Nixon In A Pantsuit

Speaking for me only

Hunter S. Thompson, “eulogizing” Nixon:

As long as Nixon was politically alive–and he was, all theway to the end–we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instinctsof a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by thehead with all four claws.

That was Nixon’s style–and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don’t fight fair, bubba. That’s why God made dachshunds.

Hillary Clinton, today:

“Senator Obama is a good man and he is a very talented and gifted man. But I think his comments were elitist and divisive. And the Democratic party has been unfortunately viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch,” Clinton said. “I mean we have waged elections over that and you don’t have to think back too far to remember that good men running for president were viewed as elitist and out of touch with the values and the lives of millions of Americans. So I think this is a very significant concern that people have expressed.”

She also said she is still waiting for a comprehensive explanation for the remarks from Obama.

“What’s important about this is that Senator Obama has not owned up to what he said and taken accountability for it. You know first he said he was right and attacked me for raising his remarks and referencing them. Then he admitted he said what he said inartfuly. And now he has deeply apologized if he has offended anyone,” she said. “But what people are looking for is an explanation. You know, what does he really believe? How does he see the people here in this neighborhood, throughout Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, other places in our country? I think that’s what people are looking for, some explanation, and he has simply not provided one.”

And before you Clinton supporters get all up in arms about the Nixon statement and accuse me of Hillary hate, let me remind you of something- you and Hillary have set the rules of the debate this past week. All is fair in politics, and I am just following your rules. Just as Hillary showed us in the above quote, you can call someone a liar, an elitist, claim they owe people an apology and look down on them, just so long as you also say something nice. And remember, of paramount concern is what the Republicans might say about you in the fall.

So here we go- Hillary Clinton is better than McCain, but she is a lying, two-faced, soul-less, vicious political hack who may or may not have killed Vince Foster (and don’t you know the GOP will bring that up!). I am beginning to like these new rules.

PS- I will stop when she does.

*** Update ***

By the way, bookmark this post for a textbook definition of concern trolling when you need one. Calling him divisive and elitist, then noting that we need to worry about appearing divisive and elitist is just, well, Clintonian awesomeness.

Shooting Yourself In the Foot When It Is In Your Mouth

Speaking for me only

The Tuzla Tigress (Credit where credit is due) dodges some more incoming fire:

After a weekend spent making direct appeals to gun owners and church goers, Hillary Clinton said Sunday a query about the last time she fired a gun or attended church services “is not a relevant question in this debate” over Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town Americans.

“We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here. “This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?”

Suck it you Clinton hating media! This is about Obama being out of touch, so stop questioning my love of guns!

Republican strategists must think it is Christmas already.

Sunday Screw Hillary Open Thread

Speaking for me only

Watch this video of Obama on Charlie Rose in 2004:

Now watch Hillary mischaracterize Obama’s statements and smear him as elitist:

Hillary can go pound salt, and she can shove her self-serving bullshit down her obnoxious piehole. If the party elders (are there any?) can not figure out what this power-mad lunatic is doing to not only Obama, but the goals of the party, and if they can not realize how she is simply, in her quest for the Presidency, reinforcing the bullshit Republican narrative, then the Democrats don’t deserve to win. If people can not stand up to Clinton and call her on this crap, we deserve four years of McCain.

Don’t feed me that conciliatory “they are both wrong” BS. One person is in the wrong here, and that person is Hillary.

***Update ***

I am kinda curious how Clinton’s scale for gauging “elitism” and “demeaning” and “un-American” remarks is operationalized. Clearly Clinton is stating he is too elitist and out of touch and un-American to be President, but does her scale for this allow for him to still be her Vice-President? Is the scale on the same continuum as the Commander-in-Chief thresh-hold that she and McCain have both passed but Obama has not? Because if so, that would really make sense- Obama is not ready to be CinC, is way too elitist and out of touch to be President, but not too out of touch and elitist to be Vice-President.

Could a reporter please ask her to explain her measurement of these things?

The Difference Between Clinton and Obama

(Speaking for John…)

I’m certainly not as vehemently opposed to a Clinton presidency as some, but I am becoming moreso every day. I mean, she’s just being a complete jerk.

That’s the difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If the situation were reversed, Clinton would have held a presser to say her remarks were taken out of context. Obama goes to the cameras and says, “I meant exactly what I said.”

The folks at CNN summed up exactly how I feel about this whole load of crap:

This has nothing to do with Obama being a “media darling.” It has everything to do with Hillary Clinton being a complete tool who’ll do anything to get elected.

An Elitist Juxtaposition

Speaking for me only

Rather than write up a long post about this manufactured bullshit coming from the Republicans and the Clinton campaign (aka “She”berman), let me just post some facts and some comments and let you figure it out on your own. And yes, I know that assuming you can think for yourselves is elitist, but so be it.

1.) What Obama said last night:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

2.) What Obama said again today:

“Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter,” Mr. Obama said.

“So I said, well, you know when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on,” he added. “So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”

3.) The margin of victory in the 2004 Presidential election: 286-252

4.) Karl Rove’s 2004 strategy, as stated by Matthew Dowd:

One of the first things I looked at after 2000 was what was the real Republican vote and what was the real Democratic vote, not just who said they were Republicans and Democrats, but independents, how they really voted, whether or not they voted straight ticket or not. And I took a look at that in 2000, and then I took a look at what it was over the last five elections or six elections.

And what came from that analysis was a graph that I obviously gave Karl, which showed that independents or persuadable voters in the last 20 years had gone from 22 percent of the electorate to 7 percent of the electorate in 2000. And so 93 percent of the electorate in 2000, and what we anticipated –93 or 94 percent in 2004, just looking forward and forecasting –was going to be already decided either for us or against us. You obviously had to do fairly well among the 6 or 7 [percent], but you could lose the 6 or 7 percent and win the election, which was fairly revolutionary, because everybody up until that time had said, “Swing voters, swing voters, swing voters, swing voters, swing voters.”

And so when that graph and that first strategic imperative began to drive how we would think about 2004, nobody had ever approached an election that I’ve looked at over the last 50 years, where base motivation was important as swing, which is how we approached it. We didn’t say, “Base motivation is what we’re going to do, and that’s all we’re doing.” We said, “Both are important, but we shouldn’t be putting 80 percent of our resources into persuasion and 20 percent into base motivation,” which is basically what had been happening up until that point — look at this graph, look at the history, look what’s happened in this country.

And obviously that decision influenced everything that we did. It influenced how we targeted mail, how we targeted phones, how we targeted media, how we traveled, the travel that the president and the vice president did to certain areas, how we did organization, where we had staff. All of that was based off of that, and ultimately, thank goodness, it was the right decision.

5.) The fine-tuning of the strategy at the state level:

Six months after gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage struck back Tuesday, with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins.

You can go to the census bureau and look at the state rankings for unemployment, per capita income, persons below poverty level, health insurance, etc., and look at where these states ranked. Any guesses?


Again, this may be the elitist in me, but I am thinking you all can put this together on your own with the information I have given you. If a dumb rube like me can put this together and figure out that what Obama said is not only true in the anecdotal sense, but as far as actual numbers and facts go, certainly the alleged “progressives” leaping to seize some sort of advantage for Hillary can figure that out, as well. Which makes their smearing of Obama the past 24 hours all the more depressing.

And really, I have been brief. I just picked gay marriage because it was a glaringly obvious choice. You could go through the list of bullshit they churn up to keep you preoccupied- immigration, the war on Christmas, etc., and do this over and over again. No wonder they feel the need to destroy Obama. He really is a threat to the status quo.