So Predictable

Hillary, in the NY Daily News, always the victim:

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was – and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband’s primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy’s, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different – and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year’s primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy’s son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, “I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful – particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for – and everything I am fighting for in this election.

Like I said the other day– “PS- In pure Clintonian fashion, expect her to play the victim tomorrow. Why, she just made an innocuous statement about the election timeline and all these Obama supporters are trying to push the little woman out.”

She is Hillary, she is the victim, and that really is all she has left. She has now turned her stupid and insensitive remarks into a speech why you SHOULD vote for her. Pathetic.

*** Update ***

Heh:

Barack Obama has just retired Hillary Clinton in the top half of the ninth inning of the seventh game of the American League Championship Series.

He’s the home team, and he’s leading 9-7, so he’s already won, not just the game, but also the series.

But Clinton is insisting on taking the field to play out the final meaningless frame. It’s never been done before in the history of baseball, but Obama, being a gentleman, is obliging.

Strangely, the umpires don’t do anything to stop the game from continuing, even though it’s completely under their control.

It gets funnier.

197 replies
  1. 1
    Bucky says:

    Hillary is a victim! Just like all those poor archaeologists that are misrepresented by that evil Indiana Jones!

  2. 2
    MBL says:

    Y’know, if you’d told me in January that I’d hate Hillary Clinton’s guts by June, I would never have believed it.

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    Bob Schieffer calls out Clinton on Face the Nation, for the non-apology apologies. He hammers Wolfson on the question.

    Wolfson: “Some in the news media did overhype this.”

    Wolfson: “Her remarks were not about Senator Obama, there is no reason for her to apologize to him.”

    Schieffer is rarely this pushy, but he isn’t buying the Clinton spin on this. Wolfson says that Clinton will still be the nominee. He states that Obama’s reaction was inappropriate, and that Obama “attacked” Clinton for the remarks.

    Schieffer actually laughed at him.

  4. 4
    Dreggas says:

    Ann Althouse has apologized to Andrew Sullivan for getting upset about him calling Hillary a sociopath

  5. 5
    Elvis Elvisberg says:

    I was very encouraged by Jane Harman’s appearance on CNN this morning. She’s a Clinton supporter, and she had the boilerplate about how she wanted Clinton to win, but she implied that Obama had the race locked up, and that it would be decided after the rules committee meet next weekend.

    We might be seeing the final throes. Harman could be part of the group that plays Goldwater to Clinton’s Nixon.

  6. 6
    Dreggas says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Bob Schieffer calls out Clinton on Face the Nation, for the non-apology apologies. He hammers Wolfson on the question.

    Wolfson: “Some in the news media did overhype this.”

    Wolfson: “Her remarks were not about Senator Obama, there is no reason for her to apologize to him.”

    Schieffer is rarely this pushy, but he isn’t buying the Clinton spin on this. Wolfson says that Clinton will still be the nominee. He states that Obama’s reaction was inappropriate, and that Obama “attacked” Clinton for the remarks.

    Schieffer actually laughed at him.

    damn I missed it. We’ve now moved to the open mocking of her campaign.

  7. 7
    Jake says:

    I think it’s clear she lost all point of reference several months ago. At this point, it will take an intervention to stop her campaign.

    In the meantime, we need more clips from The Big Lebowski.

  8. 8
    ThymeZone says:

    we need more clips from The Big Lebowski.

    Dude!

    You are right, TBL is more true to life than the Clinton campaign at this point. And more serious.

  9. 9
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Y’know, if you’d told me in January that I’d hate Hillary Clinton’s guts Hillary would campaign as if she was Richard Nixon and could be expected to govern like George W Bush, by June, I would never have believed it.

    fixt.

  10. 10
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Wolfson: “Her remarks were not about Senator Obama, there is no reason for her to apologize to him.”

    Just as Bush’s remarks at the Knesset were not about Senator Obama. Both Clinton and Bush were merely drawing historical parallels – nothing to see here, folks, move along.

  11. 11
    Tom says:

    Clinton is right on this one.

  12. 12
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Does this sound like anybody we know in the current contest?

    From Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland, p.161 (talking about the back and forth between Nixon and LBJ in the press immediately prior to the 1966 midterm elections):

    Which was exactly as Richard Nixon intended it: the old jujitsu at work. Johnson saw himself as pouncing on a mistake of Nixon’s. That meant the mark had taken the bait. Johnson presumed the media would amplify his ridicule into one more political obituary of Richard Nixon. Instead he found himself cast as Goliath to Dick Nixon’s David. It went back to old Jerry Voorhis, to the “Pink Lady”, Helen Gahagan Douglas: let them pounce on your “mistake”, then garner pity as you wriggle free by making the enemy look unduly aggressive. Then you inspire a strange sort of protective love among voters whose wounds of resentment grow alongside your performance of being wounded. Your enemies appear to die of their own hand, never of your own. Which makes you stronger.

  13. 13
    Wilfred says:

    The game’s not over till the pants suit splits.

  14. 14
    Jim Henley says:

    “Hillary Clinton” is obviously a hoax John Cole created to drive traffic. It’s way past time for John to do the right thing and admit his role in this farce that got so out of hand. ‘Fess up, John. Even Ben Shapiro eventually got other work. You’ll have a chance to get your life back together.

  15. 15
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Tom Says:

    Clinton is right on this one.

    So how many times does a candidate get a pass when they say something untruthful, stupid, offensive or outrageous? Clinton must be in record territory by now.

  16. 16
    SnarkyShark says:

    Having regained my sanity by hanging with you wonderful people, I decided to see what kind of reaction they were having over at TheLeftCoaster over the RFK gaffe. Sure enough the crazy was on full display. Steve Soto called once again for Hillary to get out, and the shit hit the fan

    Highlights include calls for Steve to banned from his own blog.

    What is unique about that situation is that unlike NQ or H44, Steve doesn’t ban anyone who doesn’t worship the sun-queen. There are enough pro-Obama people on that thread to keep them stirred up on full boil, so you get the full insanity with no pretensions of reasonableness(pretensions enabled by banning).

    If your the kind of person who enjoys a good train-wreck, or if you are interested in how a cult can induce people to drink cyanide, its worth a look.

    The usual precautions apply-atropine and some NBC gear would be helpful.

  17. 17
    cuzco says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago, but I’m sorry, anyone who claims Hillary brought up Bobby Kennedy because she wanted to play the “assassination card” is a either flat out liar or a bag of hammers moron.

    When politicians speak on camera they don’t have the luxury of a team of insta polls and fact checkers to prescreen how every word out of their mouth will play. She made a particularly clumsy verbal gaffe that, because it contained the name Bobby Kennedy, was pounced on by shrill little morons just aching to frame her every motive as evil incarnate.

    Unbelievable.

  18. 18
    Bey says:

    Those boys are so mean! Poor Hillary.

  19. 19
    Fulcanelli says:

    ” He states that Obama’s reaction was inappropriate, and that Obama “attacked” Clinton for the remarks”

    Where? Where did Obama make inappropriate remarks? Every time Annie Clinton shoots another toe off Obama has to go way out of his way to cut her some slack to avoid “sexism” smears and not alienate her followers which he’ll need to win in November, and graciously let her off the hook, and this latest bout of numbskullery was a textbook example..

    Fuckwads like Wolfson on her payroll “catapulting the propaganda” in addition to Abbott and Costello Ickes and Penn steering her “Kon-Tiki” windsock of a campaign are prime examples of her political judgement and of why she’s had her pant-suited ass handed to her. She’s hired the same loss-generation machine who’ve help the Dems lose the last two elections. BTW, Isn’t Penn’s outfit the same one who is running McCain’s campaign?

    I was in her corner at the beginning, although I had my reservations, and if for whatever reason she winds up the nominee I would vote her way vs. McCain, but think for a second how much momentum Obama would have pummeling McCain and the Repubs even at this point if he didn’t have to worry about being fragged every other day by fallout from something stupid Hillary has said.

  20. 20
    Splitting Image says:

    I think it’s about time for Clinton to quote Mahatma Gandhi:

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

    People ignored Clinton for months up until New Hampshire, since the media and everyone else is inherently sexist. Now they’re laughing at her. At the convention they’ll have to fight her. So naturally that means she’ll win.

    Inevitability, folks.

  21. 21
    SnarkyShark says:

    Hmmm…linky no work-

    here it is

  22. 22
    SnarkyShark says:

    She made a particularly clumsy verbal gaffe that, because it contained the name Bobby Kennedy, was pounced on by shrill little morons just aching to frame her every motive as evil incarnate.

    Once again, if she had shown the slightest bit of grace during the bittergate thing, then maybe some slack was due.

    Live by the gaffe, die by the gaffe. Obama is being above it all and gracious. Nowhere does it say we have to be. Hillary doesn’t like the netroots, and we don’t like her. Its time to bury her, since she won’t have the grace to exit with dignity.

    And I doubt your an Obama supporter. Every Hillary troll always makes that claim. Like in “I’m not racist but….”

    Not buying it.

  23. 23
    AkaDad says:

    Hillary should stay in the race. She’s only 1 chalk outline away from becoming President.

  24. 24
    PeterJ says:

    Highlights include calls for Steve to banned from his own blog.

    Steve Soto (on sabbatical)

    Was there a revolution?

  25. 25
    SnarkyShark says:

    People ignored Clinton for months up until New Hampshire, since the media and everyone else is inherently sexist. Now they’re laughing at her. At the convention they’ll have to fight her. So naturally that means she’ll win.

    You got it ass backwards.

    With Hillary it was we win!(inevitability), Then Obama fought her. Now we are laughing, and pretty son comes the ignore.

    Although I think the laughing may go on for a while.

    inevitability my ass

  26. 26
    Wilfred says:

    Obama is being above it all and gracious. Nowhere does it say we have to be.

    Amen. I, for one, intend to rub it in like rock salt on a hemorrhoid.

  27. 27
    Bey says:

    Ok, I’ll bite, but only because I’m putting off mowing the lawn.

    Cuzco: This isn’t the first time Hillary has directly cited RFK’s assassination. She did it during a Time magazine interview in March. In the last 2 months she did it a couple of more times, but didn’t say the actual word.

    She knows/knew perfectly well what she was doing. She may be off in delusional land with regard to her campaign, but she’s no idiot.

    She claims she used it to illustrate the point that primarys have been competitive through June. She knows perfectly well that is a false comparison. During Bill’s campaign it was all over but the crying in April. It was obvious he was the nominee. In RFK’s campaign, by June they were 3 months in, not 6 months as we will be.

    She’s a calculating, manipulative, scheming politician. This was deliberate.

    Given the unprecedented demographics of this campaign – a woman and a black man, there are 3 taboo things: PMS, the n-word, and the very real specter of some nut with a gun.

    Hillary’s whipped out 2 of them: “hardworking white voters” and now assassination.

    And now she’s shocked – Shocked! that anyone could think badly of her for saying them.

    Poor, poor Hillary. Those boys are just so mean to her.

  28. 28
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Someone at Kos left a comment that says it all for me:

    She’s altering the English language so that she doesn’t have to apologize. But speaking as a trained professional in said language, it seems to me that if all you meant to say is that Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June, what you say is:

    “Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June”

    and no need for an apology. On the other hand, if you say Bobby Kennedy got assassinated in June, this translates as:

    “Bobby Kennedy got assassinated in June”

    and given the obvious context, you owe both the Kennedys and Obama a sincere apology.

    All snark aside, have we not had more than enough lying and parsing from the Clintons??

    And BTW, RFK, Jr., you are starting to look like a tool who really, really wants Hillary’s senate seat.

    Yup, that.

  29. 29
    Rick Taylor says:

    Wolfson: “Her remarks were not about Senator Obama, there is no reason for her to apologize to him.”

    Schieffer is rarely this pushy, but he isn’t buying the Clinton spin on this. Wolfson says that Clinton will still be the nominee. He states that Obama’s reaction was inappropriate, and that Obama “attacked” Clinton for the remarks.

    Funny, this is almost exactly the dialogue we had with Rarely Posts in another thread. I linked to this post in memorandum. A short excerpt:

    Are you kidding? Responding to a statement by calling it “unfortunate and has no place in this campaign” is the weakest, most boilerplate message that an opposing campaign can send while still making it unambiguously clear that they completely disagree with the statement itself (and want no part of the fallout). Obama’s camp did not make a sideshow to, as Hillary would say, “reject and denounce” her words, nor did they take the opportunity to grab a soapbox and elaborate on their answer (they had responded with a very terse statement). If you want to see “capitalizing on her gaffes”, look to Clinton losing no time in calling Obama’s “bitter” remarks as “elitist”, or Obama accusing McCain of having poor judgment and understanding of foreign policy after McCain’s gaffe in confusing Shia and Sunni. The statement from Obama’s camp in this case is simply political speak for “go hang yourselves with your own rope, we want no blood on our hands.” Far from “dipping into the fray” here — the Obama people aren’t touching this with a ten-foot pole, even though the media obliged them to release a response on the incident.

    I just think it’s hilarious how, after using Ayers and Wright and bitter-gate with abandon and mocking Obama for complaining about the debate in pennsylvania, saying if you don’t like the heat stay out of the kitchen, I’m very much at home in the kitchen, after the Obama campaign makes the mildest responsibly could, giving her the benefit of the doubt, Obama saying it was a mistake, but putting on record the remarks were “unfortunate” with no place in the campaign, something she presumably agrees with as she apologized for them, the Clinton campaign’s response is. . .ohhhh, theyr’e attacking! They’re being meeeeaaaan!

    Another remark from that same article:

    And why is it that people are always asking for Obama or Dean or some other figure to intervene on Clinton’s behalf (for example, asking Dean and other party elders to denounce sexist remarks from certain media commentators)? Did Obama ask Clinton or Dean to defend him from, say, false Muslim smears? Nevermind that having someone else fight her battles would only undermine her carefully-crafted image of toughness. If you want to see sexism in this campaign: why do people keep asking the other principle players to help Hillary? It’s demeaning to make the suggestion. She can defend her own words, just as everyone expected Obama to defend his own “bitter” remarks.

  30. 30
    SnarkyShark says:

    Was there a revolution?

    eRiposte and Turkana hijacked the blog. Steve came back to post his opinion, and got screamed at.

    It’s pretty pathetic, but Soto let it get out of hand and is now reaping the results.

    Its a pretty good blog when the posts are about something other than Hillary worship.

    I can go there and get the “Big Tent” talking points without having to, you know, go anywhere near the big tent.

    Trying to have an honest debate with the screamers is a futile task, so I wouldn’t even try. Just study and learn.

  31. 31
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago, but I’m sorry, anyone who claims Hillary brought up Bobby Kennedy because she wanted to play the “assassination card” is a either flat out liar or a bag of hammers moron.

    Um, Clinton is a lawyer and a politician. A successful lawyer or politician relies on their words, and the implications of them, to advance their careers. Words are the tools of their trade and no lawyer or politician gets very far without choosing their words very carefully. Clinton knew exactly what she was saying, as did Obama when used the word “bitter.” He got jumped for that and it was fair game. Hillary is getting jumped for this and Obama was far more gracious to her over it than she was to him over “bittergate.”
    One other thing, calling those who disagree with you “morons,” or “liars” is a great way to get pinned as a brainless, dickless, thoughtless, pointless, Hiltroll.

  32. 32
    OriGuy says:

    A comparison of the post at HillaryIs44 with those at Kos showed that ALL of the H44 posts are by 310 users. It’s the same little group of nutjobs talking to each other.

    I was watching poker on TV last night. Hillary went all in with a pair of queens to Barack’s jack and three. The flop went 3J3, the turn was a jack, and the river was a three. Hillary was arguing that the flop shouldn’t count and was still trying to raise.

  33. 33
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    cuzco Says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago, but I’m sorry, anyone who claims Hillary brought up Bobby Kennedy because she wanted to play the “assassination card” is a either flat out liar or a bag of hammers moron.

    When politicians speak on camera they don’t have the luxury of a team of insta polls and fact checkers to prescreen how every word out of their mouth will play. She made a particularly clumsy verbal gaffe that, because it contained the name Bobby Kennedy, was pounced on by shrill little morons just aching to frame her every motive as evil incarnate.

    Unbelievable

    cuzco,

    I don’t for even a moment think she was thinking “gee, maybe I should stick around in case something happens to Obama”, much less that she intended to come right out and say it. She was not deliberately trying to give offence, IMHO.

    That doesn’t matter.

    What she said was blatantly offensive (not just a little bit over the line), because she broke a taboo about using the A-word in a context where a lot of people are very concerned that June 6, 1968 not repeat itself. I don’t know about you, but every time I turn on the TV nowadays, I first say a silent prayer “Please God, don’t let there be anything really bad in the news today, if you know what I mean”, and I’m not even African American.

    Sometimes you can say something really offensive, without meaning to. It happens to all of us at times. And anybody with even a shred of decency knows what to do in that situation: apologise. immediately. profusely. And don’t use a bunch of weasel words to try and wriggle out of it, because that just compounds the original problem. We even have a phrase for it “Own up to it”.

    Doing so doesn’t make you look weak, it doesn’t mean copping a guilty plea, it just show that you are a normal reasonable human being who has a sense of shame and decency.

    Pivoting off of criticism in this situation show the exact opposite.

    I submit that we’ve had enough shamelessness in the Oval Office to last a lifetime, and showing more of it just proves why Hillary (and Bill) belong no where near said office unless they are there only to help out with the Easter Egg roll and take pictures.

  34. 34
    SnarkyShark says:

    Hillary should stay in the race. She’s only 1 chalk outline away from becoming President.

    Win

  35. 35
    Rick Taylor says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago, but I’m sorry, anyone who claims Hillary brought up Bobby Kennedy because she wanted to play the “assassination card” is a either flat out liar or a bag of hammers moron.

    I don’t think many people do think that. It was still at the very minimum a thoughtless gaffe. The link to memorandum in my previous post gives one of the better explanations why her remark was offensive, and also gives the most likely interpretation, I think, of what she was trying to imply.

    No, Hillary Clinton didn’t simply “referred to the fact that Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy and their opponents were were still campagining in June” when she chastises us by saying “people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer.” To take that at face value and actually believe her rationale is to drink her Kool-aid, because those nomination battles weren’t the real long, protracted primary fights when you look at things in a historical perspective. No, she had invoked Bill Clinton and RFK to place herself in the same narrative that she was just like them, a deliberate spin implying that she was also a nominee who fought the Democratic establishment and eventually won the heart of the party, despite the fact that she herself was the DLC establishment candidate.

  36. 36
    SnarkyShark says:

    A comparison of the post at HillaryIs44 with those at Kos showed that ALL of the H44 posts are by 310 users. It’s the same little group of nutjobs talking to each other.

    Yep….an incestuous little circle-jerk trying to emulate the Republican method of being the nosiest little shits in the nursery room.

    Good warm-up for the real thing thats coming.

  37. 37
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago…

    Is this the new “As a lifelong Democrat I…”?

  38. 38
    kind of an off white says:

    I’m not in the habit of having insights that hold water upon further reflection, so feel free to tell me how I’m wrong here–

    I think Clinton’s defenders are right that this has been misinterpreted, willfully so in some quarters, but I just can’t find a charitable way to read her statement. Best case scenario, she chose to illustrate her (barely supportable) point with an example that, while not terribly apropos, would tug at the audience’s heartstrings, and since her ear is made of purest tin, it came off the wrong way and made her look horrible.

    That to me is the real sin here, that she’s always trying to appeal to our lizard brains (like the fake crying at the diner, and yes, it was totally fake, and I’m sorry if you disagree, but as a former untalented thespian [“former” refers to “thespian;” the lack of talent remains], I can say with absolute authority that she was faking, or as they say in the theatre biz, “using an as-if”), and while many politicians take this tack, HRC’s just. So. Fucking. Transparent. I guess I should give her some credit for not being a born liar, but I’m just more comfortable having my intelligence insulted by someone with a knack for it, y’know?

    I dunno. I feel like people have taken this out of context, but what seems to me like the correct context paints her as even more of a walking bullshit delivery system.

    God, I wish the SDs would end this thing so that I can get on with the pressing business of overlooking the nominee’s flaws.

  39. 39
    Rick Taylor says:

    I linked to this before, Jon Stewart is makes fun of Hillary after the West Virginia primary. What on earth is he going to say about the RFK comments I wonder?

  40. 40
  41. 41
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago…

    Is this the new “As a lifelong Democrat I…”?

    Yup. /yawn

  42. 42
    w vincentz says:

    Hillary has shown so many personas that her shrinks will take years to figure them out.
    Hillary the LIAR.
    Hillary the shot and beer bar girl.
    Hillary the Annie Oakley.
    Hillary the champion of hard working white middle class folks.
    Hillary the caller for an assassin.
    Hillary the victim of sexism.
    Hillary the victim of an unfair press.
    Hillary the rule changer and goal postmover.
    Now please feel free to add your own.
    Mine are:
    Hillary the one who’s in denial.
    Hillary the destroyer for her own egotistical reasons.
    Hillary the delusional.
    Hillary the troll of the Democratic Party.
    Hillary the once inevitable.
    Hillary the insane.
    Hillary the victim of her own words.

  43. 43
    John Cole says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago, but I’m sorry, anyone who claims Hillary brought up Bobby Kennedy because she wanted to play the “assassination card” is a either flat out liar or a bag of hammers moron.

    When politicians speak on camera they don’t have the luxury of a team of insta polls and fact checkers to prescreen how every word out of their mouth will play. She made a particularly clumsy verbal gaffe that, because it contained the name Bobby Kennedy, was pounced on by shrill little morons just aching to frame her every motive as evil incarnate.

    Unbelievable.

    I don’t think she is trying to plant the idea that he may be assassinated or that she is trying to encourage someone to kill him, but I clearly think she is trying to play the “anything can happen” card and the murder of RFK is one example.

  44. 44
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    In the game of election roulette Hillary has just put the deed to the ranch on 00.

  45. 45
    Rick Taylor says:

    I’m not in the habit of having insights that hold water upon further reflection, so feel free to tell me how I’m wrong here—
    I think Clinton’s defenders are right that this has been misinterpreted, willfully so in some quarters, but I just can’t find a charitable way to read her statement. Best case scenario, she chose to illustrate her (barely supportable) point with an example that, while not terribly apropos, would tug at the audience’s heartstrings, and since her ear is made of purest tin, it came off the wrong way and made her look horrible.

    Yup, that’s about where I am; plus trying to connect with the Kennedy legacy (something that’s more apparent in her “apology”). I’d be considerably more sympathetic if she’d offered a genuine apology. Plus her remarks came at the tail end of a huge slew of remarks, comparing this Primary to Florida 2000, the civil rights movement, and Zimbabwe, and making a naked appeal based on her ability to capture the working white class vote, so by now people were primed not to be sympathetic. I remember back after the working white class voter comment, someone asked what was wrong with her staying in the race and I asked, after what she’s said so far I don’t want to hear what she comes up with next, do you?

  46. 46
    KCinDC says:

    Clinton must be taking advice from Ferraro now: say something offensive, even if it’s unintentional, and then rather than apologize, double down on it and play the victim. It worked so well for Ferraro, so why not?

  47. 47
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    I switched to Obama from Hillary about two months ago…

    Is this the new “As a lifelong Democrat I…”?

    Jeez guys, lighten up a little bit. Cut people some slack, huh. You build a coalition one person at a time, and not everybody shows up early for the party.

    If you think somebody is a troll, show us what your google fu can do.

  48. 48
    Incertus says:

    I don’t think she is trying to plant the idea that he may be assassinated or that she is trying to encourage someone to kill him, but I clearly think she is trying to play the “anything can happen” card and the murder of RFK is one example.

    I liked the way Melissa McEwan said it over at Shakesville:

    Briefly, my opinion is that it was an ill-considered statement that warranted an apology, irrespective of intent. FWIW, I don’t think she intended to suggest anything nefarious, but it was not a particularly sensitive example to use to make her point, and careless in its disregard of the history of violence against black leaders. It was inevitable, and of course not unreasonable, that people would consider her competitor Obama within the frame she built, to upsetting results, even if she didn’t specifically mention him.

    As I’ve said before, an apology after erring is not about the original intent; it’s about the result. It’s about making amends. When I step on someone’s foot unintentionally, I still say “I’m sorry.”

    I can’t say the same for some of the commenters in that thread.

  49. 49
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Jeez guys, lighten up a little bit. Cut people some slack, huh. You build a coalition one person at a time, and not everybody shows up early for the party.

    I’d have been with you all the way save for the gratuitous use of “liar” and “moron.” This person is no more an Obama supporter than Karl Rove is.

  50. 50
    SnarkyShark says:

    Jeez guys, lighten up a little bit. Cut people some slack, huh. You build a coalition one person at a time, and not everybody shows up early for the party.

    Maybe, but I wish they would quit with the opening disclaimer.

    It’s like having a big sign on your forehead.

    Just make the damn point, and let the chips fall where they may

  51. 51
    Rick Taylor says:

    From Juan Cole, and in other news the main stream media seem to be ignoring, it looks like since we’ve been using our marvelous success with the surge to go after certain Shiite militias, we’ve overstayed our welcome with Sistani. There are reports he’s telling vendors not to sell food to the occupiers, and saying it’s perfectly fine for militias to attack US troops. I’ve long assumed that when the uprising becomes Shiite, that will be the end of the occupation. It looks like that’s the direction we’re going in.

  52. 52
    Mike B. says:

    What strikes me about Hillary’s op-ed is how it refuses to allow for the slightest possibility that her original remark could be “misinterpreted.” When Obama got dinged for his “clinging” remarks, he immediately allowed that he might have been inartful in his expression and could have phrased it all better. Here, Clinton insists she was absolutely crystal clear and only the insane and depraved could ever read anything else into her remark.

    This really has crossed a line from hubris to dementia.

  53. 53
    w vincentz says:

    John C,
    There are many other better examples of primary candidates that have illustrated the “anything can happen” besides RFK’s assassination. Start with Gary Hart. Then Gene McCarthy. Or perhaps another wannabe of your choice.
    Barack has it right. This is “inappropriate”.

  54. 54
    Andrew says:

    I don’t think she is trying to plant the idea that he may be assassinated or that she is trying to encourage someone to kill him, but I clearly think she is trying to play the “anything can happen” card and the murder of RFK is one example.

    The particularly painfully stupid thing about this is that if something did happen to Obama, it wouldn’t fucking matter if she was still actively campaigning or not. It’s like she’s thinking that Edwards is going to overtake her for 2nd place in the next week and a half.

  55. 55

    What gets me is what others, like the folks at the Moderate Voice and here on this blog, have pointed out, and that is the analogy she is making is simply WRONG. Her husband had the nomination wrapped up big time by California in June, and the nomination process started a whole lot later for RFK.
    And if she is so tired that it excuses her statement, whatever shall she do at 3am?

  56. 56
    Wilfred says:

    Who gives a fuck what she thinks about anything? She’s a has been and a never will be. And no, there won’t any second acts here. Good riddance.

    I’m enjoying the Clintondämmerung. All this nervous ‘is she really dead, Dorothy?” wanking from the press is nothing compared to the panic that’s starting to set in with the realization that the Clintons are finished. Who’ll care what Begala and Carville think anymore? There’ll be an entirely different set of mouths to babble on the Sunday talk shows.

    Who are Barack’s friends?

  57. 57
    Rick Taylor says:

    I don’t think she is trying to plant the idea that he may be assassinated or that she is trying to encourage someone to kill him, but I clearly think she is trying to play the “anything can happen” card and the murder of RFK is one example.

    This episode reminded me of that interview form a couple months ago, where she was asked why she was staying in, how should possibly win, and she started going on about how fluid everything was, how things could change, and even the so called pledged delegates didn’t have to vote for the nominee they were pledged to. While not as offensive as her recent remarks, they were completely unambiguous; there was no way to interpret them except as saying, hey, anything could happen! All those delegate elected to vote for Obama might just support me instead!

    It was a jaw dropper, and unfortunately I don’t think she was ever pressured to clarify her remarks as she surely should have been. The closest I saw to an explanation was a hillary supporter on Talk Left saying the wonkish Clinton just loved procedural minutiae and blurted out an interesting fact at the wrong time.

  58. 58
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    I’d have been with you all the way save for the gratuitous use of “liar” and “moron.”

    I see how you could take it that way. Personally I have a pretty high tolerance for that sort of “heat of the moment” language, being a bit of a hothead myself, so I tend to shrug that stuff off, but YMMV.

    Everybody have a good weekend (what’s left of it) and watch out for drunks on the road.

  59. 59
    Rick Taylor says:

    What gets me is what others, like the folks at the Moderate Voice and here on this blog, have pointed out, and that is the analogy she is making is simply WRONG. Her husband had the nomination wrapped up big time by California in June, and the nomination process started a whole lot later for RFK.

    She’s been saying lots of wrong stuff; why should this be any different? She’s been saying she’s winning the popular vote, she’s been saying Florida and Michigan are comparable to Zimbabwe, she’s saying only she can get the white working class vote, etc. Everything she and her campaign says goes through the filter of what will best help me in the short term.

  60. 60
    SnarkyShark says:

    What gets me is what others, like the folks at the Moderate Voice

    How are things over at “Ban anybody who talks bad about Joe Lieberman” central? Give Joe my regards and ask him how that Lieberman thing is working out for him? Is he still in the bag for Likud and Aipac?

    Good times!

  61. 61

    She’s been saying lots of wrong stuff; why should this be any different? She’s been saying she’s winning the popular vote, she’s been saying Florida and Michigan are comparable to Zimbabwe, she’s saying only she can get the white working class vote, etc. Everything she and her campaign says goes through the filter of what will best help me in the short term.

    Rick, you know you are right, I know you are right, but her supporters now, her supporters cannot admit any of that. Everything she says is gospel, and to say otherwise is misogynist.
    How can we get these folks to open their eyes?

  62. 62
    John Cole says:

    Leave it to Lambert to bring the crazy:

    Hillary writes an Op-Ed in the NY Daily News (the exclusive is a nice touch. As is the choice of newspaper itself).

    First, she deals with the latest smear from Obama and his lying liars*:

    Sigh.

  63. 63

    How are things over at “Ban anybody who talks bad about Joe Lieberman” central? Give Joe my regards and ask him how that Lieberman thing is working out for him? Is he still in the bag for Likud and Aipac?

    Good times!

    Snarky, I’ve been reading them mostly for horserace coverage, and have only skimmed over anything unrelated. But you should check out Gandleman’s posts on Clinton. They are pretty good.
    I’ll have to look at the archives, I guess, to see what you are talking about. Sorry. :/

  64. 64
    kind of an off white says:

    Damn it, I don’t fancy myself the nutpicking type, but you can’t tempt me like this, people! I’m not made of wood!

    This level of vicious character-assassination and twisting reality to bend it putting a truly evil dynamic into play is evidence of extreme fascism operating now in America. That gawdawful “Hillary as Hitler” YouTube insanity that so many people find “funny,” is a fascist character-assassination attempt on the enemy of the fascists done by calling her the fascist–a reverse psychology form of propaganda.

    I deeply truly 100 percent despise KeithO now that he’s flown his FOP flag high and proven himself beyond question to be a total knobgobblinasssuck for the Fascist Regime that owns our media. He slipped one day, with arrogant smirk on his ugly little rarely- kissed mouth, and bragged about “totally killing” someone he didn’t like (I forget who because I was so taken aback by his revelation of his smug sense of being a powerful “killer” of all he didn’t like. Is this classical Narcissism posing as “journalism” and utterly abusing the public trust and his position in the media? But, of course.)

    If there were any justice in this world KeithO would be in the pillory in the town square catching rotten tomatoes in his twisted little lying lips, with a long line at his backside of MAD GRANNIES wearing their steel-toed boots delivering a swift kick to the squealing little woman-hating jackal And to think I used to love him, when in reality he’s just a weasely fop suffering an aggrandizement complex so bad that the only reason one should watch him is if one has a perverse need to watch a ticking time bomb explode his brains all over the place one of these days instead of ending his show as he does with his signature spoiled-brat TANTRUM of throwing a sheaf of paper into the air for some poor underling of his to clean up—wasting time and resources on cleaning the shit up after the “big baby” who thinks his shit don’t stink and that he’s entitled and “cute” throwing tantrums for others to clean up after, and then his wads of paper he throws disrespectfully at the viewer in a double subliminal message to us that the News is nothing but trash, and he’ll throw it in your face and break a camera lens while he’s at it because he has no respect for resources or you the viewer, or the news. It’s all just fun and games in his narcissistic little play pen.

    KeithO was definitely the kind of guy who ate had to be wiped by the teacher all through day care and up through the second grade, needing changes of clothes for the not infrequent pissing and crapping of his pants during nap time. He ate his boogers during the entirety of grammar school, and peeked up girls’ dresses with a mirror on his shoes when he was in the tenth grade. He awkwardly kissed his first girl in his Junior year of college, and to this day has no knowledge of the Clit and it’s unique qualities and operation, having indicated during one of his sickening on-air discussions of Brittany with the repulsive Musto, that he may have more fascination for “bleached buttholes.”

    Yeah, the Fop has run out his 15 minutes of fame. Get the hook. And as to those who wish to continue citing as something meaningful anything the fucking Fop says, it’s time for you to get a clue.

    I’m sorry, but that fucking rules. It’s from the comments at WTF Is It Now?, but I gather the poster’s from Tennessee Guerilla Women–which, while nobody was looking, came up from behind and totally smoked TalkLeft and Corrente in the category of Formerly Worthwhile Blog that Now Makes You Feel Stupid for Ever Having Read It.

  65. 65
    El Doh says:

    She’s been saying lots of wrong stuff; why should this be any different? She’s been saying she’s winning the popular vote, she’s been saying Florida and Michigan are comparable to Zimbabwe, she’s saying only she can get the white working class vote, etc. Everything she and her campaign says goes through the filter of what will best help me in the short term.

    She also has a fanbase that will support her come hell or high water. No matter what she says, no matter what she does, they will insist it wasn’t meant that way, no-one sane could see it that way, it was misinterpreted, it was used to attack Hillary, only a lunatic, the stupid, or the terminally dishonest could see it that way, how dare you say that about another Democrat, so much for party unity, your guy’s just an empty suit, you people are sexist, your guy’s going to lose, I’m voting for McCain. /breathless

    A lot of sites have Clan Clinton-or-bust also screaming that Obama is hysterical, a term that if it were applied to Hillary would bring screams of sexism. Of course, Obama said very little on the subject, unlike when he made the “bitter” comments and had the mob baying for his “elitist”, “out of touch” blood, but then, that’s different.

  66. 66
    SnarkyShark says:

    There are reports he’s telling vendors not to sell food to the occupiers, and saying it’s perfectly fine for militias to attack US troops. I’ve long assumed that when the uprising becomes Shiite, that will be the end of the occupation. It looks like that’s the direction we’re going in.

    Yep, our supply lines go right through Shiite central. If the fucking Geniuses learned anything by Malaki getting his ass kicked in Basra, you couldn’t tell by their recent round up of Mookies boys.

    We are so fucked.

  67. 67
    Rick Taylor says:

    And here’s a link to the carpetbagger that includes a further link to the Newsweek article where she made that strange comment about pledged delegates.

    Rick, you know you are right, I know you are right, but her supporters now, her supporters cannot admit any of that.

    I sure don’t know. Discussion doesn’t seem to help. I’m thinking patience.

  68. 68

    kind of an offwhite, that post deserves its own level of Godwinness.

  69. 69
    SnarkyShark says:

    How can we get these folks to open their eyes?

    You can’t, they are like crack addicts. Leave em alone and hope they don’t drag you down too.

    Snarky, I’ve been reading them mostly for horserace coverage, and have only skimmed over anything unrelated. But you should check out Gandleman’s posts on Clinton. They are pretty good.

    Joe would write some good posts from time to time. I got banned for some Haughty right wingers and Joe Lieberman loving idiots who didn’t like the fact that I wouldn’t eat their bullshit. And not even the courtesy of an explanation.

    And you really should go check out the archives vis a vis the Lieberman vs. Lamont.

    The Lieberman supporters were a perfect match for todays Hillary cultists.

    I laugh at them when I consider Holy Joe’s latest Zell Miller screed.

    But other than that Joe’s all right.

  70. 70
    w vincentz says:

    Why in HELL did I click on the “bring the crazy” link?
    HOLY SHIT!
    Now I have to go buy a 12 pack to try to forget!
    Thanks, John C. You should get some beer sponsors for your site.

  71. 71
    nightjar says:

    But Clinton is insisting on taking the field to play out the final meaningless frame. It’s never been done before in the history of baseball, but Obama, being a gentleman, is obliging

    Just love a good baseball analogy and this is a good one. The players from both sides are all wandering aimlessly around the field squabbling to one another about if only this or that. The press is in there boxes playing various kinds of grab ass. And Hillary is standing at home plate with a bat arguing with the ump to give her one last swing at the ball.

  72. 72
    KCinDC says:

    PeterJ, it looks like Steve has been on sabbatical for a while, so I don’t think that’s related to the recent post. Not sure what that means, since he keeps posting.

  73. 73
    SnarkyShark says:

    Why in HELL did I click on the “bring the crazy” link?
    HOLY SHIT!

    Welcome to my world. Sometimes the nightmares do go away.

  74. 74
    SnarkyShark says:

    PeterJ, it looks like Steve has been on sabbatical for a while, so I don’t think that’s related to the recent post. Not sure what that means, since he keeps posting.

    He’s supposed to be writing a book. I think his recent posts are to try to moderate his blog a little bit.

    Good luck with that, its too far gone.

  75. 75

    By popular acclaim, we are offering for your amusement and edification the exciting new game “Obama Golf”!

    The rules are simple, and any number can play: To win, change an innocuous Hillary statement into a wankfest-worthy statement in the fewest number of strokes.

    “Buenas noches! It is wonderful to be here,” Sen. Hillary Clinton said this evening after touching down in Puerto Rico.

    0. Buenas noches

    1. Spanish for “good night”

    2. Night is dark

    3. “Darkie” is a racial slur used to refer to blacks

    4. Obama is black

    5. Hillary was dogwhistling a racial slur directed at Obama.

    Five strokes (“teeing up” the initial trigger word does not count). See how easy?

    Enjoy! It’s the new game sensation that’s sweeping the nation!

  76. 76
    w vincentz says:

    Snarky,
    It’s ok. I’ll get over it. I hate nightmares.
    Heck, if BostonDreams wants to know about horce racing, he/she doesn’t have to go there. I have some that are on the track and some good deals on TB’s (that’s how I make my livin’). Wish we had a way to pm so I could share my email address to those that want to get into the “sport of kings”.
    News…Big Brown came up with a slight quarter crack in his left front. Now back to the gal that picked Eight Belles.
    She’s got her OWN nightmares. Wake me up when it’s mornin’.

  77. 77
    PeterJ says:

    Is lambert bitter?

  78. 78
    Rick Taylor says:

    *Clinton’s RFK Assassination Reference Irks Kennedy Family*

    It’s astounding the headlines this has been generating. Can you imagine reading that if you hadn’t been following the brouhaha that caused all this? From the moderate voice.

  79. 79
    over_educated says:

    LOL myiq was on that thread chastising him. i guess steve is doing something right.

  80. 80
    mr. whipple says:

    “She’s been saying lots of wrong stuff; why should this be any different?”

    Yeah. Frankly i don’t understand it. To give her the benefit of a doubt, you can say it was inartful or even stupid. But i was kind of shocked the press went off on this as much as they did in light of the fact that she’s been making insane comments and outright lies for months.

    I can only figure that some sort of cosmic breaking point was reached, where all at once everyone just couldn’t take the bullshit anymore.

  81. 81
    garage mahal says:

    Cole
    When Obama gets the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination, let us know. Until then, your tortured analogies are looking more and more like just 11 yr old tantrums of dropping to the floor crying at the grocery store.

  82. 82
    kind of an off white says:

    Look, Lambert, I’m sufficiently ashamed of myself for ever having thought your blog was worth reading, okay? It’s just cruel of you to rub it in like that.

  83. 83
    SnarkyShark says:

    By popular acclaim, we are offering for your amusement and edification the exciting new game “Obama Golf”

    I’ll play

    1.Post something from correntewire

    2.Physco duchebag kool-aid drinking moron.

    Two strokes, I win.

    Of course assassination leads directly to the thought of assassination, so your stupid metaphor doesn’t work retard.

    Go crawl back into your hole.

  84. 84
    Rick Taylor says:

    By popular acclaim, we are offering for your amusement and edification the exciting new game “Obama Golf”!

    Ok.

    “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    Hmmm, she seems to be making the argument that she should be the nominee despite being solidly behind in pledged delegates and the official popular vote count and the number of states won because she’s the candidate that appeals to white people.

    Hole in one.

  85. 85
    SnarkyShark says:

    I can only figure that some sort of cosmic breaking point was reached, where all at once everyone just couldn’t take the bullshit anymore.

    Winner!

    LOL myiq was on that thread chastising him. i guess steve is doing something right.

    Yes..our little troll has been busy over there.

  86. 86
    myiq2xu says:

    Congratulations John, you have finally descended into Malkinesque levels of derangement.

    What’s next? Countertop checks and Dunkin Donut ad protests?

  87. 87
    w vincentz says:

    Hey MyIq,
    I have a deal on some really nice Sannan goats for you. Read the next thread down. Let me know if you have an interest. They’re white, and virgins.
    If others want to keep them out of your hands (or other parts) they can contribute to the “Save the Baby Goats” and “Goat Defense Fund”. First $300 gets these beauties.
    Let me know if this helps your dreams come true.

  88. 88
    SnarkyShark says:

    Speaking of our little troll-back from the psycho ward that is TLC

    A big hand ladies and gentlemen!

    And now perhaps a call to ban John Cole from Balloon Juice?

    A bit part in the new remake of one flew over the coo coo’s nest?

    Maybe Nurse Ratchet?

    I’m all choked up, its like the olden days are here again!

  89. 89
    John Cole says:

    The funniest thing is that Lambert accuses Obama of being passive aggressive for the following statement:

    “I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that.”

    Sound familiar?

    Sure:

    Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it.

    “You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

    “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

    I don’t think I freaked out about Clinton’s remarks on 60 Minutes (although in fairness, some did).

    And btw- there is something markedly different between her statement to Time in March and her statement the other day, most notably that her campaign has been running for several months on the explicit platform of “anything can happen.”

  90. 90
    PeterJ says:

    Thanks for the background on Steve Soto.

    I’m guessing what happened with The Left Coaster is going to happen with a lot of the other blogs supporting Clinton.
    A lot of regular former commenters have probably been chased away, so can they build things up again or should they just turn off the lights and perhaps start another blog? Starting to mass ban people isn’t the solution, but they now got a reader base that is a bit too pro Clinton.

    This will be very interesting.

  91. 91

    Cole
    When Obama gets the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination, let us know. Until then, your tortured analogies are looking more and more like just 11 yr old tantrums of dropping to the floor crying at the grocery store.

    Garage, how many would that be? Since, you know, Clinton keeps changing the numbers. And claiming someone else is throwing a tantrum when you people give new meaning to the term ‘hysterical’ (yeah, I said it) is just, well, silly.

  92. 92
    John Cole says:

    And one other thing- somethign that is not mentioned enough is just how politically tone deaf Clinton and her campaign have been. Writing this editorial in an attempt to achieve victim status just assures that the story will keep going through the long memorial Day weekend. Other than people really interested in the remaining primary (all twelve of us who are not in the press), this story would have died if she just let it drop.

    Instead, now it will go forward, people who had not heard the remarks will hear them, and all it does is expose more people to it. Well played. This whole notion that she has finally found her voice is similarly absurd- had Clinton campaigned the way she has the last few weeks in Appalachia the entire campaign, she would have been rejected by the more liberal voters earlier in the campaign. Already, California voters are coalescing around Obama.

    Additionally, imagine this scenario- Clinton and McCain are the general election candidates, and McCain is trailing 55-45, has no real chance to win (and this is imperfect, because anything could happen on the election day, while there really is no way for Hillary to beat Obama- there just are no delegates), and McCain stated:

    “Look- anything can happen so I am going to keep on fighting. Heck, look what happened to Benazir Bhutto!”

    What would Clinton supporters say then?

  93. 93
    myiq2xu says:

    From John Harris at Politico:

    On Friday afternoon, I heard my colleague, Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, bellow in excitement as he called me over to his desk.

    Martin was furiously typing away, not looking up as he told me the latest: Clinton had given an interview to the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota in which she answered inquiries into why she is staying in the race by citing the fact that it’s only May, and RFK had been shot and killed in June.

    Here is what I was thinking: Wow. Maybe she has come unhinged? It’s not as though such macabre thoughts have never occurred to me, but for Clinton to give public voice to such a scenario is bizarre. This is going to be a big story and is almost certainly going to shadow and quite likely accelerate the final chapter of her presidential campaign.

    Here is what I said: Martin, quick get that item up!

    […]

    I urged Martin to keep his foot on the gas: Be the first to post reaction from the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly obliged, denouncing Clinton’s comments and saying such sentiments have “no place in this campaign.” Burton’s comments quickly went into Martin’s blog post. Soon enough, several websites and cable news outlets were giving the story trumpet-blaring treatment.

    Perhaps half an hour after the story broke Martin called me back over to his desk. It turned out the Argus Leader had video of its big interview. I huddled over Martin’s computer as we watched.

    It was a deflating experience.

    But that didn’t stop the wankfest did it?

  94. 94
    nightjar says:

    I don’t think I freaked out about Clinton’s remarks on 60 Minutes (although in fairness, some did)

    I chuckled when she said that and considered it a quite normal statement coming from a congenital politician in the midst of a campaign. I still think that’s what she is to the core and losing to a young man from one her pet constituencies has quite obviously driven her mad.

  95. 95
    Jeff says:

    I don’t think HRC meant to say that something could happen to Obama, and therefore she’s still in the race. That being said, when asked “Why are you still in the race”, your answer should not include an “assassination” as one of your examples.

    There are two choices here: either Clinton said something incredibly stupid and insensitive, or Clinton said something incredibly disgusting. I don’t believe she meant to say something disgusting, but the fact that she’s not even acknowledging that she said something stupid is disturbing, to say the least.

  96. 96
    Ripley says:

    I’m just glad the phrase “thrown under the bus” has been replaced by the word “gaffe” in the national lexicon.

    We are truly a stronger America, now. Labradoodles! Transformers! Wolverines!!

  97. 97
    SnarkyShark says:

    A lot of regular former commenters have probably been chased away, so can they build things up again or should they just turn off the lights and perhaps start another blog?

    Steve needs to run every frontpager off that blog and reclaim it. Steve started out on KOS, and now you can’t even post links to KOS without the hissy-fit brigade getting apocalyptic. Thats gotta suck.

    If he doesn’t want to do that, then he should turn out the lights. That blog could be reclaimed unlike correntewire or NQ or TL which are done. They will exist as little refuges for the terminally bitter, with no influence and an ever dwindling readership as the remaining devotees flip out and get commited or slash their wrists one too many times.

    Sad, but natural selection at work

  98. 98
    kind of an off white says:

    I love the Muslim deal, because it’s the one instance where I can unreservedly defend Clinton. She gave a flat “no” answer the first 800 times the interviewer asked, and then said “as far as I know” with bemusement, as though she was thinking, “what, is this a trick question or something?” She really didn’t get a fair shake on that.

    Pretty much the only attack I can defend her against, but what’s that thing people do when they don’t have a whole lot of options? Oh yeah. Cling.

  99. 99
    Jack Knauf says:

    Clearly, those 5 pro Clinton blogs that are bit too pro Clinton need to get with the program.

  100. 100
    El Doh says:

    Starting to mass ban people isn’t the solution, but they now got a reader base that is a bit too pro Clinton.

    A number of the pro-Clinton blogs are very odd places indeed. I now regularly see the kind of screeds there that were once reserved for Libertarian blogs.

    Lots of “the party left me” stuff because of a presidential primary where the winner’s policy is practically identical to that of the runner up, where the latter just happened to be their preferred candidate.

    Thus far, those tiny differences are so huge that some there feel they must sit the election out or support the other party’s candidate who is very, very different on policy, and many also plan to change their voter registration to boot.

    We live in interesting times.

  101. 101
    John Cole says:

    There are two choices here: either Clinton said something incredibly stupid and insensitive, or Clinton said something incredibly disgusting. I don’t believe she meant to say something disgusting, but the fact that she’s not even acknowledging that she said something stupid is disturbing, to say the least.

    Why does she keep bringing up 1968, period? It was a disaster for Democrats, notwithstanding the dishonesty about the length of the 68 primary season and the RFK murder.

    Is that really what she wants to keep bringing up?

  102. 102
    nightjar says:

    Why does she keep bringing up 1968, period? It was a disaster for Democrats, notwithstanding the dishonesty about the length of the 68 primary season and the RFK murder

    Maybe out of exhaustion she’s free associating 1968 with her own 2008 disaster. That clip of her at the Argus reminded me of a guilty suspect who’s been under the bright light so long there is no longer much impulse control to rely on.

  103. 103
    JackieBinAZ says:

    Until then, your tortured analogies are looking more and more like just 11 yr old tantrums of dropping to the floor crying at the grocery store.

    And threatening to vote for four more years of Bush policies if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination, that’s just a matter of principle.

  104. 104
    El Cid says:

    Obama could of course reference Benazir Bhutto, but only if it were a reference to the month of December and to indicate that the Democratic nomination struggle was still ongoing in December of 2007. What would be the problem with that? I think we all remember that the campaign was ongoing when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December of 2007.

  105. 105
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    “I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here,” Obama said.

    Which led me to a clear mental picture of a Clinton Musical Number:

    Here I stand, the goddess of Desire,
    set men on fire,
    I have this power,
    morning noon and night it’s drink and dancing,
    some quick romancing,
    and then a quick shower,
    stage door johnnies always surround me,
    they always hound me,
    with one request,
    who can satisfy their lustful habits,
    I’m not a rabbit!
    I need some rest!

    I’m tired,
    sick and tired of love,
    I’ve had my fill of love,
    from below and above,
    tired,
    tired of being admired,
    tired of love uninspired,
    let’s face it,
    I’m tired!

  106. 106
    kind of an off white says:

    I just realized his name is “myiq2xu,” not “myiq2xYOURS.” I’m 35. So it all makes sense.

  107. 107
    SnarkyShark says:

    Why does she keep bringing up 1968, period?

    Its a dog whistle for the boomers. Its the year they can’t seem to move past. It’s her call for the squares to finally put down the DFHs

    Its the Boomers self love drama writ large.

    Its the day the music died!

    Thank god we can finally move past all that bullshit.

  108. 108
    garage mahal says:

    Garage, how many would that be? Since, you know, Clinton keeps changing the numbers. And claiming someone else is throwing a tantrum when you people give new meaning to the term ‘hysterical’ (yeah, I said it) is just, well, silly.

    Well, Obama recently proposed that half the delegations could be seated. This is changing the numbers, no? Isn’t he “changing the rules in the middle of the game”? Of course he is offering this as he knows it will change nothing. Fair enough. But if Clinton does it, it’s of course mass hysteria, do anything say anything quest for power. Since the rules committe is meeting at the end of the month, she is proposing the full delegation to be seated. What is so fucking criminal about that? Why can’t she ever make one simple point for her candidacy without everyone jumping down her throat for it? It’s black helicopter derangement in it’s pharmeceutical strength form.

  109. 109
    Rick Taylor says:

    Why does she keep bringing up 1968, period? It was a disaster for Democrats, notwithstanding the dishonesty about the length of the 68 primary season and the RFK murder.

    I think she was bringing it up because of RFK, to associate herself with the Kennedy’s. Note she chose both Bill Clinton and RFK as examples. Choosing Carter, Dukakis,Humphrey, or Mondale wouldn’t have been an association she’d want to make. In her apology, she talks about how “My view is that we have to look to the past and eaders who inspired us and give us a lot to live up to” and how she’s honored to hold RFK’s seat; those comments don’t make much sense, but I’m thinking she’s saying that’s why she used him as an example.

    I love the Muslim deal, because it’s the one instance where I can unreservedly defend Clinton. She gave a flat “no” answer the first 800 times the interviewer asked, and then said “as far as I know” with bemusement, as though she was thinking, “what, is this a trick question or something?” She really didn’t get a fair shake on that.

  110. 110
    SnarkyShark says:

    Clearly, those 5 pro Clinton blogs that are bit too pro Clinton need to get with the program

    No, they need to get a program. The twelve steps come to mind.

  111. 111
    Rick Taylor says:

    Whoops; that second quote should have been in a separate post. Just going to say I agree.

  112. 112
    Andrew says:

    I wouldn’t mind amending the Constitution to ban boomers from ever participating in politics for the rest of eternity. Talk about the most useless generation.

  113. 113
    Rarely Posts says:

    There was no need for Clinton to apologize. Rather, Obama should apologize for his silly and hysterical reaction. Since she’s made this very analogy in the past it is quite clear she was using RFK as an historical reference point. It was pretty funny this morning when Stephanopoulos busted Axelrod for stirring up the issue.

  114. 114
    John Cole says:

    There was no need for Clinton to apologize. Rather, Obama should apologize for his silly and hysterical reaction. Since she’s made this very analogy in the past it is quite clear she was using RFK as an historical reference point. It was pretty funny this morning when Stephanopoulos busted Axelrod for stirring up the issue.

    Could you please link to the hysterical and silly reaction? maybe even quote this way over-the-top reaction? That would rock.

  115. 115
    SnarkyShark says:

    Why can’t she ever make one simple point for her candidacy without everyone jumping down her throat for it?

    Her simple point is ” although I promised I wouldn’t campagin or leave my name on the ballet, I reneged on my signed pledge not to do so and all the rest were foolish to not do the same so I am the superior Politician, neyner neyner!”

    You think we should stand still for that? Are you on Dope?

  116. 116
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Andrew Says:

    I wouldn’t mind amending the Constitution to ban boomers from ever participating in politics for the rest of eternity. Talk about the most useless generation.

    You tell ’em! All we did was build the hospital you were born in, provide you with food , clothes, education and a job. We even created the internet which you so freely use to post drivel.
    I’m so ashamed.

  117. 117
    El Cid says:

    Obama’s “silly and hysterical reaction” means “continuing his path to win the Democratic nomination”. So, if he would just stop that, they’d be happy.

  118. 118
    SnarkyShark says:

    Talk about the most useless generation.

    I used to think like this, but that’s wrong. There are bad apples in every subs et, and those are the ones Hillary is trying to appeal to.

    Some Boomers do need to get over themselves however.

    Plus, I think the “most selfish generation” is a bit more apt.

  119. 119
    Ninerdave says:

    Bob Schieffer calls out Clinton on Face the Nation, for the non-apology apologies. He hammers Wolfson on the question.

    did you notice with his accent, Sen. Graham sounds like he’s saying General Betrayus

  120. 120
    Mike says:

    Bottom of the ninth inning? There are 14 innings in Hillaryball.

  121. 121
    SnarkyShark says:

    You tell ‘em! All we did was build the hospital you were born in, provide you with food , clothes, education and a job

    Then there is the other end of the spectrum-

    Reagen, Bush, crappy to non existent space program, war on the middle class, the big Vietnam reduex in the dessert, the end of care-free motoring, global warming.

    Its not to hard to understand the frustration of the Generations who will be left with this mess due to some real selfish short-sightedness.

    But once again, it is wrong to tar a whole class of people for the sins of a few of them.

    I do think history will not be kind however.

  122. 122
    grumpy realist says:

    It would also behoove individuals who support Hillary Clinton to quit with the: “if you don’t support her you’re sexist! SEXIST!”

    And there are lot of those-of-us-of-the-feminine-persuasion who have decided to support Obama. My reasons? 1) He’s competent. 2) From a strategic view, he doesn’t have the incredible negatives the Hillary Clinton does. 3) He doesn’t have the huge entitlement chip on his shoulder that we’ve been seeing since Day One of this campaign from Her Royal Highness.

    But because I’ve sat down and made an analysis which put me in the Barack Obama camp, somehow I’m a traitor to my sex, a “non-feminist”, etc.

    Since when did “being a feminist” mean I had to vote for Hillary Clinton?

    And for gossakes, woman, STOP WHINING! You’re validating every single stereotype that every existed about “them evil feminists.”

  123. 123
    Grendel72 says:

    The 1968 primary is if anything a counterexample to the point Senator Clinton now claims to have been making. Leaving the assassination out of it, that still leaves her argument as being “Hey, a late primary is no big deal. You know, other than the riots and the losing to Nixon.”

  124. 124
    SnarkyShark says:

    The 1968 primary is if anything a counterexample to the point Senator Clinton now claims to have been making. Leaving the assassination out of it, that still leaves her argument as being “Hey, a late primary is no big deal. You know, other than the riots and the losing to Nixon.”

    Well put. Teh stupid in her quote is bullshit on so many levels. I really think she is trying to reach out to people who think it was the DFHs fault. That kind of sorta makes sense.

    But not really

  125. 125
    PaulB says:

    Congratulations John, you have finally descended into Malkinesque levels of derangement.

    ROFL… Oh, the irony, coming from this poster. Project much?

    Oh, and you might want to rethink this little comment of yours, dear heart, about our host:

    The scary part is he is teaching young and impressionable minds.

    Classy.

  126. 126
    Cain says:

    LOL myiq was on that thread chastising him. i guess steve is doing something right.

    He just cut-n-pasted whatever he put on here. Just changed who he addressed it too.

    Personally, I feel sorry for myiq2xu, he’s a charming guy. But since the whole Clinton/RFK thing he’s become a lot more serious. He should lighten up.

    What’s next? Countertop checks and Dunkin Donut ad protests?

    Hey apparently it worked, Dunkin Donuts capitulated to Malkin. I bet she feels full of the dark side of the force. Of course, she’s succeeded in making Rachel Ray not wear scarves. haha.

    cain

  127. 127
    Tom says:

    Look- anything can happen so I am going to keep on fighting. Heck, look what happened to Benazir Bhutto!”

    But John, and this is a big point, she wasn’t trying to say anything can happen. Some people are concerned that the democrats do not have their candidate yet. She was citing two examples of when the democratic nomination was not decided by June.

    She cited the assassination happening in June because at the time RFK was shot, he was close to, but did not have the nomination. In context, it’s CLEAR this is what she meant. Not “anything can happen.”

    So how many times does a candidate get a pass when they say something untruthful, stupid, offensive or outrageous?

    Doesn’t matter. All that matters is the reality of THIS situation. And I think it’s CLEAR she wasn’t trying to suggest “Obama might be assassinated, so vote for me.

    First of all, that reasoning doesn’t make any sense. Would someone be less likely to vote for Obama because they think someone will kill him? I HIGHLY doubt it.

  128. 128

    SnarkyShark burbles:

    1. Post something from correntewire
    2. Physco duchebag kool-aid drinking moron.

    That’s “psycho douchebag” to you! However, we welcome your hatred!

  129. 129
    The Moar You Know says:

    MAD GRANNIES

    The Clinton demographic, unmasked. I must remember to work harder to insure Obama’s election. My grandma scared the shit out of me.

  130. 130
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    I do think history will not be kind however.

    It won’t be kind to any generation. Each up and coming generation believes that it has a unique insight into the origins of what’s wrong with the world and they also know exactly whom to blame.
    Back in the day, we blamed our predecessors for Vietnam, racial discrimination, the necessity for back-alley abortions, draconian drug laws and strip mining. Our success in rectifying those situations is a mixed bag. Just as every generation’s record is.
    The good news is that in what will seem to be an astonishingly near future you’ll be able to log on to whatever the internet has become and read the comments of your successors explaining to you how you fucked things up. It’s one of the joys of aging.

  131. 131
    SnarkyShark says:

    OK psycho douchebag

    What does your sad pathetic little refugee camp for incoherent Hillary worshipers have to do with FDR?

    Hillary has more in common with the people he railing against.

    Corporate assholes just like Penn and that whole crop of DLC loser-boys ya’ll seem to love so much.

    I don’t think you get to claim.

    I’m sure your mileage will vary over there in la la land.

  132. 132
    SnarkyShark says:

    The good news is that in what will seem to be an astonishingly near future you’ll be able to log on to whatever the internet has become and read the comments of your successors explaining to you how you fucked things up. It’s one of the joys of aging.

    I know. You are a good guy, and I know you speak the truth. Ya’ll had it rough too with all the best and the brightest getting offed by the establishment. I just wish the DFHs had won.

  133. 133

    Feelin the unity, there, snarky snark! [Wipes tear]

  134. 134
    SnarkyShark says:

    Feelin the unity, there, snarky snark! [Wipes tear]

    Two way street. You remind me of my Republican relatives. Tehey act like assholes until you tell them to STFU, and then they start in with that whole, “Wheres that liberal understanding?” bullshit.

    Except you guys are pikers by comparison.

    I guess thats where that whole Republican-lite” thing comes form eh?

    Besides, unity coordination directer aint my fucking job title.

  135. 135
    nightjar says:

    However, we welcome your hatred!

    It’s not our candidate lurking about pining for disaster to capitalize on. And I’m not necessarily speaking of the RFK gaffe. Not necessarily.

  136. 136
    oh really says:

    I am Hillary
    I am the victim
    Always the victim
    Goo goo g’joob

    Apologies to John and the guys.

  137. 137
    John Cole says:

    Doesn’t matter. All that matters is the reality of THIS situation. And I think it’s CLEAR she wasn’t trying to suggest “Obama might be assassinated, so vote for me.

    I think it is pretty clear that the basis of her campaign since it became clear months ago that she would not overtake Obama in the pledged delegate lead has been “anything can happen.” that is why they seized on the bitter remarks, that is why they played up Rev. Wright whenever they could, and so on. And more power to them, all is fair in primary politics, I guess.

    However, let me ask you this. What if, instead of that babbling nonsensical non-apology about Ted Kennedy’s tumor on Friday, she had simply said the following:

    “Earlier today I was in a meeting with the Argus Leader editorial board, and I made a remark RFK’s assassination that in hindsight I wish I had not. While I was clearly trying to bring up reasons why a long primary is not damaging to the Democratic party, I can, in retrospect, see how bringing up that traumatic chapter in our nation’s history has deeply upset and offended a great number of people, particularly with our country’s history of racial violence, and I am truly sorry.”

    That would have shown empathy, owned up to the mistake, shown an understanding of how terrified many supporters of Hillary and Obama are about having the first female or black candidate assassinated, and this story would have been dead by Saturday morning. Instead, we got the mealy-mouthed victim BS that continues on today.

    Why?

    Because she is constitutionally incapable of admitting error, and her campaign has but two gears- throttling forward full-speed ahead in attack mode, and idling in victim mode. Nothing is her own doing- everything is the fault of evil outside forces who have it in for her. It was not financial mismanagement and strategic errors that made her campaign fail, she would have you believe, but sexism and Clinton haters whipped into a frenzy by that evil Obama. She isn’t losing because Obama is a compelling figure who has inspired a lot of new voters, it is because the media hates her and we are all just too stupid to realize he is not experienced enough to be President, something she and McCain are, however. She can’t admit that she had every advantage going into this race and blew it, instead, she has to blame everyone else.

    This latest inability to empathize, own up to her own shit, and the stupendously obvious tin ear she has is why she lost the election. It is the Clinton fatal flaw in a microcosm. Hillary Clinton didn’t lose because of who we all are and because we are all flawed and evil sexists, she lost because of who she is.

  138. 138
    John Cole says:

    Feelin the unity, there, snarky snark! [Wipes tear]

    Kind of hard trying to unite the people burning down your house.

  139. 139
    binzinerator says:

    Clinton is right on this one.

    Bullshit.

    She made a particularly clumsy verbal gaffe that, because it contained the name Bobby Kennedy, was pounced on by shrill little morons just aching to frame her every motive as evil incarnate.

    Bullshit.

    …anyone who claims Hillary brought up Bobby Kennedy because she wanted to play the “assassination card” is a either flat out liar or a bag of hammers moron.

    Oh no, she’s only suggesting that Obama could be assassinated in June just like RFK and she’s just hanging around just in case. Consider yourself dumber than bag of hammers.

    Stop with the bullshit that this was a gaffe, that it was accitental, that she was tired and merely slipped up.

    Hillary invoked the RFK assassination before. In March she said almost verbatim what she is now being raked over the coals for. Then twice earlier this month she again repeated this, only this time she didn’t use the word “assassination”, she alluded to it.

    It’s not a gaffe, you stupid Clintonistas. It wasn’t an accidental, poor choice of words. It wasn’t becuase she was tired or made an honest mistake. What she said was a calculated message, and this was her 4th time repeating it.

    Listen to this from Olbermann. He has the video clips of Hillary saying this on these other occasions.

    I will no longer vote for this creepy cynical asshole even if incredibly, somehow, she ends up as the nominiee. Because, as Olbermann said, “a senator – a politician – a person – who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot – has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.”

  140. 140

    The, er, readers here might be interested in the Times Online story quoted here: Barack Obama wants Bill to heal Hillary Clinton wounds.

    Issues with cranial integrity are, of course, yours to deal with…

  141. 141
    jake says:

    MAKE!
    IT!
    STOP!

  142. 142
    grumpy realist says:

    lambert, that’s some weird stuff you linked to there.

    Anyone who thinks that it’s OBAMA’S organization that is flailing around and flying to pieces seems to be a few sandwiches short of the picnic basket of reality….

  143. 143
    nightjar says:

    Issues with cranial integrity are, of course, yours to deal with…

    Err, knucklehead. Obama wasn’t the one who said this, it was as you quoted a senior advisor. My guess is Obama would just as soon she slunk back to NY as a Senator. And Bill Clinton smeared himself with the black community, with the identity politic code talk. And give a link where the Obama camp called BC a racist.

  144. 144
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    Why does she keep bringing up 1968, period? It was a disaster for Democrats, notwithstanding the dishonesty about the length of the 68 primary season and the RFK murder.

    I repeat: “Such a nice convention you have planned there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it. Give me the nomination or McCain wins.”

  145. 145
    SnarkyShark says:

    Bill Clinton taking a dump on the last of his credibility.

    And Lambert, about your not being a cult?

    Wrong.

  146. 146

    Well, Obama recently proposed that half the delegations could be seated. This is changing the numbers, no? Isn’t he “changing the rules in the middle of the game”? Of course he is offering this as he knows it will change nothing. Fair enough. But if Clinton does it, it’s of course mass hysteria, do anything say anything quest for power. Since the rules committe is meeting at the end of the month, she is proposing the full delegation to be seated. What is so fucking criminal about that? Why can’t she ever make one simple point for her candidacy without everyone jumping down her throat for it? It’s black helicopter derangement in it’s pharmeceutical strength form.

    Except, you know Mahal, you would realize that Bill Clinton suggested that first. And then Hillary said no. Come back when you get your facts straight.

  147. 147
    mr. whipple says:

    “Since the rules committe is meeting at the end of the month, she is proposing the full delegation to be seated.”

    The problem with this is that if you allow both state delegations to be seated in full, it gives permission for other states to break the rules in the future. Democrats are hard enough to get into some semblance of order, and if you have a rule-less party that is certain anarchy.

    So, some sort of sanction is needed. As far as MI, the state party designed a compromise that HRC would not accept.

  148. 148
    Tom says:

    However, let me ask you this. What if, instead of that babbling nonsensical non-apology about Ted Kennedy’s tumor on Friday, she had simply said the following:

    “Earlier today I was in a meeting with the Argus Leader editorial board, and I made a remark RFK’s assassination that in hindsight I wish I had not. While I was clearly trying to bring up reasons why a long primary is not damaging to the Democratic party, I can, in retrospect, see how bringing up that traumatic chapter in our nation’s history has deeply upset and offended a great number of people, particularly with our country’s history of racial violence, and I am truly sorry.”

    That would have shown empathy, owned up to the mistake, shown an understanding of how terrified many supporters of Hillary and Obama are about having the first female or black candidate assassinated, and this story would have been dead by Saturday morning. Instead, we got the mealy-mouthed victim BS that continues on today.

    You’re right, that would have been a better statement. But I don’t believe is or should have been necessary to defuse this situation.

    If you attacked Hilary for attacking Obama on Bittergate or Republicans for attacking Obama’s character by citing another man’s words, then you should NOT attack Clinton on this. It’s the same thing. Never mind the “she did it too argument…”

    Looking at the statement and the context without any BS or agenda it’s clear she did not mean what everyone is attacking her for. That’s a problem. This is more personal vendetta than anything and the truth gets lost.

  149. 149
    John Cole says:

    Looking at the statement and the context without any BS or agenda it’s clear she did not mean what everyone is attacking her for. That’s a problem. This is more personal vendetta than anything and the truth gets lost.

    The context you are ignoring is in her entire campaign, which is “anything can happen.”

    Regardless, can you not admit that even if you give Clinton the MOST charitable interpretation possible, referencing political assassination in the course of the campaign is, in and of itself, exceptionally gauche?

  150. 150
    Doonhamer says:

    John Cole says:

    Looking at the statement and the context without any BS or agenda it’s clear she did not mean what everyone is attacking her for. That’s a problem. This is more personal vendetta than anything and the truth gets lost.

    The context you are ignoring is in her entire campaign, which is “anything can happen.”

    Regardless, can you not admit that even if you give Clinton the MOST charitable interpretation possible, referencing political assassination in the course of the campaign is, in and of itself, exceptionally gauche?

    No John, apparently, they can not.

    For she is the Sun Queen, and you are but a mere mysogyinist.

  151. 151
    Rick Taylor says:

    However, let me ask you this. What if, instead of that babbling nonsensical non-apology about Ted Kennedy’s tumor on Friday, she had simply said the following:

    I think the story would have been over by now. And I think the Clinton campaign should hire you to be their speech writer.

  152. 152
    John S. says:

    Regardless, can you not admit that even if you give Clinton the MOST charitable interpretation possible, referencing political assassination in the course of the campaign is, in and of itself, exceptionally gauche?

    No, John, they cannot. For Hillary supporters she can do no wrong, and Obama can do no rght. Hillary has made no gaffes (Tuzla, ‘hard-working whites’ and this RFK business don’t count) but Obama lost every white person because he referred to them as ‘bitter’.

    By now you realize that you are on the outside looking in on the crazies who used to be the ones on the outside looking in on you.

  153. 153
    SnarkyShark says:

    f you attacked Hilary for attacking Obama on Bittergate or Republicans for attacking Obama’s character by citing another man’s words, then you should NOT attack Clinton on this

    Why should I not? You make the rules now? She should not have, but since she did, its on mutherfucker.

    Turnabout is fair play. Don’t you ever presume to tell us what we should and should not do. We understand clearly that there will be no reciprocation, and the whole FL/MI thing illustrates that we are playing by Rovian rules. Rovian rules instituted by your candidate.

    Well okey dokey, we will and are kicking your ass by that game too.

  154. 154
    Rarely Posts says:

    I think this is the thread I was asked to link to the Obama camp’s hysterical overreaction…anywho…Hillary makes an analogy that she’s made in the past (to Time or Newsweek back in March, as a matter of fact) using an historical reference to a campaign that lasted until June. The Obama camp immediately issues a statement that what she says has no place in a campaign (after not even saying boo about it back in March). The intenets go wild claiming Hillary is wishing for an assassination. After it becomes pretty clear that Hillary was simply making an historical reference, Obama himself issues a statement saying she didn’t mean what it sounded like (showing, seriously, a lack of judgment…I mean really, do you misinterpret things this badly often?) Today it turns out that Obama’s campaign emailed Keith’s scathing remarks to the press after claiming they weren’t trying to make a big deal out of it.

    So yeah, an hysterical overreaction.

  155. 155
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I see the cattle call to the Clintonistas went out and we get an influx of st00p1d here as a result of it. I have not joined a single pro-Hillary blog to torment and harass Clinton supporters, though the temptation to throw chum into the shallow end of their pool is great. But why bother when they will come to you and save you the effort?

    If Hillary wanted to say ‘Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June of ’68‘, she could have said that. But that was not the point she was trying to make (repeatedly, for the last few months). She used Bill as the ‘example‘ that campaigning can run late (and a poor example at that as it is not even relevant to this year), and she used RFK as the ‘shit happens‘ line as to why she is staying in.

    No parsing needed. Bill was still running and Bobby was killed, both in June. To her, both good reasons to still be in the race. She mentioned the assassination, not that Bobby was still campaigning. Her apologyexplanation‘ was so weak (that the Kennedy family has been in her mind lately) that anyone can see that the only way the Kennedy family has been in her mind is because she has been obsessing that they had the audacity to endorse Obama over herself. End of story.

    But keep trying to sell everyone on the Clinton meme that she never makes a mistake, but everyone else does. I am sure that will instill confidence in the electorate.

    For the Clinton diehards and Republican ratfuckers who are working so hard to get Hillary her poorly deserved ‘win’, why not hit some of the AA blogs and see how far you get with your bullshit. I am sure that they would be glad to hear what you have to say.

    Let us know how successful you are.

  156. 156
    SnarkyShark says:

    By now you realize that you are on the outside looking in on the crazies who used to be the ones on the outside looking in on you.

    Actually on the worst day John ever had, he couldn’t come close to some of these clowns.

  157. 157
    nightjar says:

    After it becomes pretty clear that Hillary was simply making an historical reference,

    You’ve been trolling here the past few days and every post you make says the same damn thing. Has the stoopids afflicted you RP. Otherwise, come up with something new and plausible. Of course she was making a historical reference– to explain why she is staying in the race.

  158. 158
    SnarkyShark says:

    I see the cattle call to the Clintonistas went out and we get an influx of st00p1d here as a result of it. I have not joined a single pro-Hillary blog to torment and harass Clinton supporters, though the temptation to throw chum into the shallow end of their pool is great. But why bother when they will come to you and save you the effort?

    It’s outstanding isn’t it? And you can kick em in the junk and they just keep coming back for more. And none of that stupid don’t feed trolls bullshit from John. Hell at Johns joint, we bait em and pine on remorsefully when they scurry away to lick their wounds.

    Now I know why those Canuck-o-facist like clubbing baby seals so much.

  159. 159
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Rarely Posts should change their name to ‘Rarely Posts Anything Worth Reading, But Always Worth Printing And Wiping With‘.

    In other news, Hillary has almost reached a new metric in the race! On May 21st, Hillary needed three of the remaining delegates (pledged & super) to every one that Obama would need to win the primary. The day after, on May 23rd, that metric ‘improved’ to four delegates to every one for Obama for her to win.

    Well, now it is almost five delegates to every one that Obama would get for her to win!

    Keep up the great work Hillary, it’s almost over!

  160. 160
    Tom says:

    Regardless, can you not admit that even if you give Clinton the MOST charitable interpretation possible, referencing political assassination in the course of the campaign is, in and of itself, exceptionally gauche?

    After looking up the word “gauche,” well, maybe, I don’t know. I just think that RFK’s assassination was such a huge event for Baby Boomers, she just referencing it as an historical event. I don’t think she meant, or it’s fair to infer, that Obama might be assassinated.

    This is just another media/blogosphere “happening” where someone says something and everyone freaks the hell out and covers it as if she had actually shot Obama herself. Mountain out of a molehill.

    And I’m an Obama guy. Voted for him against Keyes and against Clinton and will vote for him against McCain.

  161. 161

    The Obama camp immediately issues a statement that what she says has no place in a campaign (after not even saying boo about it back in March).

    Unless arguments are egregious and clearly intentional, there’s no point in issuing a statement. The first time Hillary said it, she walked it back shortly thereafter and started using the same argument minus the assassination reference. There’s no point in issuing a condemnation for a simple mis-speak (unless, of course, you are Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but that is neither here nor there).

    But saying it again? A second time? After clearly understanding it was tactless the first time and taking steps to prevent it? Repetition of that sort is incredibly tone-deaf or tactically purposeful.

  162. 162
    SnarkyShark says:

    oday it turns out that Obama’s campaign emailed Keith’s scathing remarks to the press after claiming they weren’t trying to make a big deal out of it.

    Yep, proud I am. Obama is a quick learner, and now understands what it is he is dealing with. You feign indignity, I say hell of a good play.

    Count on us to keep it in play over the long weekend. And count on Hillary with her stupid op-ed piece to do her part.

    And lets not forget you with all the Faux outrage keeping the shit-storm going.

    This all works pretty damn good.

    I almost feel sorry for McCain’s crippled old ass, but his time will come.

  163. 163
    SnarkyShark says:

    And I’m an Obama guy. Voted for him against Keyes and against Clinton and will vote for him against McCain.

    I was too harsh on you Tom. You are actually quite right that this shouldn’t be that big a deal, but I think a lot of people think it is time to bury her. It really is just the last straw. That’s it’s importance.

  164. 164
    Tom says:

    This is a great article on this “story.”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....atch-fire/

    For everyone who’s outraged over this, if you had just read these remarks in an AP story or whatever, would you have been so upset? Or was it because the NY Post ran the “She Said What?” and Drudge splashed “SHOCK” in front of his headline that you jumped on this?

    People are so conditioned to being outraged, yeah just instinctively jump when someone screams it.

  165. 165
    Tom says:

    SnarkyShark,

    Fair enough. And it’s obviously a final straw situation. I just don’t think that means Clinton should be attacked over these comments like she it.

  166. 166
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Or was it because the NY Post ran the “She Said What?” and Drudge splashed “SHOCK” in front of his headline that you jumped on this?

    Neither. I don’t read shit like that. I turned on the TV, and they were playing her clip from the interview. I immediately ‘got’ what she was saying without any prompting by the press, and I did not know of her earlier utterances of it until it was pointed out online. So it was immediately offensive to me, and I am sure that it was to many other people.

    I will not give her a pass on this. No f’ing way. She knows what she is saying, and she said it. Her reaction afterward convinced me (yet again) that if she is president, she will be just as tone-deaf as the current occupant. She will always be right, and everyone else will always be wrong.

    No thanks, I’ve had enough of ‘I’m always right and everyone else is wrong‘ from the current occupant of the White House to last me a lifetime. No need for the so-called Democratic version of the same thing. Hillary is pathologically incapable of apologizing for anything or admitting she made a mistake. For whatever reason, she just can’t do it.

    If Hillary is given the win over Obama, I write in Obama. I will never vote for her. Never.

  167. 167
    SnarkyShark says:

    Tom-

    I think John made the best point. She could have killed all this with the very apology that John himself wrote. But she is incapable of admitting to being less than perfect. That is what really should be the focus

    That unfortunately is a little to subtle for most of the unwashed masses. The original comment seems to work pretty good, so that is what we need to go with.

    The time for civility and fair play is over. The stakes are to high, and you are never going to get the same consideration back.

    Like Jules and Vincent said,”We need shotguns for this job”

    But pistols will have to do.

  168. 168
    SnarkyShark says:

    Keep up the great work Hillary, it’s almost over!

    You got that right.

  169. 169
    daniel rotter says:

    “Why, she just made an innocous statement about the election timeline…”

    Which is exactly what Hillary did.

  170. 170
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Bill Clinton in S.D. today:

    If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote, …

    Someone might want to tell Bill that he is off message.

    Or how about this one while talking about the super delegates:

    Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.

    Yeah, and Bill knows all about covering things up, right? What about that ‘devil in a blue dress‘ Bill?

    The wheels came off this campaign in January, and they have worn the rims and brake drums (old model, no disc brakes or ABS) completely off of it. Now it’s just sliding along on the bottom of the chassis, screeching and grinding, completely out of control with no retaining wall in sight.

  171. 171
    mr. whipple says:

    “So it was immediately offensive to me, and I am sure that it was to many other people.”

    I wasn’t offended, even though it was inartfully worded and crude.

    What offended me more that that for the umpteenth time she was lying about how Bill clinched in ’92, and she was lying about why she was staying in the race. And the editorial board offended me because they let her spew her shit without calling her on it, just like all the unprepared stenographers have been doing for 2 months.

  172. 172
    w vincentz says:

    Snaeky,
    I noticed that all of a sudden all these Hillholes showed up here. WTF? Did Hillshit get on the phone or something?

  173. 173
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Like I said, the cattle call went out and those who aren’t downers rallied to save their queen. What I find humorous is that they will not change a single mind here, yet they insist on flailing about posting their cowshit in the hope that the sheer weight of their crap will win the day for her.

    Their coming here to post makes ridiculing as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

    MORE COWBELL!

  174. 174
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    On another note, I have figured out how the right is going to suppress the vote this fall. By raising gas prices to the point that blue collar workers won’t be able to afford to drive to the polls.

  175. 175
    w vincentz says:

    You got that right Con Lib,
    Bring on the COW BELL!

  176. 176
    John Cole says:

    Snaeky,
    I noticed that all of a sudden all these Hillholes showed up here. WTF? Did Hillshit get on the phone or something?

    MYIQ- posted on a Corrente thread.

    I would prefer it if we didn’t use the term “Hillholes.” It is cheap and no need to give them more ammo to add to all their real and imagined grievances. Although truth be told, most of them are probably going to vote McCain like P. Lukasiak.

  177. 177
    SnarkyShark says:

    I noticed that all of a sudden all these Hillholes showed up here. WTF? Did Hillshit get on the phone or something?

    They know the end is nigh, and like lemmings rushing over the cliff, they came to the one place where they knew they could be put out of their misery.

    I haven’t had this much fun since the last time I went dynamite fishing.

    I love this freaking blog.

    Put out some more bait John, they cant be all done yet!

  178. 178
    SnarkyShark says:

    I would prefer it if we didn’t use the term “Hillholes.”

    Yes, best to use the scientific term-

    clinically insane.

    Let em bellow about the real issues, thats quite enough to go on.

  179. 179
    SnarkyShark says:

    By raising gas prices to the point that blue collar workers won’t be able to afford to drive to the polls.

    Yeah, but thats problematic because it stifles the inbred Hillbilly vote too.

    Thats a damn big part of their base.

  180. 180
    nightjar says:

    I would prefer it if we didn’t use the term “Hillholes.”

    I personally prefer “ratfuckers” although I don’t know why. And I agree, that amongst the reader and writers of blogs, most of them are not going to vote for the MUP, but instead will have stewed themselves into a state of rancid sludge by the election.

  181. 181
    w vincentz says:

    Point taken. I won’t call them Hillholes any longer.
    They are Hillary supporters.
    Why? I dunno, I just dunno.
    So, to reunite the party once their candidate is out, I’ll be more respectful.

  182. 182
    Sasha says:

    By popular acclaim, we are offering for your amusement and edification the exciting new game “Obama Golf”!

    The rules are simple, and any number can play: To win, change an innocuous Hillary statement into a wankfest-worthy statement in the fewest number of strokes.

    [snip]

    Enjoy! It’s the new game sensation that’s sweeping the nation!

    0. Obama uses the word “periodically”.

    1. Periodically has the word “period” in it.

    2. Period could mean menstrual cycle.

    3. Menstrual cycles suggest PMS.

    4. Hillary is a woman.

    5. Obama is making a sexist comment and no other interpretaiton is possible.

  183. 183
    Marc says:

    You can’t comment at most of the pro-Clinton blogs, by the way. They’re registration required and heavy on banning dissenting voices for the most part. (left coaster is an exception, by the way. Talk Left is extremely ban-happy.)

  184. 184

    The thing is that the most devasting attack on Hillary isn’t about Obama, it is about her linking herself as victim with RFK. That is the complete WTF moment.

  185. 185
    Bey says:

    You can’t comment at most of the pro-Clinton blogs,

    It’s just as well. Most of them are so deep in The Crazy that they couldn’t process what you’d say anyway.

  186. 186
    Cathy in Portland says:

    John C made the right observation upthread about context.. she’s been waiting around for “something” to happen. Context matters. It was just a week before Hillary’s gaffe that Huckabee made this “joke” at the NRA convention “…Appearing in front of about 6,000 gun rights activists, Huckabee’s speech was interrupted by a loud noise. The former Arkansas governor said, “That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.” http://blog.washingtonpost.com.....s_fla.html
    The press and the blogs went nuts and Huckabee apologized. Russert grilled Huckabee about it on Meet the Press. And then one week later Hillary uses the concept and the A word seemingly oblivious to the consequences.
    The RFK assassination line was wrong, period. And then she demonstrated that she did’t have either the maturity or the character to apologize. She did a weasely non-apology and then said that if Bobby, Jr. wasn’t offended then no one else should be. Wrong again. And now the Clinton team line that she’s a victim and it’s Obama’s fault!

    Can you imagine what it would be like to have her (and Bill) in the White House for the next 4 years? It would be like living in a nightmare version of a soap opera… Think about the alternate reality that the Clintonites have tried to spin over the last 2 months as they realized they are losing the nomination. Can you imagine 4 years of it? They won’t behave better, be more competent, be more honest in the White House…

    And don’t get me started on the downstream damage that’s coming because of her cynical manipulation of the legitimate frustrations of many women who really have been limited and damaged by sexism. She’s been pouring accelerant on smoldering embers and somebody’s going to get burned.

  187. 187

    I think this is the thread I was asked to link to the Obama camp’s hysterical overreaction…anywho…Hillary makes an analogy that she’s made in the past (to Time or Newsweek back in March, as a matter of fact) using an historical reference to a campaign that lasted until June.

    And, as usual, she used a completely WRONG analogy with NO RELEVANCE to this campaign! Again, the woman and her team is incompetent. And you want her to be president?

  188. 188
    George J. says:

    Sweet Jesus, I read most of these posts here and what a headache I’ve got now.

    These crazy, nutjob Hillbots are starting to scare me. It makes me sick to read such irrational tripe and come to the realization that another human being could have such a convoluted,twisted thought process. If this is the type of supporter that has Hillary’s back, I’m very,very glad I’m no longer a supporter of hers.

  189. 189
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    If this is the type of supporter that has Hillary’s back, I’m very,very glad I’m no longer a supporter of hers.

    Congratulations on your decision about Hillary, and welcome to our reality here. We like to play Whack-A-Troll, and the Hillbots gladly oblige us. Kick back, grab a beer and some popcorn, keep the mallet handy and have at it!

    The Hillbots love the abuse so much, they just can’t stay away. So we are more than happy to oblige them. ;)

  190. 190
    daniel rotter says:

    “Sweet Jesus, I read most of these posts here and what a headache I’ve got now.”

    Funny that that sentence is in a anti-Hillary context, because that’s exactly the way I fell after reading all the posts that ridiculously interpret her RFK comments as “I have to stay in this race because Obama might get assassinated.” Hillary, in this particular instance, is indeed the victim.

  191. 191
    Tom says:

    Just for the record (since I am one of the stronger defender of Clinton in this thread), I am FOR Obama. Have been since before he ran for Senate. I’ve voted for him more than most of you accusing me of being a “Hillhole” or “Hillbot.”

    I just call em like I see em. It’s a sure sign of a weak argument when people start speaking in generalities and name calling.

  192. 192
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    “Sweet Jesus, I read most of these posts here and what a headache I’ve got now.”

    Funny that that sentence is in a anti-Hillary context, because that’s exactly the way I fell after reading all the posts that ridiculously interpret her RFK comments as “I have to stay in this race because Obama might get assassinated.” Hillary, in this particular instance, is indeed the victim.

    Keep flogging that dead horse, there might be a bit of skin still on the bones that you missed. You won’t get any mileage here with your whining, but have at it if you wish. Some people enjoy really beating their heads against a brick wall, and we are more than happy to oblige them.

    Tom, we have seen more than enough Hillbots that when someone comes in parroting certain things it sets off alarms in some people. Keep plugging away at it if you wish, and if you are what you say you are it will come out after some time in the grist mill here. But if you go saying the same things in the same way that the Hillbots do, expect to get called out on it. We calls them as we sees them.

    Just saying…

  193. 193
    slightly_peeved says:

    If you don’t want people to think you’re talking about assassination as part of your discussions of the primary race…

    don’t mention assassinations in your discussions of the primary race.

    This is part #562 of the series: Clear English for Lawyers, Politicians, and other people who you would figure would know how to speak the fucking language, what with it being their fucking JOB for the last 35 years, I mean Jeez.

  194. 194
    pkanalyst says:

    Heh…Indeed!

  195. 195
    nightjar says:

    I just call em like I see em. It’s a sure sign of a weak argument when people start speaking in generalities and name calling.

    Opinions are split on what Hill was saying and though I don’t see it your way, I think your argument is plausible Tom. In the end, it’s not that important, but many of us now days don’t give people who throw rocks a break because they don’t deserve one. And that goes across party lines. I used to have a rise above it all attitude but not any more. It has become apparent to me that while most voters don’t like the vicious mudslinging, they like less those who don’t dish back as good as they get. There’s nothing noble about that, but it is reality IMHO.

  196. 196
    Dan says:

    $109 mil in income, $165 mil library. Lots of people, foreign governments and corporations were expecting a lot of favors when Hil got elected. Bill is freaking now, cause they are gonna come looking for their money back.

    “They took my thumbs, Charlie!”

  197. 197
    binzinerator says:

    Cathy, I think you are dead on with the context. Huckabee’s racist gaffe set the stage for Hillary’s assassinaton comment. As I noted in another thread, that comment wasn’t a one-off gaffe. It wasn’t a poor choice of words, or an awkward slip of the tongue. It was a calculated message. She’d trotted it out several times before, in the 3 months previous.

    It was the context that made her go back to the imagery that was previously deemed toxic.

    This shit begats its own shit. But only if you decide to go down that road of the low and the debased.

    And don’t get me started on the downstream damage that’s coming because of her cynical manipulation of the legitimate frustrations of many women who really have been limited and damaged by sexism.

    If there’s a single thing, a single issue I can despise Hillary for, it’s this. She’s made many fine women into their own worst enemies. Because of a manipulated sense of loyalty. Jebus, it’s like they are abused women. Not what I think of when I think of feminism.

    Whatever. I like my women to be more independent than that. I will raise my daughter as such. Don’t care what the feminists call it. She will be something different. What is often called feminism now I don’t wish my daughter to be like.

Comments are closed.