Hillary Clinton

Aug 08

Howard Wolfson: Still rockin’ the stupid

Proving that whining and playing the faux victim  was not just the Clinton’s campaign strategy, but an inherent trait in the peole who worked for the campaign, Howard Wolfson opened his mouth today:

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

For some reason, the Clinton’s campaign thought that their voters and Edwards voters were the same, which was proven right after Edwards dropped out of the race by Obama’s 11 state sweep with huge margins.

May 08

Keith Olbermann Spits Madfire

I’m not usually big on Olbermann’s Special Comments, but sometimes there are really brilliant ones. This is a really brilliant one. The subject is Sen. Clinton’s remarks then half-assed sorta apology for invoking RFKs assassination (for the 2nd time) as a reason to take it to June. This time, unlike her remarks from March which very few people seemed to have noticed, she got caught out, making them to the editorial board of the Argus Leader in South Dakota. An interview that was streamed live.

I don’t have anything to add. I’ve been saying Clinton should have dropped out of the race since the end of Feb. This is the cherry on top, that proves what I’ve been saying for the past 3 months, this woman is not fit for the job of President of the United States.

May 08

Hillary Clinton: Still fucking insane

This heiffer has once again, threw down her Habitual Line Stepper Card and showed her ass again:

Clinton was responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.

Tacky, low class, motherfucker = Hillary Clinton.

May 08

Hillary Clinton & Karl Rove = BFF?

One more thing to add to the list of crazy the Clinton’s are doing: Clinton cited Karl Rove as a reason to stay in the race. Not like bringing him up like he’s the boogeyman, but…

“Just today I found some curious support for that position when one of the TV networks released an analysis done by – of all people – Karl Rove, saying that I was the stronger candidate,” said Clinton. “Somebody got a hold of his analysis and there it is.”



That’s desperation…that makes this morning’s stupid memo from the Clinton’s campaign this seem brilliant. See, the Clinton’s released a memo that said that Sen. Obama better not declare victory in Iowa tomorrow night. Only problem is that declaring victory was never the plan. In fact, for the past week Obama has been shutting down all talk of declaring victory in Iowa and this morning news all over the place held that the Obama campaign was not going to Iowa for a victory dance.

But “facts” and “reality” have a funny way of avoiding the Clinton’s like they were Republicans or something. 3 hours after all the news reports and blog reports of Obama NOT declaring victory were posted, the Clinton’s released a intellectually deficient memo demanding Obama not declare victory in Iowa. The more cynical among us believe the Clinton’s did that so that win Obama, as planned, does not declare victory in Iowa they can puff up their chests for their deluded supporters and say, “We did that.”



I’ve been reading a lot about all the sexism Sen. Clinton has endured and her supporters are laying it directly on the feet of Obama in some fucktarded twist of logic. Ironically, many of these women make incredibly racist remarks regarding Obama, but I guess grrrl power supersedes bigotry in this case. It’s impossible to talk about the sexism from the media and ignorant assholes that Clinton has received without mentioning the racism that Obama has received not just from the GOP and the media, but more importantly from the Clinton’s and their supposed Democrat supporters. One quote from a white woman supporting Clinton blew it off, as “there’s more of us (women) than them (black people), so why make us mad?” You know, that’s their mindset right? If anything, this election has vindicated my view on old school, white, intellectual feminists. I never thought much of them before and as I’ve mentioned, I know that when they talk about women, they’re not including me. Still, considering how much I’ve been dismissed because of that view, it’s nice to proven right. But I’m not going to get into that.

We can see the double standards at work here. I’ve mentioned how Clinton plays that annoying girl on the schoolyard who hits a boy because she knows that boys shouldn’t hit girls, yet whines the boys want to ignore her. Hillary Clinton gave a talk at a women’s group back in April and no one batted an eye. Yet, we know that Obama couldn’t be seen speaking to the NAACP or at Tavis Smiley’s Strokefest State of the Black Union, because of his skin color. Clinton talks about women all the time in her speeches; she mentions old women who want to vote for her so they can see a female president before they die or moms bringing their daughters to see her because she could be president. Yet, I’ve seen or read many of Obama’s speeches and we don’t get stories of old black men telling Obama they’re voting for him because they want to see a black president before they die, we don’t get stories of moms bringing their sons to see him because he could be president. And if he did tell those stories, do you think the bigots on news sites and blogs would let that slide? Do you think the media would let that slide? Booman put into words exactly what I’ve been trying to say the past 5 months:

My overall view is that Hillary Clinton succeeded in convincing the American people that she was the presumptive frontrunner, which means that people were able to picture a woman president without much resistance. That frontrunner status was so ingrained that I think it actually hurt her campaign, as people rejected a coronation. Meanwhile, the black community displayed a lot of resistance to the idea of a black president. This was evidenced by the slowness with which they rallied around Obama. Prior to his victory in the overwhelmingly white state of Iowa, the polls showed Clinton running even or ahead among blacks in South Carolina. In other words, Obama had a harder time getting people to accept the idea of a black president than Clinton had getting people to accept the idea of a female president.

The Clintons have consistently tried to convince people that a black man is unelectable (whether they sincerely believe it or not), while the Obama campaign has never to my knowledge tried to convince people that a woman is unelectable. The Clinton campaign has used a million and one excuses for their losses, including that certain states have too many black people in them. The Obama campaign did not make the converse argument to explain why they lost any states until West Virginia.

emphasis mine

Remember this the next time people tell you that voting against Clinton is sexist. I would say include “voting against Obama is racist”, but the only people I see saying that are Clinton supporters, so I’m going to assume it’s a talking point of the Clinton’s campaign.

May 08

Communist much, Hillary?

Okay, I saw a poster of Hillary last week or the week before that was just horrid. I thought it was a one-off and joke on the Clinton’s campaign. Someone over at TPM alerted us to the fact that it is an official poster from the Clinton’s campaign.

So…we got the rays of light coming from behind the head…that and the color of them made them very Communist China in my head. But the other hat tip to Communistic propaganda is very subtle: Hillary left profile.

Showing Mao’s left profile was huge in the posters a few years after the Cultural Revolution. There’s a lot of stuff I’m not remembering too clearly and I don’t feel like looking it up. IIRC, there was something criminal in looking left, so after the Cultural Revolution, Mao was shown either facing front or facing right. Just like our girl.

Oh, I’m sure if you ask the artist he’d say he was being cute. Question is, does the campaign think it’s cute?

May 08

ELECTION ’08: Battle of the pro-choice endorsements

NARAL endorsed Sen. Obama today and in bizarro world that made EMILYs List mad.  They went and played the Evan Bayh card:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton — who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade — to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process,” said Emily’s List president Ellen Malcolm. “It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

You got that? Malcom, president of EMILYs List, is mad that NARAL chose to give an endorsement as things are winding down.

<blank stare>

Are you kidding me?

Maybe Ms. Malcom forgot why EMILYs List is around. Their stated goal is to help underfunded and unknown female pro-choice politicians get elected. Besides being female and pro-choice, exactly how was Clinton underfunded and unknown? Did NARAL put out a statement shaming EMILYs List for not living up to their mission statement?

It’s bullshit like this that makes me glad that I stopped donating to EMILYs List.

May 08

Holy Ini Kamoze!

WaPo is reporting that the Clinton’s campaign is $20M in debt.


And they want back in to the WH?

There’s nothing in the article that says anything beyond Wolfson’s confirmation of the number. We have no idea if that includes the $12M the Clinton’s loaned themselves. Terry McAuliffe was on Meet the Press this morning and said:

A top Clinton adviser this morning said that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is open to the possibility of loaning her campaign more money to continue in the race.

Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” that he spoke to Clinton about the possibility of contributing more money and “she said that she would be willing to do it.” However, McAuliffe insists, “We haven’t needed it.”

Russert pressed the issue, asking McAuliffe if the Clintons will be able to repay all debts after the campaign is over. “We plan on it,” he replied.

Must be nice to have that kind of change. Let’s put this in perspective: With their first loan, the Clinton’s could have paid off my house, bills and bought me a new car and it would still have been well under 10% of what they loaned themselves.

What a working class family.

May 08

Clinton: White people love me!

Aryan Guard in Kensington 2

This is where Clinton’s dog foghorn to racist whites in Ky and W. Va. is headed. It’s a shame that the Clinton’s campaign is more than willing to revisit their race baiting-tactics of December and January with this. Especially since they are flat out lying about her white support. It’s sad to think that a Democrat feels it’s okay to implement a Southern strategy to win votes in a race she’s already lost.

What makes this all even more laughable are the blogging Clinton supporters who contort their logic to justify anything. Remember that for the past few months, we’ve been told by these people that Obama’s big wins in Idaho, Utah, Mississippi and Kansas don’t mean anything. Despite the hundreds of thousands of people who came out to vote for the Democrats vs. the few thousand that voted for the GOP candidates, we were told that “there was no way those states are voting for a Democrat in November.” Why? Oh, the reasons change and facts are fudged, but they say, “Those states haven’t voted for a Democratic president in ### years.” Needless to say, I was shocked to see that Jerome Armstrong, among other Clinton-supporting bloggers pushing that W. Va is in play because they gave Kennedy the nod in 1960.



You read that right. W. Va. hasn’t voted for a Democratic president in 48 years and that means it’s great for Clinton’s chances in Nov., but the states that Obama has won, but haven’t voted for a Democratic president in 20, 30, or 40 years are not in play.

The stupid is strong in this one.

May 08

ELECTION ’08: Indiana, North Carolina primaries

Gah…it’s still a PITA to post because this script that makes it impossible to post.


So far North Carolina has been given to Obama, as expected and Indiana is still “too early” to call, but should be a Clinton win if polls bear out.

IOW, nothing exciting for tonight.

Over at The Field, Al Giordano gives us some levity on what we’ve come to expect on these primary nights.

May 08

ELECTION ’08: Ohio all over again

In the Don’t you Ever Learn? category:

The Clinton’s campaign is hollering over a WSJ article that states that Sen. Obama favored ending Federal oversight on the Teamsters. The Clinton’s campaign and the WSJ both made it seem as though Obama only said that to the Teamsters to get their endorsement.

The Obama campaign pointed to a piece from 2004 that stated that Sen. Obama said he favored ending this Federal oversight. In the tradition of the faux-NAFTA outrage generated by the Clinton’s campaign, they accuse Sen. Obama of doing something (telling the Canadians one thing while saying something different to the American public) that they’ve done. The Teamsters stepped up to say that the Clinton’s said the same exact thing to them while seeking their endorsement.

Sen. Clinton’s statement to the Canadians Teamsters:

I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.

Now that they’ve been caught out, the Clinton’s campaign is now being disengenious by making it about Obama’s statement on ABC this morning where he said he wouldn’t make blanket statements. As a commenter turnip at TPM put it:

Obama supports less federeal oversight of the Teamsters. He has since 2004. Apparently so does Senator Clinton according to her statments from 2007.

These positions are essentially the same and whether it’s a “promise” or a “suggestion”, both candidates have historically been on the side of the Teamsters with respect to lessening the enforcement measure in the Consent Decree.

Today Obama reinforces that is his position.

Today Clinton attacks that position.

Wolfson and Clinton supporters can try to thread a needle of semantics on this one, but it’s another case of what is the meaning of “is”.

It’s all really so many levels of smack me on the head stupid ain’t it?