Bizzaro World

I see several blog posts about this Eleanor Clift piece, in which Clift claims there will be hell to pay should Clinton eventually win then Presidency. Let me be clear about this:

Hillary. Can. Not. Win.

She can’t. She can’t even win the nomination in most scenarios here on planet earth. And should a backroom deal happen awarding her the nomination while trailing in the popular vote, trailing in pledged delegates, and trailing in, well, everything, the party and Hillary will be mortally wounded. People can pretend all they want that the party will sew itself right back together should the nomination be handed to Clinton. It will not.

So all together now- Hillary can not win. You don’t have to worry about vengeance.

I guess it is a testament to the power of Hillary that people keep role-playing in this little fantasy, because I saw Tony Snow and Gloria Borger sitting around gushing about how Hillary is doing this and how Hillary is doing and all sorts of other pointless babbling, when finally Jack Cafferty, also pushed to the brink of madness, had to stop the charade:

BORGER: Well, and that’s the smart answer for him. It’s the answer he’s going to give throughout the campaign. But I do still think that Barack Obama’s kind of a cool candidate. I think of him as kind of F.M. radio, kind of that sort of soft music. And maybe he needs a little more A.M. in him, you know, a little more rat-a-tat- tat, this is what I stand for, this is what I’m going to do for you, these are my headlines on the hour. Because that’s what Hillary Clinton is doing. And that seems to be connecting.

CAFFERTY: Excuse me, if I could just offer — he’s winning.

Stop the nonsense. Please.

*** Update ***

More on the media nonsense here. Unless the mainstream media are all super-delegates, this is just silliness. Sure, they want the race to continue on- it is sexy and exciting and you don’t have to deal with issues like, well, the war and the economy, but it changes nothing.

*** Update ***

For the love of GOD, no more debates. The next debate I can stomach will have to be in the fall.

111 replies
  1. 1
    dr. bloor says:

    I think of him as kind of F.M. radio, kind of that sort of soft music. And maybe he needs a little more A.M. in him, you know, a little more rat-a-tat- tat, this is what I stand for, this is what I’m going to do for you, these are my headlines on the hour

    I think Borger should stop receiving shortwave radio transmissions from aliens in the fillings of her teeth.

  2. 2
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    This certainly seems to be one of the prevailing fantasies about Hillary Clinton. It shows up on the left too: “boy oh boy, if Hillary is elected she’s gonna sock it to the Republicans!”

    Myself, I don’t see it. If she can sit down and have tea with Richard M. Scaife, Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, etc., I doubt she really has it in for the right wing. Sure, the right wing hates her, but I’ve never seen a single scrap of evidence that she hates them back.

  3. 3
    mikesdak says:

    I don’t think Hillary truly hates or likes anyone. She merely sees someone as useful to her or not. When Limbaugh and Co. were on her case 10 years ago, they were the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. Now that that they’re shilling for her (even if for the most cynical reasons) you don’t hear that talk.

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    I don’t think Hillary truly hates or likes anyone. She merely sees someone as useful to her or not.

    That is an interesting defense. She isn’t a hater, she’s a sociopath!

  5. 5

    I saw this post at the Jed Report and I can’t find much to argue with. The take away is this:

    When Barack Obama is declared the presumptive nominee, it will be tremendously important that he be seen as having won on the strength of his electoral victories. To allow the formation of the unfair and absurd perception that an elite group of insiders handed him the nomination would be incredibly damaging to Democratic prospects in the fall.

    ::

    Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a situation where superdelegates run the very real risk of letting that happen. If they don’t act soon — before May 20, as I will show — they will give Obama’s political opponents all the ammunition they need to develop such a crippling narrative.

    Fortunately, there is simple way for superdelegates to avoid this outcome. How? Before May 20, 99 of the undeclared or Clinton supporting superdelegates must either endorse Barack Obama, or commit to supporting the winner of the pledged delegate battle (becoming members of the so-called “Pelosi Club”).

    Of course, as even this piece states, if Obama wins NC and Indiana it really is over. But barring that this seems like the next best option.

    May 20 is important because on that day Barack Obama will have finally surpassed the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates, securing himself a majority of the 3,253 democratically selected delegates headed to Denver. At that point, he will become the nominee unless there is a coup by superdelegates against the voters.

    I suspect with the reports this morning of HRC hinting she might bow out if she loses Indiana, who knows? (Scroll down to find the part about Indiana) Along with the reports of major HRC bundler defecting to Obama and several other maxed out donors on record having donated to Obama in March, with no such defections form Obama and the handwriting on the wall, as it were, is becomes more pronounced with each tick of the clock.

  6. 6

    Maybe it’s all those years sitting next to Fred Barnes on Washington Week.

    I had the very same idea pop into my head when I read the first couple of sentences. SHE CAN’T WIN. Payback is less than a bitch when you lose.

    Let’s face it. When Barack wins there will be some payback too. There will be a list of scumbags doing the dirty work for the Clinton campaign that won’t be invited to the Presidential Ball. That’s okay, Skeletor Carville will not starve.

  7. 7
    cd6 says:

    When do we get a “go penguins” thread? The game last night was awesome.

    And that is far more productive than thinking about Hillary.

  8. 8
    mikesdak says:

    John, It’s not a defense,just a description. I have seen the term sociopath applied to her elsewhere,though.

  9. 9
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    I think this is what The Grand Panjandrum was referencing:

    Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, a former Ambassador to Chile, and a “Hillraiser” who’s brought in about $500,000 for the Clinton campaign is defecting to the Obama campaign. It seems “he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election.”

    http://matthewyglesias.theatla.....ection.php

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    Whoops, I see Mrs. Clift was talking about revenge against Democrats, not Republicans. D’oh!

  12. 12
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Yeesh.

    Gloria Borger in that little bit by comparison makes Maureen Dowd sound like either Addison or Steele.

    But not both.

  13. 13
    mikesdak says:

    nightjar, that fits perfectly with her fight-to-the-end strategy. If she can’t have the nomination she’d rather wreck the Democratic Party and get McCain elected, which (she thinks)would give her a better shot in 2012. Sociopathic becomes a more apt decription the more I think about it.

  14. 14

    Where is the line between narcissist and sociopath? I think it’s somewhere in Mississippi.

  15. 15
    mikesdak says:

    Bob, I agree narcissistic might be appropriate as well. I think the difference depends on the willingness to disregard others. My dictionary is fuzzy on the difference, but as I’ve seen the terms used, I’d say a narcissist is willing to disregard other people to pursue his own pleasure, while a sociopath disregards other people,period.

  16. 16
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    Time to idle for the NFL Draft – and to laugh at anyone who proclaimed Derek Anderson would get traded, ha-ha – so I’ll just make it short, sweet, and repeated:

    Hillary’s only path to the nomination involves Obama and a grizzly bear. It’s over.

  17. 17
    mikesdak says:

    Doug, Iv’e got the SI Draft blog in another window.

  18. 18
    calipygian says:

    Gollum and his wife Cruella have already sold their Alexandria townhouse, leaving my adopted town with only the Bugman Tom Delay to get rid of now, and moved down to New Orleans.

    What does that say about the prospects of a Clinton or McCain win if the cockroaches are already fleeing the Beltway?

  19. 19
    ThymeZone says:

    Where is the line between narcissist and sociopath? I think it’s somewhere in Mississippi.

    Yes, east of the sun and west of the moon, in a state that doesn’t count.

    I think we have to be careful, touching on John’s post, not to give too much credence to the madness that gushes out of the media monkeys on a daily basis.

    These are the baboons who peeled their bananas while Bush ginned up his worthless war, who wrung their hands over Terri Schiavo, who earnest shook their coifs at the cameras while Bush went out to sell his Social Security “reforms”, which were actually attacks on Social Security that had been labeled the “third rail of politics” by the Broders of the world two, three decades ago …..

    These same morons now frown and make “thinking” poses in front of cameras talking about the “Reverend Wright problem,” much the same way they wrung their hands over Kennedy’s “Catholic problem” 48 years ago. These guys never learn, they never really get anything, they have actually nothing to say, and listen primarily to each other.

    It’s our country, we can figure out what’s important, we don’t need them to imagine it for us.

    Here’s what will count this year: 80 percent of citizens are sure the country is going in the wrong direction. They hate the war. The economy is hurting them, on a daily basis, and it will get worse as the year goes on. We are paying $4 for gas and $4 and up for a loaf of bread that cost $3 a year ago. Real wages are down and healthcare and coverage costs are up for the lucky people who have any access to care in the first place. The Republicans are running a guy who thinks Sunni is an orange drink.

    Let’s keep our eyes on the ball. John nails it here.

  20. 20
    Crusty Dem says:

    The unflagging support of Carville types, matched with the feverish fantasies of Limbaugh, Novak, and Scarborough (“Riots in Denver!!!”) are all that keep this boat race in the press. The conflagration of Clintonites and the right-wing media horde are the only reason Clinton isn’t being ridiculed as Huckabee was when he remained in the race after being effectively eliminated. Amusingly, thanks to the winner-take-all format of the Republican primaries, Huckabee had a better chance to win at that point than Clinton does now (Huckabee had to win a bunch of states in a row, Clinton has to win a bunch of states with ~70% of the vote).

    I would recommend everyone just dial down the anger a bit, the more apt emotion at this point is either pity or amusement. I prefer to combine them into a single emotion I refer to as Pitusement (or sometimes amusity, I keep mixing them up). The question we should be asking is, “why is Hillary wasing everyone’s time and money (and John Cole and Andrew Sullivan’s sanity)??”, rather than giving her campaign a validity it has not earned.

  21. 21
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    These are the baboons who peeled their bananas while Bush ginned up his worthless war, who wrung their hands over Terri Schiavo…

    Well put. They are also the same bunch who gushed over the endless coverage of buildings and the people in them being blown to bits during the shock and awe phase of the Iraq war, the same bunch of incurious echolaliacs who accept Bushco’s statements about Iran without question and who go all warm and runny inside every time Petraeus appears before Congress. The late Phillip K. Dick wrote a couple of stories whose protagonists were “newsclowns”; guys who would deliver the news in full clown regalia. All that’s missing these days are the big black rubber shoes, the tiny parasols and the red rubber noses.

  22. 22

    What needs to be understood and acted upon is that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama ever had any chance of becoming President.

    Senator Clinton leaves tens of millions of votes on the table because of her gender and Senator Obama leaves tens of millions of votes on the table because of his race. Neither one could break 40% in the general, even if they were running against the skeleton of Richard Nixon.

    It is perfectly disgusting, but there is no point in pretending that it is other than what it is. Bet everything you own that the next fifteen Presidents of the United States will be white men. They will also be either Republicans or else representatives of some new and presently unsuspected party. The Democratic Party is dead and its constituencies are unrepresented.

    Reviving the Democratic Party would involve time travel. In order to have survived to this point, the Democratic Party would have had to spend every minute of every hour of every day since the Brooks Brothers riot hammering on the absolute illegitimacy of the Republican Party, its every member, its every adherent, and its every sympathizer, to the exclusion of any other topic. Its failure to do so resulted in the expiration of any practical or ethical mandate it might have held.

  23. 23
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Clinton challenges Obama to debate without moderator

    MARION, Ind. – Hillary Rodham Clinton takes the debate dispute to a new level, challenging her opponent Barack Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.

    Next up: Clinton offers to debate Obama with one face tied behind her back.

  24. 24
    ThymeZone says:

    Frank Wilhoit, bringing cheerleading to the Democratic Party.

    The Dems, whose supporters yelled for them to stand up to Bush, now cower in the face of a 72 year old guy who doesn’t know what fucking day it is.

    The strong, the proud, the Demoncrat.

    Damn, I love the smell of complete surrender in the morning.

  25. 25
    p.lukasiak says:

    Hillary can not win.

    neither can Obama.

    YOU HAVE TO GET A SUPERMAJORITY OF DELEGATES TO BE DECLARED THE WINNER

    Obama isn’t going to do that with pledged delegates, and neither is Clinton. So, the SDs have to decide who will make the best candidate/president. That is their role.

    Obots lie all the time about Obama “winning” — they have to lie to themselves about the actual rules of the Democratic party in order to prevent themselves from thinking about what a disaster Obama is going to be as the nominee.

    And if Obama gets the nomination, when he loses they will blame it on Clinton.

    But sensible people realize that Clinton is the best candidate for November — and will make a much better President. Obama is a Democratic version of George Bush — he’s just as narcissistic and petulant as Bush, and just as unprepared to be President as Bush.

    The country doesn’t want another Bush — and they’ll vote for McCain before they put Obama in the white house.

  26. 26
    firebrand says:

    Well, at least all of this will finally dispel the notion that the media is in the tank for Obama. Not that it ever was: part of the reason that Hillary’s survived so far is that the media has always been willing to throw her campaign a lifeline. If Obama was in Hillary’s situation and vice versa, the calls by both the Clinton campaign and the media for Obama to drop out would be absolutely overwhelming. Hell, they’d have been overwhelming two months ago. But because it’s Hillary on the ropes, the media will do everything in its power to give her every chance she needs to prolong this campaign fight. And that, of course, brings us to where we are today, and this ridiculous article by Eleanor Clift just proves the point.

  27. 27
    p.lukasiak says:

    What needs to be understood and acted upon is that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama ever had any chance of becoming President.

    Senator Clinton leaves tens of millions of votes on the table because of her gender and Senator Obama leaves tens of millions of votes on the table because of his race.

    Will all due respect… while what you say about ‘leaving votes on the table’ is true enough, both also pick up votes because of their race/gender.

    Basically, I think Clinton’s gender is a small plus — mostly because the stats where sexism is worst are those which she doesn’t need to win (see my series on sexism and misogyny at Corrente), and because more women vote than men. In swing states, I think she picks up net support because of her gender.

    But Obama’s race can’t help him like Clinton’s gender can. The states with the largest percentages of Black voters are the states where resistance to voting for a Black president is greatest (In fact, one of the things I found while doing the Misogyny study was that as the percentage of AA increases among registered voters, white support for Obama decreases — but at a faster rate.)

  28. 28
    nightjar says:

    What needs to be understood and acted upon is that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama ever had any chance of becoming President.

    In the end, you may be right, and I suspect most democrats this cycle have wondered the same thing. But here’s the deal, I don’t support Obama for any other reason than he has shown, to the best of my (limited) perceptive powers, himself to possess an intangible quality that I want to be in the White House as president. I can’t describe it any more than I can know what he’ll do once he’s there.

    The other two candidates have just the opposite qualities I am looking for. One has a cold war militarist mindset on foreign affairs as well as an ever shifting set of beliefs on domestic policy. The other, as described by John, exhibits a narcissistic and sociopathic personality. Both of these candidates have one unattractive trait in common — and that is they NEED to be president. And I don’t sense that in Obama.

    Having been raised in the south, I can’t deny having at least some of that racial garbage still bouncing around in my brain. But I learned a long time ago, it is more important what you do, than any fleeting thought or feeling.

    Therefore, the three reasons I am supporting Obama are.
    1. I firmly believe he is the only candidate who SHOULD be president in this election. (despite some concern of a lack of experience)

    Well shit. There’s only one.

  29. 29
    p.lukasiak says:

    If Obama was in Hillary’s situation and vice versa, the calls by both the Clinton campaign and the media for Obama to drop out would be absolutely overwhelming.

    christ, you obots are delusional.

    Obama is a media creation — I mean, the guy had been in the Senate for all of two years when he declared his candidacy — and he’d accomplished nothing (which is what freshmen senators are supposed to accomplish) in those two years.

  30. 30
    firebrand says:

    p.luk:

    CLINTON ISN’T GOING TO GET A SUPERMAJORITY OF DELEGATES WITHOUT RIPPING THE PARTY IN TWO. THAT IS WHY SHE CAN’T WIN.

    Is that fact too hard for your Clinton-addled mind to understand? Good lord, I can only imagine how your head will explode when Obama sews up the nomination.

    Oh, and for you to compare Obama to Bush, when YOUR candidate has been running her campaign straight from Karl Rove’s playbook for months, is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy and idiocy.

  31. 31
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    YOU HAVE TO GET A SUPERMAJORITY OF DELEGATES TO BE DECLARED THE WINNER

    Newsflash, Paul: The superdelegates have already decided.

  32. 32
    John Cole says:

    No one got treated worse by the media in this election than John Edwards. Period.

    They ignored him, never gave him a chance, and then spent all their time discussing haircuts when they did mention. If anyone wants to bitch about their treatment in the media, it should be Edwards.

  33. 33
    TenguPhule says:

    But sensible people realize that Clinton is the best candidate for November—and will make a much better President. Obama is a Democratic version of George Bush—he’s just as narcissistic and petulant as Bush, and just as unprepared to be President as Bush.

    Hello McCain Troll.

    Please exit the planet to your left.

  34. 34
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    christ, you obots are delusional.

    Is your middle name Bell-Howell, perchance?

    Obama is a media creation—I mean, the guy had been in the Senate for all of two years when he declared his candidacy—and he’d accomplished nothing (which is what freshmen senators are supposed to accomplish) in those two years.

    And yet Hillary is still losing to him. Kind of shows us just how much people think of what Hillary’s accomplished.

  35. 35
    TenguPhule says:

    p.lukasiak Says: I can’t argue against your logic, therefore I will go off on a tangent and pretend I didn’t hear you.

    Hillary has no chance to win. The math isn’t there. The money isn’t there.

    She blew her lead, her name recognition and her campaign against a newbie.

    The fat lady has sung.

    Go Home Hillary.

  36. 36
    firebrand says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    christ, you obots are delusional.

    Obama is a media creation—I mean, the guy had been in the Senate for all of two years when he declared his candidacy—and he’d accomplished nothing (which is what freshmen senators are supposed to accomplish) in those two years.

    You have the gall to accuse me of being delusional? When all of you Clintonbots still think she has a chance of winning, even though there’s no way she CAN win without tearing the party in two, and thus dooming the Dems in November?

    And Obama’s a media creation? He’s got nothing on Hillary Clinton, the Wellesley graduate who has lived nothing short of a privileged, elite life over the past 30 years and has been the ICON of gun control, who is now somehow the lover of guns, religion, beer and whiskey shots at the local bar. Oh, and she can’t stand those San Francisco leftists and their elitism, especially the ones she’s been courting, talking to, and receiving tons of support from for YEARS.

    Delusion doesn’t even begin to describe your insanity, p.luk.

  37. 37
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    No one got treated worse by the media in this election than John Edwards. Period.

    John, stop letting facts get in the way of Hillbots’ playing the victim card. Its *sniff* so unfair how the “fighter” keeps getting *sob* shafted by cult leader Obama and the evil media!

  38. 38
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    No one got treated worse by the media in this election than John Edwards. Period.

    They ignored him, never gave him a chance, and then spent all their time discussing haircuts when they did mention. If anyone wants to bitch about their treatment in the media, it should be Edwards.

    Boo fucking hoo. Edwards should be happy the MSM didn’t pay him any attention. It only took a tiny bit of srutiny to see he was a complete fraud, a newly minted populist with a corporate DLC background.

    The netroots fascination with Edwards started and ended with the fact he was a handsome white Southern male with good name recognition. Otherwise he was a terrible candidate, someone who really was for everything he said he was against, or vice versa.

  39. 39
    firebrand says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    Basically, I think Clinton’s gender is a small plus—mostly because the stats where sexism is worst are those which she doesn’t need to win (see my series on sexism and misogyny at Corrente), and because more women vote than men. In swing states, I think she picks up net support because of her gender.

    But Obama’s race can’t help him like Clinton’s gender can. The states with the largest percentages of Black voters are the states where resistance to voting for a Black president is greatest (In fact, one of the things I found while doing the Misogyny study was that as the percentage of AA increases among registered voters, white support for Obama decreases—but at a faster rate.)

    So basically, anything that works against Hillary the Chosen One doesn’t matter, and anything that works for Hillary the Chosen One matters more than anything else. Good God. Can you hear yourself sometimes, p.luk? Can you actually hear the tripe that comes out of your mouth? You know, I bet these “studies” of yours also say that up is down, Brownie did a heckuva job during Hurricane Katrina, Republicans are a friend of the working man, and Bush’s low approval ratings really mean that he’s the most popular president we’ve ever had. Because I’m sure they operate on that level of comprehension.

  40. 40
    Mutaman says:

    Sounds like John and his fellow kool Ade drinkers are getting a little nervous. The air is out of the baloon. The woman’s just to tough for you all.

  41. 41
    HRA says:

    The media is in the tank for the media. Keeping this travesty of a primary front and center equals ratings and sold subscriptions to their print.
    Eleanor Cliff has always been a Clintonite. Seing her on TV or rarely reading her product always reminds me of how she acted when BC was getting impeached. Only Al Hunt’s wife bested her in mourning. Yes, I forgot her name -Judy?
    John is right. It’s over. Obama won.

  42. 42
    nightjar says:

    The woman’s just to tough for you all.

    So was Alex Forrest.

  43. 43
    myiq2xu says:

    No one got treated worse by the media in this election than John Edwards. Period.

    I agree completely. Now stop that shit, you’re creeping me out.

  44. 44
    Ted says:

    (In fact, one of the things I found while doing the Misogyny study was that as the percentage of AA increases among registered voters, white support for Obama decreases—but at a faster rate.)

    Aww, that’s cute. He thinks he did a “study”.

  45. 45
    nightjar says:

    Myiq2xu has apparently made a stunning discovery on Obama.

  46. 46
    Ted says:

    How long until Myiq starts referring to Obama as “Barry HUSSEIN Obama”?

    Any bets?

  47. 47
    myiq2xu says:

    Myiq2xu has apparently made a stunning discovery on Obama.

    I’m not a blogwhore, so I don’t need a pimp, but thanks.

    How long until Myiq starts referring to Obama as “Barry HUSSEIN Obama”?

    Any amount you care to name that I never do.

    Barack DUKAKIS Obama on the other hand . . .

  48. 48
    nightjar says:

    LOL That’s Ok!, I only pimp for Hillbot trolls.

  49. 49
    Ted says:

    Any amount you care to name that I never do.

    Why not? It’s effective, boosts the Muslim misconception, and basically works. Why not use it? It’s the Clinton way!

  50. 50
    Ted says:

    I’m not a blogwhore, so I don’t need a pimp, but thanks.

    Considering your name is a link to your sub-blog, you pulled a GBCW here (understandably, given the usual clientele) and slinked off, then came back, I can only assume you’re still here to blogwhore. I mean, you can’t possibly think you’re winning Hillary converts or something.

  51. 51
    Soylent Green says:

    Well, at least all of this will finally dispel the notion that the media is in the tank for Obama. Not that it ever was: part of the reason that Hillary’s survived so far is that the media has always been willing to throw her campaign a lifeline

    The media always builds people up, especially newcomers, so they can tear them down later. That’s how the game works. Early on, it was in the tank for Obama, but insincerely so. Without conflict, the media has no hook to hang its stories on. If there is no inherent conflict and doubt (i.e., they encounter someone who is genuinely admired and appears to be relatively clean), then it must be manufactured somehow, to sew discord and keep tongues wagging, to sell papers and boost ratings. What might be good for America never enters the equation. As HRA just said, it’s all about what is good for the media.

    When Hillary was up, they knocked her down. Now that she is down they’re picking her up. They don’t want this wrapped up; in their private fantasies they want Rush’s riots in the streets. Think of what great footage that will make!

    Where this idea breaks down is what happens when we get closer to the general election, when the outcome might not be what the corporate media thinks will best serve its long-term interests. If the GOP candidate is perceived as being better for their bottom line, then he will get the kid-glove treatment and the final boost.

    The intertubes may change all this in time, as people inform themselves instead of relying on talking heads. But that sea change is only just beginning.

  52. 52
    Tsulagi says:

    No one got treated worse by the media in this election than John Edwards. Period.

    I’d go with that. When it was getting down to three, Edwards was my choice over Clinton or Obama.

  53. 53
    myiq2xu says:

    Ted Says:

    Baa baa baaaa ba baaa baa baaa baa

    Who the fuck are ewe?

  54. 54
    p.lukasiak says:

    CLINTON ISN’T GOING TO GET A SUPERMAJORITY OF DELEGATES WITHOUT RIPPING THE PARTY IN TWO. THAT IS WHY SHE CAN’T WIN.

    yeah right.

    Here’s a clue. Its not gonna happen. The faculty-lounge types with bitch and moan, because that is what they always do.

    There is far more likelihood that the party will be torn apart if Obama gets the nomination based on delegate counts from Red states where a difference of less than 20,000 caucus goers gets you more delegates than a difference of 200,000 voters.

    It isn’t the people in the blogosphere who support Clinton that will wind up voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, it will be the white middle and working class voters who will see the Obama nomination as a repudiation of them.

    The question that the Obots have to ask themselves is whether its more important for Obama to be the nominee, or to get a Democrat in the white house, Because that is the choice right now. And LYING about Clinton not being able to win is the kind of shit that will tear the party apart, because there are people out there (like you, and Cole) stupid enough to believe it.

  55. 55
    nightjar says:

    Pluk, full of shit, as usual and King of mental masturbation.

  56. 56
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    I get it now, p.luk is posting from the Bizarro Universe.

    Barack DUKAKIS Obama on the other hand . . .

    … versus Hillary KERRY Clinton?

  57. 57
    Soylent Green says:

    There is far more likelihood that the party will be torn apart if Obama gets the nomination based on delegate counts from Red states where a difference of less than 20,000 caucus goers gets you more delegates than a difference of 200,000 voters.

    Yeah, I’m sure this fine distinction in how primary delegates are selected will be the first thing on people’s minds. Sorry, pluk, most Democratic voters are not political junkies who know or care about the difference between a primary and a caucus, fewer yet who will buy your tired and entirely groundless claim that caucus delegates from States That Don’t Matter are illegitimate. They will see the total this June and notice that Obama has more than Clinton. End of story, not the party torn apart because Obama won fair and square that you are wishing for.

    But as we all know, the Giants didn’t really win the Super Bowl. It’s common knowledge that all of their fourth-quarter points were scored in red state caucuses.

    Do you drink beer? It really is time for you to start crying in it.

  58. 58
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    How long until Myiq GoatBoy starts referring to Obama as “Barry HUSSEIN Obama Mr. President”?

    Any bets?

    Fixed, for the head-exploding goodness it offers.

    Pluk ph.uk, full of shit, as usual and King of mental and verbal masturbation.

    Fixed.

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    the guy had been in the Senate for all of two years when he declared his candidacy

    Right, we know from the Bob Dole example that long and distinguished Senate service is the key to electability in the the presidential election. That’s why we had President Dole for all those years. His strong record and the power of the GOP noise machine made him unbeatable. He was a war hero and the press never criticized him.

    So, I guess we should be resigned to having McCain now follow in Dole’s footsteps. Right?

    Fucking idiot, you are.

  60. 60
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    I love the argument that Hillary’s the better candidate because white people like her. Pat the African-Americans on the head and tell them “Sorry, not this time, but I’m sure you’ll break that glass ceiling someday.”

  61. 61
    myiq2xu says:

    Conservatively pretending to be a Liberal Says:

    I luv me some John “Crypt Keeper” McCain. And I have sick twisted fantasies about goat sex.

    I never thought I would have a stalker.

    Very creepy.

  62. 62
    Ted says:

    myiq2xu Says:

    Ted Says:

    Baa baa baaaa ba baaa baa baaa baa

    Who the fuck are ewe?

    I marvel at your cleverness. You incredible, double-IQ’d genius.

    Now, since your presence here serves no practical purpose for your candidate, when will you be leaving for good? Most here would like to know.

  63. 63
    chopper says:

    I love the argument that Hillary’s the better candidate because white people like her. Pat the African-Americans on the head and tell them “Sorry, not this time, but I’m sure you’ll break that glass ceiling someday.”

    sorry guys, but the white person gets a free mulligan. its in the DNC rules somewhere.

  64. 64
    PeterJ says:

    That myiq2xu’s and p.lukasiak’s only participation here now only amounts to trolling and flamebaiting says everything about the chances for their preferred candidate.

    And as always, remember, don’t feed the trolls unless you feel you need some sort of distraction.

  65. 65
    Ted says:

    And as always, remember, don’t feed the trolls unless you feel you need some sort of distraction.

    Can’t I feed them rat poison, or strychnine, or the comment equivalent?

  66. 66
    Ratatouille says:

    I always enjoy the Alice Palmer story because it’s such an analog of Michigan, where Obama played by the rules, others didn’t, but somehow Obama is the bad guy anyway.

    Beautiful logic.

  67. 67

    I’d love to be completely worry free about Obama and the nomination, but the Clintons are harder to kill than a vampire Rasputin.

  68. 68
    Ted says:

    I’d love to be completely worry free about Obama and the nomination, but the Clintons are harder to kill than a vampire Rasputin.

    They’re just using the Tonya Harding strategy. Eventually they’ll be arrested.

  69. 69

    They’re just using the Tonya Harding strategy. Eventually they’ll be arrested.

    Awwww….that means Kerrigan, I mean Obama, takes silver.

    “WHYYYYYYYYY? WHYYYYYYY?”

  70. 70
    KRK says:

    In a nice convergence of these comments:

    And as always, remember, don’t feed the trolls unless you feel you need some sort of distraction

    Can’t I feed them rat poison, or strychnine, or the comment equivalent?

    and

    They’re just using the Tonya Harding strategy.

    it happens to be that the best way to stop a troll is with a hammer. Preferably Thor’s hammer, but any old hammer will do in a pinch.

  71. 71
    TenguPhule says:

    The question that the Obots *Goatsexbots* have to ask themselves is whether its more important for Obama *Hillary* to be the nominee, or to get a Democrat in the white house, Because that is the choice right now.

    Corrected.

    Hillary doesn’t have the votes. You can bitch about it all you want, but she fucked up.

    Go home.

  72. 72
    John Cole says:

    Hillary’s problem is that it used to be a no-brainer that in a McCain/hillary match-up, Hillary was the choice. Watching her the past few months, it isn’t as clear.

  73. 73
    Jess says:

    Now, since your presence here serves no practical purpose for your candidate, when will you be leaving for good? Most here would like to know.

    Most, maybe, but not all–I’m enjoying the drunken ping-pong match of BJuice, and MYIQ holds his/her end of the game up quite nicely. Do we really want to devolve into the mutual-masturbation echo-chambers of most of the other blogs out there?

    Bring it on, MYIQ!

  74. 74
    myiq2xu says:

    That “Tonya Harding” meme doesn’t work for y’all.

    If Hillary is Tonya, Obama is Nancy and McCain is Oksana.

    Bill as Jeff works pretty good though.

    I always enjoy the Alice Palmer story because it’s such an analog of Michigan, where Obama played by the rules, others didn’t, but somehow Obama is the bad guy anyway.

    Hillary played by the rules. Obama didn’t play at all, but now he wants half the votes anyway.

    Can’t I feed them rat poison, or strychnine, or the comment equivalent?

    Only if you eat me first.

  75. 75
    myiq2xu says:

    Do we really want to devolve into the mutual-masturbation echo-chambers of most of the other blogs out there?

    Most of your Cheeto-eating buddies would rather wank than fight.

  76. 76
    p.lukasiak says:

    Hillary doesn’t have the votes.

    neither does Obama.

    Watching her the past few months, it isn’t as clear.

    watching her next to Obama, its crystal clear.. Clinton is by far the better candidate.

  77. 77
    myiq2xu says:

    To debate or not debate?

    From riverdaughter:

    When danger reared it’s ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    Yes, brave Obama turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out

    Wher I come from we call that “pussied out”

  78. 78
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    neither does Obama.

    Actually, he does, but keep digging for that pony.

  79. 79
    Jess says:

    Most of your Cheeto-eating buddies would rather wank than fight.

    Not so much at BJ, fortunately! Lots of claw-sharpening going on around here…

  80. 80
    MDee says:

    This is the only site where I get my daily dose of Hillusions from the Hillatrolls. They are much more amusing here. Reading the things they say to prop her up just brings to mind a quote from Bull Durham:

    C’mon Meat, throw me that weak-ass shit!

    And they do! Every time. Hahahahaha!

  81. 81
    myiq2xu says:

    C’mon Meat, throw me that weak-ass shit!

    To quote from Major League:

    “How’s your wife and my kids?”

  82. 82
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    To debate or not debate?

    Hey ShitForBrains, I don’t mind you dissing Obama for not giving HRC another chance to mudrassle but if you want to appear to be something other than a loser Clinton shill (which cbear and Dennis seem to think) you might want to indicate somewhere that HRC turned down the first NC debate. If it’s so important to her (and you) she should have agreed when it was offered.

    Once again, the Clinton campaign showed bad judgment when it counted.

  83. 83
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    Wher I come from we call that “pussied out”

    Here on Planet Reality, we call it “being bored of it all.”

  84. 84
    nightjar says:

    Wher I come from we call that “pussied out”

    Where you come from, we call that “lost out”.

  85. 85
    Ted says:

    Once again, the Clinton campaign showed bad judgment when it counted.

    The losing candidate always whines for more debates. They’re already losing the race, so they don’t have anything else to lose. It gives them a chance for more major airtime, and a hope their opponent will commit some major gaffe during the debate.

    Whining for more debates after, what, 23 now? – is never from a position of political strength.

  86. 86
    Svensker says:

    Wher I come from we call that “pussied out”

    To paraphrase Richard Pryor, BIG dickhead.

  87. 87
    Larime The Gimp says:

    It isn’t the people in the blogosphere who support Clinton that will wind up voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, it will be the white middle and working class voters who will see the Obama nomination as a repudiation of them.

    I am SO tired of being held hostage by ignorant, insecure idiots willing to vote against their own self-interests because they don’t want a President that is too smart (Gore), too elitist (Kerry) or too black.

    Fuck them, and fuck you, Pluk, you deserve every bit of the nightmare you get with McCain just like you deserved Bush.

  88. 88
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    The losing candidate always whines for more debates.

    I agree. I’m just saying if she really wanted to debate in NC, she should have agreed to it when it was offered instead of trying to game a couple Jew votes out of refusing it. Now that she has blown the chance to throw more fecal matter around in a national forum she can just shut the fuck up, along with her loser supporters.

  89. 89
    chopper says:

    it will be the white middle and working class voters who will see the Obama nomination as a repudiation of them.

    yes, that’s why we have to take the nom out of the hands of the dude with more delegates and give it to clinton. because the working class will see obama as a repudiation of them, versus the insanely rich white lady who’s totally blue collar cause she can knock back a shot of crown royal on camera.

    the post above about patting the AA community on the head is right. jesus, how patronizing can you hillbots get?

  90. 90
    Ted says:

    I agree. I’m just saying if she really wanted to debate in NC, she should have agreed to it when it was offered instead of trying to game a couple Jew votes out of refusing it.

    I agree as well. And, oddly, I look forward to her campaign’s expansion of their scare-the-Jews strategy against Obama. It’s the simplest thing for them. His middle name, and the media confusion over his religion, make him perfect for suggesting he might just let Israel be unprotected, regardless of what he’s said. And based on reports out of Penn., it’s apparently working.

  91. 91
    Dave_Violence says:

    My money is on Hillary! winning the Democratic nomination by 51% to 49%.

    She’ll win in the general election, too. SWAG of 55% – 45%.

    She’s too smart to lose the big one.

  92. 92
    Laura Roslin says:

    Its not who you vote for, but who counts the votes.

    The voting was taken care of in Pennsylvania:

    See Dirty Tricks in Pennsylvania
    Posted by WillYourVoteBCounted in General Discussion: Primaries
    Sat Apr 26th 2008, 04:23 PM
    By Christopher – Apr 23rd, 2008 (Image) If you were planning to vote yesterday in the Pennsylvania primary you had another thing coming as reports of voting machine problems in all of Obama’s stronghold precincts. Several machines were malfunctioning in the city, leading one local community leader to allege “dirty tricks” were the cause. Many residents trying to cast ballots yesterday found long lines and broken machines and intimidation across the region. (Image) Six of ten machines were…

    more at the link
    http://journals.democraticunde.....ounted/181

  93. 93
    Soylent Green says:

    watching her next to Obama, its crystal clear.. Clinton is by far the better candidate.

    And the moon is made of cheese.

    Title of the new X-Files movie currently in production:

    I Want to Believe

  94. 94
    Zuzu says:

    Wher I come from we call that “pussied out”

    Well, you did admit to living in the redneck capital of California.

  95. 95
    Soylent Green says:

    Dave_Violence Says:
    My money is on Hillary! winning the Democratic nomination by 51% to 49%.

    I’ll take that bet.

    To get to 51%, Hillary! must win two-thirds of the 501 remaining delegates. This is considerably larger than her margin in any state she has won.

    May 3, Guam with 9. Probably an Obama win.

    May 6, Indiana, with 84, is a tossup, North Carolina, the big prize with 134, is running strongly pro-Obama. Probably a net gain for Obama of 20 to 30, maybe more.

    May 13, West Virginia, 39 delegates, probable gain of 5 or so for Hillary.

    May 20, Oregon and Kentucky, 65 and 60 delegates. By same margins Obama wins OR, Clinton wins KY, net is a wash.

    June 1, Puerto Rico with 63, Hill wins and gains 5 to 10.

    June 3, Montana and South Dakota, with 24 and 23, Obama wins both, net to Obama of 10.

    Thus in the remaining contests Obama adds to his pledged delegate lead and Hillary loses ground. He will get more than half of the remaining 492, I think about 270.

    By the NYT’s count, he has 1721 and needs 304. There are 226 supers who have not declared. Obama will need only 30 or 40. Chances are he will have them before the primaries are over.

    So no wonder you guys have nothing left but to hope the supers pull a big switcheroo and betray the majority “for the good of the party.”

    What color is the sky, etc.

  96. 96
    Redhand says:

    Clift has always been an insufferable Clinton groupie. Chalk this up to major fantasy projection and displaced political eroticism, as in “power.”

  97. 97
    slightly_peeved says:

    Its sniff so unfair how the “fighter” keeps getting sob shafted by cult leader Obama and the evil media!

    I don’t think Clinton has ever realized – Penn certainly hasn’t – a simple fact:

    “fighters” aren’t popular. Winners are.

    If people liked fighters, Yosemite Sam would be the hero of the Warner Bros. cartoons.

    And I love how people use ‘cult’ references to disparage Obama. “Oh that Obama – him and his charisma and popularity! That’s not going to help the Democratic party!”

  98. 98
    JackieBinAZ says:

    My God,nn

  99. 99
    JackieBinAZ says:

    dammit – hit the wrong button too soon…

    What I was trying to do was make a snarky comment about how he’s giving Clinton supporters the finger. Unlike her, he’s not taking it as a ‘given’ that he pwns the existing base.

  100. 100
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    watching her next to Obama, its crystal clear.. Clinton is by far the better candidate.

    Oh, sure, who wants someone who is well-spoken and inspiring when we could have a person who makes up stories about sniper fire and Northern Ireland peace accords? Why vote for someone who spent years working as a community activist when we could have a candidate who claims sitting on the Wal-Mart board of directors as “public service”? Why pick the guy whose aim is to bring people together when we could have one of the most polarizing figures of our generation? Why vote for someone who has a mere 4 years in the US Senate when we could have someone who has a whopping 8 years in the Senate?

    Clinton is *clearly* the better candidate, as evidenced by her overwhelming deficits in pledged delegates, popular votes, primaries won, and money raised. Sure, the voters don’t want her, but according to some people (herself and those on her payroll) she is the better choice and thus should be the nominee anyway. Ain’d democracy grand?

  101. 101
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    watching her next to Obama, its crystal clear.. Clinton is by far the better candidate.

    Clinton is, indeed, the better of the two Republican candidates.

  102. 102
    Ratatouille says:

    myiq2xEwe: So you’re saying she participated and Obama didn’t? Exactly what she pledged in writing not to do. Of course, she also said the election wouldn’t count but now wants her share of the vote anyway. A shining example of integrity there.

  103. 103
    Brachiator says:

    I see several blog posts about this Eleanor Clift piece, in which Clift claims there will be hell to pay should Clinton eventually win then Presidency. Let me be clear about this:

    Hillary. Can. Not. Win.

    This is good stuff because Clift is a reliable indicator of what the Hillary camp is thinking. Back when Bill was president, Clift often used members of Hillary’s First Lady staff as her “anonymous sources,” and Clift could always be counted on to use appearances on The McLaughlin Group to test out Hillary’s opinion and positions.

    As a Washington insider and Hillary bootlicker, Clift is being used to send out this message: if you are a Congressman or Democratic Party official, you better get on board now or Hillary and Bill will gut you when she wins. And if you are a Friend of Bill, send some money now, to make sure you can get your ticket for that Lincoln Bedroom E ticket ride.

    Oh, and party unity? Fuck that.

    What’s interesting is that Clift reveals the degree to which Bill and Hillary share the same negative, caustic values, and feed on each other with their “us against the world” view of things: “There’s never been any love lost between the Clintons and official Washington.”

    Worse, both Hillary and her key aides don’t sound like mature women at all, but instead act like spoiled teenagers, who lash out when their feelings get hurt, and have not matured to the point where they have put aside petty narcissism:

    Notables who abandoned her for Obama will get the Big Chill. “He’s dead to us,” a Clinton aide was quoted saying of John Kerry, who along with Ted Kennedy was turned off by the perception of race baiting that led up to the South Carolina primary. A major donor, conflicted between the two candidates and apologetic over his backing of Obama, found Hillary less than sympathetic. “Too bad for you, because I’m going to win,” she snapped.

    Here, Hillary does not sound like an experienced politician, but comes across as a petulant school girl over-reacting to a perceived slight by the cool boys and girls.

    By the way, Clift tips her hand that she is not even close to being an objective observer of the Washington scene, but is in fact a dedicated Hillary go-go girl, by reiterating the current Hillary camp BS that the official rules of Democratic Party primary don’t matter at all, and should be disregarded in favor of Senator Clinton’s view that the popular vote, not the delegate count, is what really matters.

    If Clinton can win Indiana, hold Obama to single digits in North Carolina, and then run up a big margin in Kentucky on May 20, where she’s leading in the polls, she could overtake Obama in the popular vote.

    The sad thing is that the Democratic Party has become so used to rolling over for Bush and the Republicans that they may no longer be able to stand up to anyone, and so will allow Hillary to steamroll them even if it means long term damage to the party itself.

    If party leaders had any guts, they would come out after the North Carolina primary (at the latest), and use the the occasion of Obama’s victory there to shut Hillary down once and for all.

  104. 104
    NR says:

    The question that the Obots have to ask themselves is whether its more important for Obama to be the nominee, or to get a Democrat in the white house, Because that is the choice right now.

    Good god, you are full of shit.

  105. 105
    Cain says:

    I’d love to be completely worry free about Obama and the nomination, but the Clintons are harder to kill than a vampire Rasputin.

    I dunno dude, vampire rasputin seemed to die pretty easily on the Forever Knight episode I saw last night. 3 seconds it was over. I think you should get a better analogy. Clinton’s are harder to kill than that black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    Obama: You are indeed brave, Hillary, but the fight is mine.
    Hillary: Oh, had enough, eh?
    Obama: Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no contests left.
    Hillary: Yes I have.
    Obama: Look!
    Hillary: Just a flesh wound.
    [bang]
    Obama: Look, stop that.
    Hillary: Chicken! Chicken! Debate me!
    Obama: Look, I’ll have your other supporters monetary support. Right!
    [whop]
    Hillary: Right, I’ll do you for that!
    Obama: You’ll what?
    Hillary: Come ‘ere!
    Obama: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
    Hillary: I’m invincible! Seat Michigan and Florida!
    Obama: You’re a loony.
    Hillary: The Clintons always triumphs!

  106. 106
    Napoleon says:

    This is good stuff because Clift is a reliable indicator of what the Hillary camp is thinking. Back when Bill was president, Clift often used members of Hillary’s First Lady staff as her “anonymous sources,” and Clift could always be counted on to use appearances on The McLaughlin Group to test out Hillary’s opinion and positions.

    As a Washington insider and Hillary bootlicker, Clift is being used to send out this message: if you are a Congressman or Democratic Party official, you better get on board now or Hillary and Bill will gut you when she wins. And if you are a Friend of Bill, send some money now, to make sure you can get your ticket for that Lincoln Bedroom E ticket ride.

    Assuming you are correct about Clift, and I have no reason to doubt you, it seems to me the strategy of putting this threat out there is actually counterproductive to Clinton. It seems to me it actually gives anyone who did not support her whole-heartedly a real incentive to put a stake through the heart of her campaign.

  107. 107
    nightjar says:

    I don’t really understand all the Clift bashing on this thread. I watch Mclaughlin group every Friday night, and she has been nothing but fair to Obama, even though she is a Clinton supporter. Not every Clinton supporter has gone over the edge.

  108. 108
    D-Chance. says:

    So Hillary wants a Lincoln-Douglas type of debate? That raised the interest of John McCain, who said to Hillary…
    “Senator, I served with Abe Lincoln: I knew Abe Lincoln; Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Abe Lincoln.

    Of course, myiq2xu will say that was really uncalled for… :D

  109. 109
    chopper says:

    Sure, the voters don’t want her, but according to some people (herself and those on her payroll) she is the better choice and thus should be the nominee anyway. Ain’d democracy grand?

    since when do the voters matter? i mean, if clinton learned anything from 2000, it is just that. if you’re slick enough, you can overturn the votes and get away with it.

  110. 110
    Brachiator says:

    Napoleon Says:

    Assuming you are correct about Clift, and I have no reason to doubt you, it seems to me the strategy of putting this threat out there is actually counterproductive to Clinton. It seems to me it actually gives anyone who did not support her whole-heartedly a real incentive to put a stake through the heart of her campaign.

    Senator Clinton is betting that party leaders will continue to be reluctant to attack her because they would perceived to be sexist bullies. She is also betting that her continued strong support among older women (reliable voters) and some working class whites will cause party leaders and super delegates to waiver with respect to their support for Obama.

    She has reason to continue her aggressive stance. The party has shrugged off Carville’s insulting dismissal of Richardson as a Judas, and continues to allow Senator Clinton to push her utterly bogus claim to Florida and Michigan delegates. And the media, far more friendly to Clinton than to Obama, loves the simple narrative of a fight to the finish, and will encourage Clinton’s efforts, since this stuff makes for pretty, if totally meaningless, pictures.

    nightjar Says:

    I don’t really understand all the Clift bashing on this thread. I watch Mclaughlin group every Friday night, and she has been nothing but fair to Obama, even though she is a Clinton supporter. Not every Clinton supporter has gone over the edge.

    I never said that Clift was unfair to Obama. But she is more than a Clinton supporter, she is Clinton loyalist who has always been in the Clinton camp, and always pushes their messages into the media. The rest of the McLaughlin panel is no better.

    I noticed a few years ago that Clift’s “opinion” or “speculation” about the Clinton White House would later end up on the pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times as policy positions attributed to “high level sources” or “people close to the First Lady’s Office.”

    And in looking over Clift’s Wikipedia entry, I found this little nugget:

    During the Clinton Administration, she was kiddingly referred to as Eleanor “Rodham” Clift or Eleanor “Rodham Clifton,” because of her fierce defense of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton.

    I don’t care about the ideological bias of any journalist or pundit. What I object to is that every Washington insider knows who is on who’s political team, but there is “no truth in lending law” when it comes to letting viewers know who is willing to shill for which politician.

    Eleanor Clift is hardly the worst example of this. Former Times reporter Judith Miller pretended that she was standing up for the First Amendment when she relied upon the New York Times to defend her against contempt charges, but she was also trying to downplay the degree to which she used the Times in order to push the Bush Administration’s phony spin on Iraq’s WMDs, and the degree to which she would uncritically parrot info she got from Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby.

    The tendency of the worst pundits to curry favor and to lie about their political loyalties is why I said that Clift’s column was probably a reliable indicator of what is going on within the Clinton camp. Unfortunately, her loyalties also make her unreliable as an honest commentator on political events.

  111. 111
    reid says:

    After watching this weekend’s McLaughlin Group, I have to say I thought Eleanor and Clarence Page did a decent job of presenting Obama’s point of view. Especially in contrast to the Hillary-love from Buchanan, Crowley, and most annoyingly, McLaughlin. If I hadn’t read about Eleanor’s ties to the Clintons, I wouldn’t have guessed she was anything but a progressive. So good for her, able to appear somewhat objective!

Comments are closed.