than profess a blood purge on the opposition? If wondering if calling Hillary an actual Brownshirt is sign that I am high, than please fire up another bowl for me.

June 1, 2008 7:18 AM

mpatrickhendri said:

Hillary lost. With or without the flawed MI and FLA votes, she can't win - if she had gotten her way on those two states, she would have been able to drag it out another month before losing. She had every advantage and still lost. Get over it.

Jacob,

This little sqaubble doesn't change the fundamentals one bit. The Republicans are the minority party and will be receiving a much deserved drubbing this November. That includes McCain, the darling of the religious right. Oh right. *Whoops.

Embrace reality.

June 1, 2008 7:56 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

More dishonesty Peter - let me repeat what you are choosing to ignore from my last post: I did not call Hillary a Brownshirt, I called the armies of nitwits in DC yesterday Brownshirts.  I did call Hillary a liar and it's pretty hard to argue with that one.  Need examples?  Got pages of them.

My guy is winning? This is not high school. Obama is not "