I'm getting that melty feeling when Dean went to hell in '04.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 28, 2007 01:44 PMI'm going to be VERY suspicious if Hillary succumbs to a sunroof noggin-bump.
I know hindsight is 20-20, but it would have been a nice gesture from the Vatican to lend Bhutto the Popemobile, no?
Posted by at December 28, 2007 03:10 PMActually, in the real world the Obama whackos are out in full force not only defending Axelrod, but celebrating his remarks and, get this, accusing Clinton of being the one to polticize the assassination (Evan Bayh never blamed Obama for the murder, let alone said that his inexperience would directly cause an increase in political violence in Pakistan; and he's not on the payroll).
Seriously, on CNN over 9/10 comments are rabidly anti-Hillary. Obama is God, apparently. He can do no wrong. Let no one question Him!
Posted by Nathan at December 28, 2007 04:08 PMHillary and Bush are one. She authorized his incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq (cynically assuming it would boost her national security credentials in a presidential run) and as a result America ignored Afghanistan and Pakistan. Her support of the Iraq invasion--and all of its ramifications--are fair game. Fuck Hillary. She is a Republican.
Posted by green heron at December 28, 2007 06:05 PMNo, Green Heron. Fuck you! If any of these candidates are Bush, it's the damnable Obama.
Green Heron,
And what do you make of Obama's voting record and policies on Iraq? They're identical to Hillary's. And what of Obama's earlier statement on Pakistan, in which he promised to violate its sovereignty if Musharraf failed to act against terrorists? There's nothing as destabilizing as threatening to attack a powder keg.*
I don't care for Hillary myself, but Obama has truly exposed himself as a fool who is willing to lie and smear on such an outrageous level ("Hillary killed Bhutto!") that it's disgusting to even look at him now.
*Isn't it something that the press generally avoids this issue? The NYT doesn't even mention it.
Posted by Nathan at December 29, 2007 02:29 AMHillary's surrogates implied Obama was a Muslim (and therefore a terrorist). This is pure Rovian slime. You can't go any lower. Hillary and Bush are one. Hillary is a Republican.
Posted by green heron at December 29, 2007 05:17 AMGreen Heron,
Let's say you're right: Clinton "surrogates" (Apparently only Clinton has those and Obama is pure) implied he was Muslim and, thus, the American public, being the vehement racists that we are, automatically assume that Obama is a terrorist, which Kerrey personally apologized for is the same as an Obama campaign staffer directly accusing Hillary of actually being a terrorist who's responsible for the Bhutto assassination and Obama defending him (Ignore: Obama's voting record and policy on Iraq not to mention his inflammatory remarks earlier this year about invading Pakistan). How does that excuse Obama? Especially considering his whole image is based on being a different kind of politician, "change we can believe in?"
Oh, and if Hillary and Bush are identical what does it say about Obama that his voting record on Iraq is the same as Clinton's? What does it say about Obama that he voted for Mckasey, a torture advocate, while Clinton didn't?
Posted by Nathan at December 29, 2007 11:07 PMCorrection: I fucked up on the Mukasey nomination. No major Democratic candidate was there to vote on it. I still wish Obama had led on the issue by simply voting against him since he's lacking on leadership.
Posted by Nathan at December 30, 2007 01:00 AM