Money Well Spent, Dalton!

Just heard this on Hardball with Tweety. You remember this story:

Everyone who knows 11-year-old Dalton Hatfield sees it. There’s something special about the young man. His mother Vickie says all who come in contact with the Kentucky elementary student look at him and say “He’s going to be something” when he grows up.

Apparently that goes for former presidents, too.

When Hatfield presented former President Bill Clinton with a check for $440 after Friday’s rally at the Williamson Fire Station, the man who was once the leader of the free world seemed to nearly come to tears.

“You sold your bike to get this?” Clinton asked the McAndrews, Ky. native.

The reply was “yes” and a whole lot more.

Hatfield feels so strongly that Hillary Clinton should be the next president he not only sold his bicycle, but video games and anything else he could find that “I could make money with” to donate to the former first lady’s bid for the Democratic nomination.

A charming story. This guy thanks you:

According to the FEC reports, close to $3 million ($2,963,802.00, exactly) of the $22 million raised last month by Hillary went to Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. LLC.

Hillary Clinton, always looking out for the little guy.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

116 replies
  1. 1
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Hillary owes the kid a new gaming console, some games (but DON’T let Hillary choose them!) and a new bike.

    Taking money from adults who should know better is fine with me, but not children. That is not right in my book. I would have replaced his items and profusely thanked him for his support. If Hillary had done so she could have scored some serious points.

    But like everything else about the Clinton campaign, they are days late and dollars short.

  2. 2
    nightjar says:

    BREAKING NEWS

    A UFO has been detected in the wake of the MIGHTY MUP.

  3. 3
    Delia says:

    This whole shtick politicians play with heartwarming stories about the little people who matter has just jumped the shark.

  4. 4
    Ted says:

    I Can No Longer Rationally Discuss The Clinton Campaign

    I really do love that tag. It simplifies the task of rummaging through Cole’s Hillary rants for future nostalgic enjoyment.

  5. 5
    dwightkschrute says:

    Does anyone know why this would be…If you look at Hillary’s contributions by state she received 7,709,576.28 from District of Columbia this month. Going back and checking previous months shows that, by state, DC is always far and away her biggest contributer with millions each month.

    At first I thought maybe her campaign headquarters were there, so money without a state listed would be from there but a. there already is a “no state listed” column and b. she moved her campaign headquarters from DC to Arlington, VA last year.

    Looking specifically at the Obama donations month by month he never even breaks a million from DC. And, while he consistently gets big money from large states, there’s not one state that’s an outlier each month.

    It can’t be her loans, they said the numbers didn’t include her loan and the state figures add up to the $22 mil. So if individual contribution limits are $2,300 and DC’s population is somewhere around 590,000, how can it be that this month, as well as the past 3 she keeps bringing in millions upon millions of contributions from the DC area?

    I know this is ripe for snark, but I’m really curious as to how this is. There has to be a reason, these are public numbers so I doubt I unearthed something scandalous. I’m just confused as to how this could be.

  6. 6
    Zifnab says:

    This whole shtick politicians play with heartwarming stories about the little people who matter has just jumped the shark.

    The Clintons are no longer a political family. They are now some sort of freaky religious cult. Give up your video games, your bikes, your lunch money… all for the great and glorious Clintons.

    CLIN-TON HUN-GRY!

  7. 7
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Shoulda just given that fat fucker the bicycle.

  8. 8
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    OT:

    Just heard on Hardball that McCain has rejected Hagee’s endorsement.

    Get the popcorn ready, this is going to get interesting.

  9. 9
    El Cid says:

    Look, you’re talking about the man who gave us the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, and the Zimbabwean independent opposition, so I think he deserves his measly $3 Million.

    Plus there’s a lot of work to be done with those Colombian ex-im firms.

  10. 10
    Krista says:

    This is a very interesting viewpoint on things.

  11. 11
    PeterJ says:

    In an earlier thread someone linked to this article about the Obama campaign returning contributions if they find out that the contributor is too young.

    I guess white hard working people like Clinton really can’t say no to money, but elitists like Obama can.

    BTW, did Clinton ask the kid if he would be ok selling a kidney? They probably would have gotten a lot more than $440 for it. Missed opportunity.

    Also I hear that the Clinton campaign is setting up a organistation so that kids can collect money for them, I believe they named it Fagin(tm).

  12. 12
    Helena Montana says:

    Conservatively Liberal Says:

    OT:

    Just heard on Hardball that McCain has rejected Hagee’s endorsement.

    Get the popcorn ready, this is going to get interesting.

    Rod Parsley next.

  13. 13
    PeterJ says:

    Just heard on Hardball that McCain has rejected Hagee’s endorsement.

    Get the popcorn ready, this is going to get interesting.

    A lot of evangelicals will be pissed of because he rejected Hagee.
    Catholics should ask why McCain didn’t reject Hagee when he found out that Hagee had called the catholic church the great whore.

    To complete this fuck up, McCain should pick a mormon for VP. Go Romney!

  14. 14
    cleek says:

    Just heard on Hardball that McCain has rejected Hagee’s endorsement.

    Bill Kristol is still his foreign policy advisor.

  15. 15
    Ted says:

    Just heard on Hardball that McCain has rejected Hagee’s endorsement.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if Hagee now pulled a Wright and got behind a podium to fire back at McCain?

  16. 16
    libarbarian says:

    Step 1. Go in with supreme confidence and without a plan B

    Step 2. Ignore the growing strength of the opposition until its almost critical.

    Step 3. Flail around randomly trying everything hoping to find a tactic that will reverse the horrible situation you are now in.

    Step 4. Absolutely refuse to bail-out regardless of the circumstances. Instead, use the chaos you created to hurt your opponents as much as possible.

    Bush & Iraq – or – Hillary & 2008 Primary?

  17. 17
    Pooh says:

    Shoulda just given that fat fucker the bicycle.

    Winnar.

  18. 18
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Taking money from adults who should know better is fine with me, but not children. That is not right in my book. I would have replaced his items and profusely thanked him for his support. If Hillary had done so she could have scored some serious points.

    Can’t let the kid’s parent and the kid off the hook. The parents are negligent and the kid is clearly the biggest dork on the planet.

  19. 19
    Warren Terra says:

    Does anyone know why this would be…If you look at Hillary’s contributions by state she received 7,709,576.28 from District of Columbia this month.

    Thi came up over at the GOS. As I understand the more authoritative-sounding responses:
    1) Donations under $200 are not subject to detailed reporting requirements, so the campaigns hold on to those people’s contact information and do not disclose each donation separately.
    2) The donations in this category are instead pooled and declared as one massive donation in the month, from one address of convenience, probably the campaign’s offices or some such.
    3) Clinton’s enormous D.C. fundraising reflects this one reported enormous single “donation”.
    4) Other campaigns, including Obama’s, handle the reporting of their small donations similarly, with the once-in-a-month enormous single “donation” from a convenient address.
    .

  20. 20
    libarbarian says:

    Shoulda just given that fat fucker the bicycle.

    Just another example of the fat-baiting practiced by Obama supporters. Sexist AND Fatist.

    You fat-head jerk.

  21. 21
    dr. bloor says:

    Krista Says:

    This is a very interesting viewpoint on things.

    From the link:

    But I’d suggest that there are compelling reasons to reach the opposite conclusion. After the 2000 election, she called for the abolition of the electoral college. “I believe strongly,” she said, “that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people.” She argued then that “the total votes cast for a person running for president in our country should
    determine the outcome.” Sound familiar?

    Of course, as you point out, that’s not what she or her supporters were arguing when the convoluted rules of the nominating system seemed likely to deliver her the nomination. And that, I think, is where she lost her bearings. She and her aides decided not to rock the boat. Instead of using their clout to fix the problems with the system, thereby alienating voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, she and her surrogates mouthed the same platitudes we hear every four years about the unique role played by early states and the lovable quirks of the caucuses. But when the rules she had always disliked started to work against her, she lashed out with righteous indignation.

    My first two reactions were (a) she’s never demonstrated the capacity to believe in anything but her own ambitions before, so why should we believe this is some principled crusade for her; and (b) if she really does believe in it but cast her convictions aside for the sake of political expediency early on in the primary season, she has no case to argue now.

  22. 22
    Brachiator says:

    Krista Says:

    This is a very interesting viewpoint on things.

    This is one of the nuttiest things that I have read during this increasingly deranged primary campaign. For example:

    I think Hillary is genuinely convinced that this election has been a travesty. That elections ought to be about who wins the most votes, full stop. Never mind the innumerable problems with applying that argument to the contests this cycle; it’s what she believes. And it’s of a piece with a set of grievances that she and her surrogates have voiced: that the media has treated her too harshly, that her candidacy has been hobbled by sexism, and that her opponent has enjoyed unfair advantages. Each of these complaints springs from a common premise – Hillary could not have lost a fair fight for the nomination.

    Silly me, I thought that her candidacy was hobbled by Clinton’s demonstrated incompetence, along with her arrogance, duplicity and intransigence.

    And what is a bizarre parody of everything that one would think that a feminist would believe is this consistent theme among the most frenzied Clinton maenads that the primary process that everyone, including the Clintons, agreed to is inherently flawed precisely because it has not produced the outcome that Hillary assumed that it would, and that Senator Clinton is owed a do-over until she gets that shiny crown that will formally signify that she is indeed the Sun Queen.

  23. 23
    Studly Pantload says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if Hagee now pulled a Wright and got behind a podium to fire back at McCain?

    Alas, Hagee has sort of rejected and denounced his own endorsement of McCain by withdrawing it.

    Oh, well, I’m sure McCain will have plenty of other loonies crawling out from under rocks to endorse him.

  24. 24

    I couldn’t seem to find it anywhere (when I did a quick search) but I was under the impression you had to be 16 years old to contribute to a political campaign.

  25. 25
    John Cole says:

    Rachel Maddow thinks the new Clinton gambit is to just try to keep the FL/MI issue alive in appeals and process long enough to get to the convention. That is why she has done a complete reversal on the issue of Michigan delegates in the last week, and she met with Geller yesterday to launch the lawsuit to seat the Florida delegates in full. She doesn’t care if an agreement happens or they are seated, she just wants to keep things alive until the convention.

    That Hillary, she sure is a selfless fighter!

    In all seriousness, if she pulls that shit, I won’t vote for her. You can call me a hypocrite, flay me alive, dredge up quotes where I said it would be stupid to allow McCain to win, and I simply will not give a fuck.

    Ron Paul 2008!

  26. 26
    jake says:

    Look, if you’re going to tell us touching stories could you NOT spring photos of El Pennis on us? For a second I thought that was supposed to be a picture of the kid.

    Also please notice I am not making Hatfield v. McCoy jokes. You’re welcome.

  27. 27
    Tsulagi says:

    A charming story. This guy thanks you:

    Well, damn, if instead little Dalton had given his money to Obama, these guys could be thanking him. Along with all the other little people that made their $8.4 million check possible. There’s a lesson somewhere in there for little Dalton.

  28. 28
    John Cole says:

    Well, damn, if instead little Dalton had given his money to Obama, these guys could be thanking him. Along with all the other little people that made their $8.4 million check possible. There’s a lesson somewhere in there for little Dalton.

    Psst. These guys are winning.

  29. 29

    In all seriousness, if she pulls that shit, I won’t vote for her. You can call me a hypocrite, flay me alive, dredge up quotes where I said it would be stupid to allow McCain to win, and I simply will not give a fuck.

    If the remaining SD’s don’t see this ploy for what it is–pure selfish meglomania–and put Obama over the top, then the Democrats deserve to lose. Period.

  30. 30
    Studly Pantload says:

    I couldn’t seem to find it anywhere (when I did a quick search) but I was under the impression you had to be 16 years old to contribute to a political campaign.

    Indeed, that’s correct. When you make a presidential campaign donation, you must certify that you are 16 or older and that you are not giving the money on behalf of someone else.

    Quick, somebody get the FEC on this! Heads will roll, I tell you! Heads will roll!

  31. 31
    Zifnab says:

    To complete this fuck up, McCain should pick a mormon for VP. Go Romney!

    Romney’s not a stellar choice because he’s a Mormon. He’s a stellar choice because every time he opens his mouth, the Democrats pick up support. With the words “flip-flop” still branded in the minds of the general electorate, he’s managed to trip over himself on virtually every issue the GOP gives a damn about. The man is a walking miracle and I am truly regretful that he didn’t take the Republican nomination to begin with.

    At the very least, it would be funny to watch the wingnut blog’o’sphere pick up and switch positions every three weeks to keep up with their anointed Messiah.

  32. 32
    Tsulagi says:

    Psst. These guys are winning.

    LOL. So the lesson for little Dalton is you get what you pay for?

  33. 33
    El Doh says:

    If the remaining SD’s don’t see this ploy for what it is—pure selfish meglomania—and put Obama over the top, then the Democrats deserve to lose. Period.

    Unfortunately, I fear a lot of the remaining SDs are spineless jellyfish who are terrified of the Boogie-Clintons. They may well sit the convention out in any state that isn’t Colorado.

  34. 34
    nightjar says:

    Ron Paul 2008!

    In such a situation, I’d vote for crazy Ralph. We’d all be driving Hugo’s and eating recycled Arugula and washing it down with freshly treated sewer water. How bad can all that be?

  35. 35

    Silly me, I thought that her candidacy was hobbled by Clinton’s demonstrated incompetence, along with her arrogance, duplicity and intransigence.

    It was hobbled by the twin millstones of sexism and it’s resultant excess of votes. By being subjected to the sexism, she was unable to parlay the win in popular votes into a nomination. That’s what makes the sexism so insidious, so hard to deal with: It fools you into thinking you are winning.

  36. 36
    PeterJ says:

    Well, damn, if instead little Dalton had given his money to Obama, these guys could be thanking him. Along with all the other little people that made their $8.4 million check possible. There’s a lesson somewhere in there for little Dalton.

    As has been pointed out before, the Obama campaign won’t accept money from kids.

    —-

    I couldn’t seem to find it anywhere (when I did a quick search) but I was under the impression you had to be 16 years old to contribute to a political campaign.

    From the same article:

    Congress tried to outlaw political contributions from those under age 18 as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, but the Supreme Court struck down that provision as an infringement on the constitutional rights of minors. With that ruling in mind, the Federal Election Commission wrote new regulations two years ago that tried to balance what it considered a legitimate desire among some children to make political contributions against the possibility that parents would seek to pad their donations by funneling money through children.

    The regulations established a three-step test to determine whether a contribution is acceptable: It must be made with the child’s money, the parent cannot reimburse the child for making the donation and the contribution has to be knowing and voluntary.

    That last part of the test is the one that would seem to rule out a 2-year-old, said Michael E. Toner, a former FEC chairman who helped draft the rules. “If they are 16 or 17, they’re clearly old enough to know what they’re doing, as compared to someone who is, say, 10 years old. . . . I don’t know any 2-year-old who is capable of making that kind of decision.”

  37. 37
    Studly Pantload says:

    We’d all be driving Hugo’s and eating recycled Arugula and washing it down with freshly treated sewer water.

    Inquiring Pantloads want to know: What, precisely, of Hugo’s would we be driving? And would this be some sort of national car-share program, only, with one car?

    Well, it’d still beat where we’d be if McCain got in…

  38. 38
    PeterJ says:

    As has been pointed out before, the Obama campaign won’t accept money from kids.

    Since you don’t have give your age to contribute, I should probably have written that the campaign returns money if they find out that it’s from a kid.
    So Dalton Hatfield’s contribution would have been returned as soon as they found out that he was only 11. But Clinton kept his money. Since they only got like $90? million of their own money left…

  39. 39
    Genine says:

    Krista Says:

    This is a very interesting viewpoint on things.

    That viewpoint makes sense. I’ve always said that Clinton probably have good underlying intentions, but her ambition is blinding her and twisting reality for her.

    And, that attitude mentioned in the post is very consistent with Cognitive Dissonance. We all have cognitive dissonance, but some try to be aware of it and work around it. (If possible)

    Cognitive dissonance is what allows feminists to become sexists, minorities to become racists, and Clinton to think of herself as some underdog victim and Obama as some establishment elite.

    My favorite book on cognitive dissonance is “Mistakes were made (but not by me)”. The review on Amazon is pretty good, but some people complained that the authors only pointed out examples of conservatives and skipped over the “liberals”. At the time, I thought it was appropriate.

    But not anymore.

  40. 40
    D-Chance. says:

    John Cole Says:
    Ron Paul 2008!

    FINALLY! Some common sense around here!

  41. 41
    John Cole says:

    My favorite book on cognitive dissonance is “Mistakes were made (but not by me)”.

    Just read the 1957 Festinger text on cognitive dissonance and you pretty much have everything you need to know about it. As far as theories go, it is more of an “AHA” theory. As in, “AHA! That makes sense,” but it has spawned very little useful research.

  42. 42
    dr. bloor says:

    John Cole Says:

    Rachel Maddow thinks the new Clinton gambit is to just try to keep the FL/MI issue alive in appeals and process long enough to get to the convention. That is why she has done a complete reversal on the issue of Michigan delegates in the last week, and she met with Geller yesterday to launch the lawsuit to seat the Florida delegates in full. She doesn’t care if an agreement happens or they are seated, she just wants to keep things alive until the convention.

    Does she have any legal standing if the DNC and MI/FL arrive at an agreement on 5/31? This is essentially a matter between the state parties and the national party, and if neither of the states has a grievance, I don’t see how a lawsuit would go anywhere.

  43. 43
    Adam says:

    Psst. These guys are winning.

    John, I know you’re new to the party and all, but that’s not what we teach young Democrats. We try not to get their hopes up. Look what it did to the Clinton campaign.

  44. 44
    nightjar says:

    Inquiring Pantloads want to know: What, precisely, of Hugo’s would we be driving? And would this be some sort of national car-share program, only, with one car?

    Well, my leaky brain told me there is such a car of small size and price, however upon googling it I can find no such car called Hugo. However, I believe this would do just dandy for high MPG traveling.

  45. 45
    Adam says:

    Also, has anyone considered that maybe the reason Penn didn’t get booted from Clinton’s campaign after that Columbia nonsense (or earlier) is because of the money owed him? My understanding was that they’ve frequently been behind in their debts to his firm. If they treat him badly, he could show up at their door with a huge bill and the weight of the FEC behind him — the law seems to require them to pay him personally.

  46. 46
    PeterJ says:

    Romney’s not a stellar choice because he’s a Mormon. He’s a stellar choice because every time he opens his mouth, the Democrats pick up support. With the words “flip-flop” still branded in the minds of the general electorate, he’s managed to trip over himself on virtually every issue the GOP gives a damn about. The man is a walking miracle and I am truly regretful that he didn’t take the Republican nomination to begin with.

    Ok, my point was that picking a mormon would further infuriate a lot of evangelicals who see the mormon church as a cult and a false religion.

    This doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with your reasons why he should pick Romney :)

  47. 47
    El Doh says:

    Does she have any legal standing if the DNC and MI/FL arrive at an agreement on 5/31? This is essentially a matter between the state parties and the national party, and if neither of the states has a grievance, I don’t see how a lawsuit would go anywhere.

    I think this is just grandstanding. My understanding is the courts have always said “hey, this is between you and your party,” but it helps fuel the aggrieved’s sense of outrage and unfairness, which she needs to take this to the convention. Once more, “the man” will be portrayed as “beating up on a girl”.

    That said, I know nada, zip and zero about the law.

  48. 48
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Ok, my point was that picking a mormon would further infuriate a lot of evangelicals who see the mormon church as a cult and a false religion.

    I think it would be the coolest thing in the world to fuck with evangelicals by making it really hard to figure out which candidate is the antichrist.

  49. 49
    Genine says:

    John Cole Says:

    My favorite book on cognitive dissonance is “Mistakes were made (but not by me)”.

    Just read the 1957 Festinger text on cognitive dissonance and you pretty much have everything you need to know about it. As far as theories go, it is more of an “AHA” theory. As in, “AHA! That makes sense,” but it has spawned very little useful research.

    I would disagree with that. In some books I’ve read, they’ve done some interesting experiments and with some proper examination, could really do a lot of good. But, in order for the information to do a lot of good, there has to be a consciousness shift.

    As it stands right now, to be wrong or make a mistake is seen as a reflection of the person who made it. Often, “What you did/said is wrong” is conflated with “you are wrong” and it is taken personally. As a society, I don’t think we’re at the point of separating the two and so people will go to all sorts of lengths to avoid being seen as making a mistake.

    But, I feel, that is rapidly changing. Thanks, in part, the spectacle of the Bush administration.

  50. 50
    El Doh says:

    I think it would be the coolest thing in the world to fuck with evangelicals by making it really hard to figure out which candidate is the antichrist.

    Not McCain though. He’s like Jesus.

  51. 51
    Brachiator says:

    RampantSexism Says:

    Silly me, I thought that her candidacy was hobbled by Clinton’s demonstrated incompetence, along with her arrogance, duplicity and intransigence.

    It was hobbled by the twin millstones of sexism and it’s resultant excess of votes. By being subjected to the sexism, she was unable to parlay the win in popular votes into a nomination. That’s what makes the sexism so insidious, so hard to deal with: It fools you into thinking you are winning.

    Of course, the most wonderful thing about the nonsense that you spout here is that, like astrology or creationism, it is totally immune to rational analysis. So, for example, although the racist reaction to Obama has been quantified by means of questions asked at exit polls, and any number of projections and predictions have been done to measure the impact of racism on vote totals for Obama, somehow, magically, sexism is so insidious that you can make declarative statements about its impact even though no one, not even the smartest feminist social scientists have ever sought to measure the supposed influence of sexism on the campaign, or been able to demonstrate any measurable impact at all on any primary outcome.

    However, we are supposed to take your word that not only did sexism affect the campaign, but it was absolutely determinative in Senator Clinton’s inability to win the nomination.

  52. 52
    Adam says:

    Does she have any legal standing if the DNC and MI/FL arrive at an agreement on 5/31? This is essentially a matter between the state parties and the national party, and if neither of the states has a grievance, I don’t see how a lawsuit would go anywhere.

    You know, it’s possible that she could sue not to be given the nomination, but to be allowed to spend her general election funds on repaying campaign debts. One plausible outcome of a suit could be that the DNC is allowed to choose its nominee, but that the primary was “unfair” enough that it shouldn’t bar Clinton from accessing her general-election funds. My instinct is that she would definitely have standing in that case.

    I’m convinced that’s her goal at this point, both in the angling against the DNC and for the VP slot — the endpoint in both cases is potentially freeing up that huge general-election warchest she pulled in from her high-dollar donors. We’ve consistently heard reports of how she raised $X million in a month but $Y million of it had to be earmarked for the general. That money shouldn’t have gone anywhere (I mean, assuming they followed the rules in that regard), so after accumulating for all these months I’d bet it’s looking nice right about now.

    (And remember, she can’t ask for more contributions to pay the vendor debts, which are starting to really loom on top of the personal loans she’s already made. The Clintons are pretty wealthy, but she owes a lot right now and FEC rules will stick them with that bill. They don’t get to ask for help.)

  53. 53
    dr. bloor says:

    And, that attitude mentioned in the post is very consistent with Cognitive Dissonance. We all have cognitive dissonance, but some try to be aware of it and work around it. (If possible)

    Cognitive dissonance is what allows feminists to become sexists, minorities to become racists, and Clinton to think of herself as some underdog victim and Obama as some establishment elite.

    This isn’t quite right. The essence of classical cognitive dissonance involves acting against one’s belief system, and then resolving the dissonance by disavowing the importance of the originally held belief. In the example posited by Josh’s correspondent, HRC acted against an authentically held belief that “every vote should count” by agreeing to play ball according to the standard primary system. In classical CD, the resulting conflict would be resolved by dismissing the importance of “every vote counts.”

    Even granting that Hillary genuinely believes in the “every vote counts” idea (and as I noted upthread, I’m not convinced), her backtracking,trashing rules that she agreed to, attributing her defeat to sexism, etc, are more along the lines of classical rationalization, externalization and/or denial. Or sociopathy.

    The book title “Mistakes were made (but not by me)” is textbook externalization, not CD.

  54. 54
    Tim C. says:

    Oh great googily moogily, YOUR THINKING OF YUGOS!!! THE YUGO !!! as the the $4000 dollar car made in Yugoslavia!

    I can’t be the only one who remembers the 80s!

  55. 55
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Oh great googily moogily, YOUR THINKING OF YUGOS THE YUGO as the the $4000 dollar car made in Yugoslavia!

    And that’s more sensical than a car named after Hugo Chavez?

  56. 56
    John Cole says:

    This isn’t quite right. The essence of classical cognitive dissonance involves acting against one’s belief system, and then resolving the dissonance by disavowing the importance of the originally held belief.

    See also, cardiologists who smoke two packs a day.

  57. 57
    Adam says:

    Brachiator, it’s tongue-in-cheek, chill out.

  58. 58
    dr. bloor says:

    See also, cardiologists who smoke two packs a day.

    Funny, that. When I was a kid, I had a congenital heart defect that needed monitoring for several years. The thing I remember most vividly about my doc was that he was puffing on a pipe every time I saw him.

    Kept me around long enough to raise hell, though. Thanks Dr. Manning!

  59. 59
    Adam says:

    …her backtracking,trashing rules that she agreed to, attributing her defeat to sexism, etc, are more along the lines of classical rationalization, externalization and/or denial. Or sociopathy.

    Or — again — it could just be about money.

  60. 60
    The Briscoe Kid says:

    Ugh! Beadle Bamford lives!

  61. 61
    Napoleon says:

    Thi came up over at the GOS. As I understand the more authoritative-sounding responses:
    1) Donations under $200 are not subject to detailed reporting requirements, so the campaigns hold on to those people’s contact information and do not disclose each donation separately.
    2) The donations in this category are instead pooled and declared as one massive donation in the month, from one address of convenience, probably the campaign’s offices or some such.
    3) Clinton’s enormous D.C. fundraising reflects this one reported enormous single “donation”.
    4) Other campaigns, including Obama’s, handle the reporting of their small donations similarly, with the once-in-a-month enormous single “donation” from a convenient address.

    Does this also explain when I saw a day by day total of what HRC took in that the massive number on the last day of the month (around $9M) was really, at least for the part that was an aggregation, were contributions made over the whole month?

  62. 62
    Genine says:

    Good points, Dr. Bloor. I guess my assertions were incorrect.

    And, John, I misunderstood what you saying in your earlier comment.

    I guess I’m 0 for 0 on that one. lol

  63. 63
    nightjar says:

    Tim C. Says:

    Oh great googily moogily, YOUR THINKING OF YUGOS THE YUGO as the the $4000 dollar car made in Yugoslavia!

    Well shit, I was close. But being an Elitist from eastern Kentucky we’d not be caught dead in a former commie countries car.

    Oh, and Don’t Eat the Yellow Snow

  64. 64
    dr. bloor says:

    Or—again—it could just be about money.

    Psychoanalysis has never had any use for Occam’s razor.

  65. 65
    John Cole says:

    And I do not know where this lies as far as psychological condition, but what her behavior most reminds me of is my sister at the height of her heroin addiction. That is what her campaign looks like to me.

    Her campaign has sold the car, sold the tv, pawned the ring she got from grandma when she was 11, doesn’t have a job and still has a big itch to scratch. She just wants that fix, and she has already borrowed a bunch of money from her closest friends, stolen from many of her old friends, and mom and dad won’t let her in the house because the last time they did she tried to steal the silverware. But she still has that itch to scratch, and it should be hers, and she is owed it, and why don’t you all just see that and why do you hate her and only if you all just give her what she wants this time she will stop.

    And since the pleading, whining, yelling, screaming, and threats have not worked, now she is considering robbery.

  66. 66
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    And I do not know where this lies as far as psychological condition, but what her behavior most reminds me of is my sister at the height of her heroin addiction. That is what her campaign looks like to me.

    Her campaign has sold the car, sold the tv, pawned the ring she got from grandma when she was 11, doesn’t have a job and still has a big itch to scratch. She just wants that fix, and she has already borrowed a bunch of money from her closest friends, stolen from many of her old friends, and mom and dad won’t let her in the house because the last time they did she tried to steal the silverware. But she still has that itch to scratch, and it should be hers, and she is owed it, and why don’t you all just see that and why do you hate her and only if you all just give her what she wants this time she will stop.

    And since the pleading, whining, yelling, screaming, and threats have not worked, now she is considering robbery.

    Jesus John. That is like one simile too far.

  67. 67
    Adam says:

    Also, the money explanation’s not exclusive with many of the other explanations. My understanding is that Hillary was (justifiably) pissed when she found out in January that the campaign was broke and had to make that first $5M loan. If I’d gotten yanked around to the tune of $10M-$30M, I’d be pissed at the DNC over the FL/MI thing too, wealthy or not, even if it wasn’t entirely their fault.

    Seen in that light, it’s really not tough to see how she might be taking this kind of personally. From her perspective, she’s gone from the presumptive nominee to the party pariah in less than 6 months, and during that time she’s been let down by pretty much everybody around her.

    Think about it. Doyle was responsible for the original funding shortfall. Ickes voted to strip the MI/FL delegates in the first place. Wolfson can’t keep a story straight for more than a week. Penn wasn’t just incompetent at running the campaign, he couldn’t even keep his lobbying responsibilities straight. Her advisors ran a losing campaign that burned through what should have been a bottomless warchest, and then they burned through some more and she’s stuck with the bill.

    Meanwhile, this one-term 46-year-old Senator is swimming in cash, and he knocks back every attack pretty effortlessly — they can’t make anything stick — and he constantly pushes her buttons. (I mean, I like Obama, but he does — he did it to her constantly and he’s doing it to McCain right now. It’s just how he works. He smiles while he’s doing it, but he messes with people.)

    It’s not surprising she’s pissed. I might not agree, but the point is that the explanation for how she’s acting doesn’t have to be that she’s crazy. She kind of got a raw deal and for the most part it wasn’t her fault — and this isn’t the first time it’s happened to her, either.

  68. 68
    Warren Terra says:

    Does this also explain when I saw a day by day total of what HRC took in that the massive number on the last day of the month (around $9M) was really, at least for the part that was an aggregation, were contributions made over the whole month?

    This is indeed my understanding.

    Note also that these April numbers include the one day after Pennsylvania voted. At that time, the Clinton campaign announced that they were “on track” to raise $10M in 24 hours, and later claimed that they had indeed done so. The itemized donations for that time period don’t even come close (you can find a half-dozen DKos diaries on this, but it was maybe a couple million), so to justify their claims, something like 80% of their non-itemized donations would have had to come in during those 24 hours.

    If you believe that’s what actually happened, I’ve got a bicycle and some video games I’d like to sell you, slightly used.

  69. 69
    Genine says:

    But she still has that itch to scratch, and it should be hers, and she is owed it, and why don’t you all just see that and why do you hate her and only if you all just give her what she wants this time she will stop.

    I think its just a sad situation all around. Aside from the occasional flare-up, I don’t even get angry about it anymore. It’s just really pathetic at this point.

  70. 70

    However, we are supposed to take your word that not only did sexism affect the campaign, but it was absolutely determinative in Senator Clinton’s inability to win the nomination.

    Sir, it is her word we are taking, not mine. She states correctly that sexism damaged her, and states correctly that she got more votes. Obviously, if she had been free of the sexism and able to focus on the votes, she would be the nominee by now. I think most people would agree that this is obvious.

  71. 71
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Think about it. Doyle was responsible for the original funding shortfall. Ickes voted to strip the MI/FL delegates in the first place. Wolfson can’t keep a story straight for more than a week. Penn wasn’t just incompetent at running the campaign, he couldn’t even keep his lobbying responsibilities straight. Her advisors ran a losing campaign that burned through what should have been a bottomless warchest, and then they burned through some more and she’s stuck with the bill.

    Where can I get a “HRC: It’s The Rest Of The World That’s All Fucked Up” bumper sticker?

    If I was Ickes, I’d be pissed HRC didn’t know how proportional delegate allocation worked. If I was Doyle, I’d be pissed the Clintons surrounded themselves with a bunch of high-paid corporate sycophants. If I was Penn, I’d be pissed HRC sounds like a teen boy reciting his first public speaking piece. If I was Wolfson, I’d be pissed Bill can’t stay on message for more than five minutes at a time.

    They all deserve each other.

  72. 72
    nightjar says:

    I think its just a sad situation all around. Aside from the occasional flare-up, I don’t even get angry about it anymore. It’s just really pathetic at this point.

    That pretty much says it for me too. John”s on a roll though with a new HRC thread. By tommorow, he should have it out of his system, at least for a couple of days.

  73. 73
    El Doh says:

    That is why she has done a complete reversal on the issue of Michigan delegates in the last week, and she met with Geller yesterday to launch the lawsuit to seat the Florida delegates in full.

    Wow. I just realised who Geller is. Talk about shameless.

  74. 74
    TR says:

    They all deserve each other.

    Agreed. If only we could get them into a Mexican standoff.

    I bet if we tell them it would sway a Latino superdelegate, they’d go for it.

  75. 75
    Napoleon says:

    If you believe that’s what actually happened, I’ve got a bicycle and some video games I’d like to sell you, slightly used.

    I don’t either, but that is why I asked to see if that was a possible.

  76. 76
    CT says:

    Adam-I’m curious to hear examples of what you see as Obama pushing her buttons. Well, having typed that, I CAN think of one good one-how he never mentions Bill when he’s rattling off some examples of good presidential leadership. I know tactically, he can’t talk up Bill when he’s running against his annointed sucessor, but it also has the effect of pissing off both Clintons.

  77. 77
    PeterJ says:

    It’s not surprising she’s pissed. I might not agree, but the point is that the explanation for how she’s acting doesn’t have to be that she’s crazy. She kind of got a raw deal and for the most part it wasn’t her fault—and this isn’t the first time it’s happened to her, either.

    She stayed with Bill despite him cheating on her numerous times, and all the public humiliation that followed.
    Maybe she stayed because she wanted what she’s now being denied.
    If so, then she won’t give up easy, she will fight as long and as hard as she can.

  78. 78
    Cain says:

    John, she’s better now, right? (and hopefully Clinton will recover too)

    cain

  79. 79
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    She stayed with Bill despite him cheating on her numerous times, and all the public humiliation that followed.
    Maybe she stayed because she wanted what she’s now being denied.
    If so, then she won’t give up easy, she will fight as long and as hard as she can.

    IOW, it’s too late to appeal to her self-respect?

  80. 80
    Adam says:

    Where can I get a “HRC: It’s The Rest Of The World That’s All Fucked Up” bumper sticker?

    Well, yeah, that’s been kind of their MO all along, based on the many, many reports of the situation in Hillaryland — it’s everyone else’s fault, inside and outside the campaign. All signs have pointed to the fact that her advisors hated each other.

    The Clinton campaign just didn’t execute. The big difference between the campaigns is that Obama generally didn’t pass the buck (e.g. he was pissed after they spent record money on Ohio and Texas but he kept people in line) and she did (e.g. dragged her feet on replacing Doyle and Penn). That was 90% of the difference.

    Heck, I’m not even sure that any of them is entirely to blame — they had all the advantages, but they just didn’t do anything special and they got beat by a really well-run campaign. But that’s a pretty tough admission for anyone to make — especially now — so they have to be able to point to someone or something that screwed them over. Seems perfectly human to me. Disappointing, and currently pretty self-centered, but all too human.

  81. 81
    Dan says:

    Give me what I want and I’ll go away.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  82. 82
    Adam says:

    Adam-I’m curious to hear examples of what you see as Obama pushing her buttons. Well, having typed that, I CAN think of one good one-how he never mentions Bill when he’s rattling off some examples of good presidential leadership. I know tactically, he can’t talk up Bill when he’s running against his annointed sucessor, but it also has the effect of pissing off both Clintons.

    In the debate when talking about his Reagan remarks, when she said, “I didn’t say that, my husband did,” and he replied, “Well, OK, I don’t know who I’m arguing with sometimes.”

    Also, in the debate where the moderator asked him how he would cut with the Clinton years despite having Clinton advisors, she said “I’m looking forward to that,” and he replied, “Well Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well.”

    Those two come to mind right away. The Annie Oakley comment, too.

  83. 83
    El Doh says:

    Give me what I want and I’ll go away.

    Hillary’s way scarier than anything Steven King ever wrote.

  84. 84
    Dan says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    Give me what I want and I’ll go away!

  85. 85
    Helena Montana says:

    Wow. I just realised who Geller is. Talk about shameless.

    Geller is a bipedal bag of Hillary-enabling pus.

  86. 86
    Adam says:

    In general, there were a number of times in the debates when he was poking fun at her and getting laughs and she was obviously getting really mad but couldn’t land a solid punch in response without looking mean.

    He also head-faked her really bad at the end of last year when he made some slight suggestion about going negative — she responded with “now the fun begins,” looked foolish, and then he never even took a shot at her, he just counterpunched against all the “Obama wanted to be President in kindergarten” stuff.

    She really went for it hook, line, and sinker, and that’s more or less what catapulted him into the spotlight before Iowa. Seriously, if you go back and read the news reports it was pretty obvious in retrospect what he was up to.

  87. 87
    KRK says:

    Adam Says:

    You know, it’s possible that she could sue not to be given the nomination, but to be allowed to spend her general election funds on repaying campaign debts. One plausible outcome of a suit could be that the DNC is allowed to choose its nominee, but that the primary was “unfair” enough that it shouldn’t bar Clinton from accessing her general-election funds. My instinct is that she would definitely have standing in that case.

    Her case about the general election funds would be against the FEC, not the DNC, right? Which means whether or not the primary was “fair” becomes irrelevant. If she didn’t win the nomination (as determined by the party), she’s not the nominee and the FEC doesn’t have to (or simply cannot) excuse her from the campaign finance rules.

    She might have standing, but she wouldn’t have a case.

  88. 88
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    And I do not know where this lies as far as psychological condition, but what her behavior most reminds me of is my sister at the height of her heroin addiction.

    I am sorry to hear about this John, and I know a bit about how this hurts. My oldest brother had a coke and heroin problem and it not only ruined his health (physical & mental), but it also ruined his life. None of the other five kids or myself have heard from our brother in over 15 years now, but friends of his have kept us apprised of his situation.

    He refuses to talk to anyone in the family because we collectively took his ass to the woodshed after overdosing twice (once while in bed and his wife was sleeping, and she woke up to him passed out next to her, the needle still in his arm and blood all over the place). He refused to see that he had a problem (according to him it was a ‘medication’ problem, not overdosing), and he got so pissed that he refused to answer his door and return our calls or letters.

    Right now he is gone to us, and I don’t know if we will ever get him back. I grew up looking up to my brother, and it has been devastating to see what has happened to him. I stopped by his home (he lives with his wife in the house her mom left them) and they refused to answer the door. I left a small note asking him to call, but that is all I could do.

    I hope your sister is doing better than my brother, and I wish you and your family the best.

  89. 89
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    It’s not about winning or being President or getting her money back. She just wants to help people. She can help.

  90. 90
    SamFromUtah says:

    Romney’s not a stellar choice because he’s a Mormon….

    I agree with your reasoning, but there’s a damn fine reason from McSame’s point of view to pick Romney: If he did, Utah would vote 99% Republican. Of course, it would go 99% Republican anyway, but the turnout would be higher.

    Well, maybe that’s not such a good reason.

  91. 91
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    I agree with your reasoning, but there’s a damn fine reason from McSame’s point of view to pick Romney: If he did, Utah would vote 99% Republican. Of course, it would go 99% Republican anyway, but the turnout would be higher.

    Well, maybe that’s not such a good reason.

    LMAO!

  92. 92
    KRK says:

    Adam Says:

    In general, there were a number of times in the debates when he was poking fun at her and getting laughs and she was obviously getting really mad but couldn’t land a solid punch in response without looking mean.

    ***

    Seriously, if you go back and read the news reports it was pretty obvious in retrospect what he was up to.

    I love this about Obama’s political skills. It has been a treat seeing him start to turn this on McCain. Given the early indications, it seems a serious possibility that McCain’s head may explode before November.

  93. 93
    Delia says:

    She stayed with Bill despite him cheating on her numerous times, and all the public humiliation that followed.
    Maybe she stayed because she wanted what she’s now being denied.
    If so, then she won’t give up easy, she will fight as long and as hard as she can.

    Yeah, I think this is getting close to the bone. Bill was supposed to make sure she got her turn to make up for all the shit she had to put up with. And now we’ve all got to.

    Isn’t there a country-western song about this whole sorry situation? There’s one for everything else.

  94. 94
    Xenos says:

    I think this is just grandstanding. My understanding is the courts have always said “hey, this is between you and your party,” but it helps fuel the aggrieved’s sense of outrage and unfairness, which she needs to take this to the convention. Once more, “the man” will be portrayed as “beating up on a girl”.

    You are absolutely right about the law, here. The term for it is ‘justiciability’ – this is not a dispute subject to a decision by the court: nobody has standing here. What is more, even if the dispute were justiciable, it would not be ripe until the final administrative remedy were exhausted, which would not be until the final committee hearing on the first day of the convention in August.

    The DNC should counterclaim with rule 11 (frivolous, bad-faith suit), get the plaintiff’s lawyers sanctioned, and make the plaintiffs pay the DNC’s legal fees.

  95. 95
    Joyce says:

    Isn’t it illegal to take campaign contributions from a minor child?

  96. 96
    Adam says:

    You are absolutely right about the law, here. The term for it is ‘justiciability’ – this is not a dispute subject to a decision by the court: nobody has standing here.

    I imagine that the suit would be premised on the argument that the DNC violated its own rules of fairness. It’s not a great argument, but I wouldn’t call it frivolous.

    What is more, even if the dispute were justiciable, it would not be ripe until the final administrative remedy were exhausted, which would not be until the final committee hearing on the first day of the convention in August.

    Hmm, the DNC isn’t an administrative agency, so it doesn’t seem to me that’s correct. I’m not certain when the issue is ripe for adjudication, but since the DNC’s just a private party, their internal procedures shouldn’t be the relevant administrative proceeding to consider for ripeness purposes.

    The hypothetical suit, I’d think, would rather be against the FEC for a declaratory judgment that Clinton should have been allowed to run in the general election (or rather that the DNC unrightfully impeded her in the primary), and that thus the FEC shouldn’t be able to prevent her from spending her general election funds as she sees fit. She’s probably got an argument for injury-in-fact even right now.

    If successful, she could of course use those funds to participate in the general election, but I’m correct then she’d be more interested in using them to pay off her debts at that point.

    Regardless, I see no reason why she couldn’t try for a declaratory judgment or even for an administrative ruling by the FEC. If the main issue is whether she has to personally pay back the debts she owes, which is a matter of FEC jurisdiction, the justiciable issue is not directly between her and the DNC.

  97. 97
    Jess says:

    I’m curious to hear examples of what you see as Obama pushing her buttons.

    I’ve also noticed his subtly exaggerated chivalry towards her at times, which is just slightly tinged with a patronizing indulgence that makes her look gauche and OTT when she’s trying to be feisty and tough. I had a Spanish boyfriend who used to do that to me–drove me bonkers and constantly threw me off balance. It often does have a sexist aspect (as in the case of my Spanish ex), but plenty of women play the same game with men to slap them down, so I think ultimately it’s an equal opportunity manipulation that Obama just does way better than her. I wonder how it’ll play against McCain.

  98. 98
    Bey says:

    I wonder how it’ll play against McCain.

    Pretty good, if Grampy’s tirade today was any indication. The more Obama can push his buttons, the better the odds that Grampy will have one of his famous temper fits….which will play right into Obama’s hands.

    People are still misunderestimating Obama. Underneath that calm exterior beats the heart of a Chicago politician. He knows how this game is played.

  99. 99
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I have seen times when I just know Obama is annoyed or angered by what is being asked or said by someone trying to put him on the spot to score points. His whole body reacts, but it is very subtle, and I get this feeling that he wants to let rip but instead he focuses on the problem of the moment with a laser-like intensity, then he says something that usually blows me away because it is nothing close to what I was thinking his response would be. No matter how they pitch them at him, he hits them all.

    People can say what they want to Obama, and he just handles it in a calm, cool and collected manner. He has been hit with ‘on the spot’ crap that would have buried almost any politician in the past. I know they called Reagan the ‘Teflon President’, but I am wondering if we are seeing the real thing. I know he has been hurt by some of what has been said, but not to the degree that it would have hurt lesser candidates.

    If so, this has to scare the bejeesus out of the right. Good!

  100. 100
    Bey says:

    I’ve often thought he would be absolutely hell to fight with. I’ll bet that considered, assessing and detached demeanor just drives Michele out of her mind.

    I’d be throwing coffee cups just to get a reaction.

  101. 101
    Brachiator says:

    Adam Says:

    Brachiator, it’s tongue-in-cheek, chill out.

    Sorry.

    Apparently my snark detector got damaged while I was wading through the BS at the TalkingPointsMmemo link.

    Her campaign has sold the car, sold the tv, pawned the ring she got from grandma when she was 11, doesn’t have a job and still has a big itch to scratch. She just wants that fix, and she has already borrowed a bunch of money from her closest friends, stolen from many of her old friends, and mom and dad won’t let her in the house because the last time they did she tried to steal the silverware. But she still has that itch to scratch, and it should be hers, and she is owed it, and why don’t you all just see that and why do you hate her and only if you all just give her what she wants this time she will stop.

    And since the pleading, whining, yelling, screaming, and threats have not worked, now she is considering robbery.

    And her husband is that scuzzy loser whispering in her ear, “Go on babe. Do it. Steal it for … us.”

    Think about it. Doyle was responsible for the original funding shortfall. Ickes voted to strip the MI/FL delegates in the first place. Wolfson can’t keep a story straight for more than a week. Penn wasn’t just incompetent at running the campaign, he couldn’t even keep his lobbying responsibilities straight. Her advisors ran a losing campaign that burned through what should have been a bottomless warchest, and then they burned through some more and she’s stuck with the bill.

    As you know, you go to the primary with the candidate you have. She’s not the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.

    Clinton, not her advisers, is ultimately responsible for her “Mission Accomplished” campaign, which she mistakenly believed would see her declared the nominee by acclamation. She decided to ground her candidacy on an exaggerated resume that is still trying to convince voters that years of watching Bill Clinton govern like a master politician has magically transformed her into the heir presumptive. But having picked up Bill’s worst habits, Hillary also decided that she could look the voters straight in the eye and lie shamelessly and continually. Her stubborn insistence on behaving like the Panderer-in-Chief is still working with her true believers even as the rest of us recoil in horror.

    And while Bill ultimately had to count on his record of actual accomplishment and a reservoir of goodwill to rescue him from his worst excesses, Hillary lacks the political savvy to regroup and behave more honorably, and can only retreat into bitterness, desperately fanning the flames of resentment and entitlement.

  102. 102
    John Petty says:

    Hey, it isn’t Hillary whose going around talking about how she’s got it wrapped up. For “Mission Accomplished,” check out the Obama campaign.

    By the way, how much has the Obama campaign paid Axelrod?

  103. 103
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Conservatively Liberal Says:

    OT:

    Just heard on Hardball that McCain has rejected Hagee’s endorsement.

    Get the popcorn ready, this is going to get interesting.

    Rod Parsley next.

    Your wish…

    Dayum! This is going to get real interesting!

    MORE POPCORN! THAT’S RIGHT, BACK THE TRUCK UP!

  104. 104
    Jess says:

    I’ve often thought he would be absolutely hell to fight with. I’ll bet that considered, assessing and detached demeanor just drives Michele out of her mind.

    I’d be throwing coffee cups just to get a reaction.

    Yeah, but Michele looks pretty tough to me. I bet she just looks at him like she’s about to reach for the frying pan, and he does the sensible thing and backs right off. I know I wouldn’t want to piss her off!

  105. 105
  106. 106

    somehow, magically, sexism is so insidious that you can make declarative statements about its impact even though no one, not even the smartest feminist social scientists have ever sought to measure the supposed influence of sexism on the campaign, or been able to demonstrate any measurable impact at all on any primary outcome.

    However, we are supposed to take your word that not only did sexism affect the campaign, but it was absolutely determinative in Senator Clinton’s inability to win the nomination.

    Sir, it is her word we are taking, not mine. She states correctly that sexism damaged her, and states correctly that she got more votes. Obviously, if she had been free of the sexism and able to focus on the votes, she would be the nominee by now. I think most people would agree that this is obvious.

    Ok, I’m not much good at knowing who a spoof is, but…

    Let me see if I can sort this last assertion out:
    (Sir is a nice touch)
    Hillary says something so it must be true
    Since it must be true the associated assertion of damage must also be true – same reason
    She says she got more votes – true because she says so (in the face of facts)
    Since the votes exist in her imagination and the damage exists in her imagination she is now president of…Mars??
    I don’t know who it obvious to, but we’ve been told it is, so it must be … something

    WTF? a name that links to a UTube of Helen Reddy “I am woman hear me roar”???

    Damn if I wanted to spoof the idiocy of personhole for manhole I’d head in this direction.

    OK Rampant, I’ve got a job offer for you and a ladder that’s 30′ tall and 90# bundles of shingles that need to get up it and a 45 degree roof (12/12) they need get a bit farther up, it’s yours – but they’ve got to get there in their package and intact – all day long. If you can’t do the job is it sexism on my part to not want you? Hillary can’t do the job whatever your excuses for her, the job being getting nominated and she’s a failure.

    Oh yeah, don’t feel bad about the job not coming through, most men couldn’t and even fewer would have anything to do with it. This isn’t to imply that you’re female, just a whiney cry baby with a lot of excuses and jobs like this ain’t for you.

    Before you start some chauvinist pig junk, my wife is one of those real tough ones, that would fall down laughing at you and I pity the poor bastard that condescended to her. We’ve been married quite awhile now and I’m a strong natured ornery son of a gun and it takes a real woman to manage me. I haven’t got a sexist bone in my body.

  107. 107
    indylib says:

    Anybody else think the Rampant Sexism is TZ spoofing?

  108. 108
    PeterJ says:

    By the way, how much has the Obama campaign paid Axelrod?

    Whatever the campaign has paid Axelrod he has earned. Obama is the nominee, Clinton isn’t. And the Obama campaign doesn’t knowingly take money from children.

    But thanks for trying.

  109. 109
    Bey says:

    Yeah, but Michele looks pretty tough to me

    She does indeed. Did you see the Good Morning America interview? After the warning to keep his family out of the fight, Obama segued into a discussion about getting the girls a dog. He was explaining that in a year, after they were settled and the girls had demonstrated the maturity to care for an animal responsibly, etc, etc, etc.

    Michele: “The dog’s a done deal.”

  110. 110

    Regarding that picture of Penn;
    why in god’s name spend $thousands for a suit that’s gonna look like a sack on that body?

  111. 111
    Xenos says:

    Adam-

    I had not thought of Hillary going after the DNC directly with an action under the FEC. This suit is from three voters against the DNC, and while the DNC is clearly not an agency it seemed to me that some sort of correlate to administrative law would make sense to a judge reviewing this.

    There are clear procedures with the DNC for handling this dispute, procedures that Clinton has stated that she will be resorting to. So what is there to sue about? This reality makes the suit filed in Florida, in coordination with Clinton, a transparant act of bad faith. Or just desperation.

    I would add the first time that I heard the argument that not seating the MI/FL delegates was a violation of DNC rules was… yesterday. Damn, it took them a long time to find that violation, considering that some of Clinton’s people helped write those rules.

  112. 112
    Jojo says:

    Step 1. Go in with supreme confidence and without a plan B

    Step 2. Ignore the growing strength of the opposition until its almost critical.

    Step 3. Flail around randomly trying everything hoping to find a tactic that will reverse the horrible situation you are now in.

    Step 4. Absolutely refuse to bail-out regardless of the circumstances. Instead, use the chaos you created to hurt your opponents as much as possible.

    Step 5: Pretend you’ve already solved it in the future

  113. 113
    Adam says:

    I had not thought of Hillary going after the DNC directly with an action under the FEC. This suit is from three voters against the DNC, and while the DNC is clearly not an agency it seemed to me that some sort of correlate to administrative law would make sense to a judge reviewing this.

    Yeah, different suit, though it may be relevant if she can prove that the rules were internally inconsistent. I actually don’t think she has to go after the DNC directly — it works as an indirect action, too:

    There are clear procedures with the DNC for handling this dispute, procedures that Clinton has stated that she will be resorting to. So what is there to sue about? This reality makes the suit filed in Florida, in coordination with Clinton, a transparant act of bad faith. Or just desperation.

    Well… I don’t disagree. My argument is premised on the notion that, at a minimum, she wants to be able to use her (apparently substantial) GE-allocated funds to pay off that $30M+ in debt she’s racked up. ($11M in personal loans, $20M in vendor loans, only $6M cash-on-hand as I understand it… the kicker being that she has to pay all of it personally or get hit with FEC penalties.) My (admittedly conjectural) suspicion is that this is a large part of her concern, because it seems consistent with her current bizarre strategy — getting the VP slot would allow her to use those funds, as would proving that the DNC process was somehow “unfair.”

    I’d think her argument would be simply that she should be able to participate in the general election (or rather, use her funds allocated for the GE). If the FEC says “No, you didn’t win the primary,” she responds, “The primary wasn’t fair. I think I won and I might well have if the DNC hadn’t interceded. The DNC is a separate organization and they’re welcome to their internal determination as to their candidate, but it shouldn’t be binding on me or the FEC. I didn’t [directly] spend that money in the primary, and I lost anyway, so I did abide by the FEC rules and there’s no harm in me spending it now. Let’s just resolve this quietly.”

    That seems like a pretty low-key argument that I could imagine her winning, though admittedly I’m not an expert on campaign finance law.

    I would add the first time that I heard the argument that not seating the MI/FL delegates was a violation of DNC rules was… yesterday. Damn, it took them a long time to find that violation, considering that some of Clinton’s people helped write those rules.

    Well, I could be wrong and she could just be trying to torpedo the DNC and nothing more, but that somehow doesn’t strike me as a very good explanation of her actions. I’ve been arguing the funds angle for a while now, and I’m increasingly convinced that it’s part of her calculus at some level. At the very least she must have thought of it.

    Heck, it could be worse than I’m speculating — she might have dipped into the GE funds already and be concerned about avoiding jail time. Frankly, given her campaign’s apparent inability to control their finances, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Again, though, this is all just one possible explanation.

  114. 114
    truth machine says:

    Apparently my snark detector got damaged while I was wading through the BS at the TalkingPointsMmemo link.

    Her URL’s a clue.

  115. 115
    Yohannon says:

    People can say what they want to Obama, and he just handles it in a calm, cool and collected manner. He has been hit with ‘on the spot’ crap that would have buried almost any politician in the past. I know they called Reagan the ‘Teflon President’, but I am wondering if we are seeing the real thing. I know he has been hurt by some of what has been said, but not to the degree that it would have hurt lesser candidates.

    Conservatively Liberal almost nails it — only I think it’s a higher level than that. Reagan was the teflon president because nothing thrown at him would stick. Obama could be the Force Field President, because nothing could even get CLOSE to hitting him, much less sticking.

  116. 116
    Lauren says:

    My husband and I were cohosts of a $2300/head Obama fundraiser. My 12 year old wanted to donate $20 of his own money. The people from the Obama campaign told me that while it was legal they would not accept money from anyone under 16.

    The Obama campaign was also only collecting donations for the primary cycle of the election, and wouldn’t accept donation for the main election until he is the nominee.

    I guess that mean they’ll ask me for another check soon!

Comments are closed.