How many times have we pleaded with the Clintonistas to explain how Presidency by Injection prepares anyone for the CIC job? Has anyone seen an explanation of this bogus “experience” thing?

Yes, according to Hill-bots, she single-handedly stopped all the Irish carbombing. She’s Superwoman, apparently.

You may disagree with their reasons

Hard to “disagree” when the reasons have no explanation.

How many times have we pleaded with the Clintonistas to explain how Presidency by Injection prepares anyone for the CIC job? Has anyone seen an explanation of this bogus “experience” thing?

Save the lectures. The Clinton team here is full of crap, mostly proof by assertion nonsense and jackalope sightings.

Former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig continued to take aim at Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy claims Friday, telling the National Journal that the former first lady has “grossly exaggerated the nature of her experience.”

“If you’re running for president on the basis of your claims of experience, when you then cite examples, you should be careful to be accurate,” Craig said. “The evidence should be accurate. And my point is that Senator Clinton and her supporters have in serious ways overstated, if not grossly exaggerated, the nature of her experience.”

Wow, that’s a surprise, isn’t it?

Like other Hillary hard-liners, she starts with the assumption that Clinton obviously and indisputably deserves the votes of right-thinking people, so only some kind of psychological flaw, moral failure or logical fallacy can explain why so many smart, accomplished people aren’t getting in line

I’m sorry, but this applies just as equally to “Obama hard-liners”. I’ve heard exactly the same thing applied to anyone who supports Hillary. Sure, it’s couched as a factual argument, but really it’s the opinions of people who love Obama so much that there’s just “no rational reason” to vote for Hillary. It’s impossible for these people to see that they see Hillary’s actions through the same kind of prism the Hillary hard-liners see Obama.

Reminds me of Dustin Diamond (Screech) on Celebrity Fit Club arguing that he uses “facts and logic” only in his arguments while basically proceeding to piss everyone off all the time.

I’m not going to argue the candidates are equal, or running the same campaign. Far from it. But back to what Atrios said basically forever ago in Internet time (2 weeks):

I don’t have a problem understanding why some people support Obama and some people support Clinton. It really puzzles me why lots of people don’t get that simple fact. The point is not that the candidates are identical and no one should be a supporter or care who wins, it’s that you should recognize that the other person’s supporters aren’t necessarily deluded or stupid. You may disagree with their reasons, but they have them.

I really didn’t expect Obama to come out that strongly on this,

I did – partly because it is exactly what conventional wisdom tells pols like HRC NOT to do. So far he appears to have a good notion of what its best to be conventional and when its best to buck convention.

Also: A devastatingly look at angry Clinton supporters

Several otherwise admirable, even heroic women seem to identify with Clinton so profoundly that they interpret rejection of her as a personal rebuke. Stung, they accuse Obama supporters of flighty illogic, but there’s a powerful, extra-rational emotional current in their arguments, a flailing in the face of an imagined betrayal.

...

Linda Hirshman, author of the bracing feminist manifesto Get to Work, was slightly more decorous in a Washington Post column about pro-Obama women, but every bit as condescending. Like other Hillary hard-liners, she starts with the assumption that Clinton obviously and indisputably deserves the votes of right-thinking females, so only some kind of psychological flaw, moral failure or logical fallacy can explain why so many smart, accomplished women aren’t getting in line.

I would change that too “Like other Hillary hard-liners, she starts with the assumption that Clinton obviously and indisputably deserves the votes of right-thinking people, so only some kind of psychological flaw, moral failure or logical fallacy can explain why so many smart, accomplished people aren’t getting in line.”

here’s BHO’s response: disagree, condemn, denounce.

Wow. Rev. Wright must be brushing the Greyhound tracks off his back right now.

I really didn’t expect Obama to come out that strongly on this, but I’m glad he did, without a lot of mealy-mouthing around.

Why, oh why, could the Moran guy not just disappear into wingnut oblivion???

It happens to be my last name.

Damn. A Cardinals fan went and ruined my joke.

The Republican strategy apparently is to steal money and use it for illegals purposes too.

Well, they’re practicing what they preach. The guy who stole the money was a big-wig in Republican circles. So, good for them, finally living down to their own standards :-)

also hoping to cause Clinton grief by leaving her the only one on the ballot.

OMFG, they actually said that?

The mind boggles.

let’s see Hillary or McCain put out a statement as straightforward as that.

Another case of Clintonian denial worthy of the guy holding the sign.

The truth is that Obama and several of the other Democrats pulled their names off the Michigan ballot to genuflect to Iowa and New Hampshire, also hoping to cause Clinton grief by leaving her the only one on the ballot. A couple of other Dems stayed on the ballot so it didn’t exactly work like Obama wanted, however, the campaign to humiliate her by having Dems vote for “uncommitted” over her did the trick

Yes, you read that right: Obamas decision to remove, along with almost every other candidate, his name from the Michigan ballot was not only NOT a good-faith attempt to follow the rules nor even a tactical mistake caused by naivety – it was a bad-faith effort to embarrass Clinton by making her look bad for her decision to leave her name on. Furthermore, he then followed this up with another bad-faith effort to “humiliate” her by denying her the 100% of the vote she should have earned as the only participant uncontested election.

I haven’t seen such a stubborn denial of empirical reality and willingness to embrace a warped interpretation of the few facts they do acknowledge since the Bush boosters stopped telling us that there was no insurgency and that increasing violence in Iraq both wasn’t happening and was a good sign of desperation by our enemies who were about to give in an join the flourishing Democracy.

I know that this wont be popular, but it needs to be said:
It doesn’t matter how experienced, intelligent, or well-intentioned you are. If you insistently deny unpleasant empirical realities you cannot avoid catastrophic failures of epic proportions.

The next president HAS to be part of the “reality-based community”. I’m seriously beginning to wonder if the Obama-Clinton split isn’t a sign of a much deeper split between the faction of the Democratic party that is part of the “reality-based community” and the faction that is as outside and contemptuous of it as the Bush-Republicans.

One can have sympathy for his psychological predicament . But that sympathy certainly does not extend to electing him president of a country that I sincerely believe he does not love.

How does she know that… why does she believe that? Oh, yeah, no lapel pin. Eeee-yah!

Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of the [sic] Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, ‘Pereat Judea’[15].... In all of his [Hitler’s] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed—to them it’s an electric chair. (pp. 79-81)

The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages…. The Crusaders were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade…. The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem. (Hagee, p. 73)

This is Johnny McPain’s “pastor Wright.” Does Mona Charen really think her side can win a battle of the batshit crazy this year? With Mcpain as their poster boy, with Iraq, with a recession, with 76% of Americans being basically fed up with the current government and state of affairs?

Why do we care what this broad thinks?