By George, I think you've got it!
Posted by at March 15, 2008 11:19 AMThis is nonsense. There are no rules.
Clinton is acting outrageously. She is attacking Obama in a way that would hurt him during the general election should he be the nominee. She is also fighting with the DNC. She has her donors threatening to withdraw donations to the DNC if she does not get her way with Michigan and Florida.
Obama acts with respect to everyone. He never says anything that may hurt Clinton in the general election should she be the nominee.
These rules of yours are ridiculous.
Posted by Paul Siegel at March 15, 2008 11:31 AMAm I the only one old enough to remember '72?
The Republicans are evil but damn they're good at this. And the Dems fall for it every fucking time.
Divided party. Clinton = racist and hated by a nice chunk of the base.
Obama = can't win the GE (there's more coming, by Sept. if not sooner he'll be seen as a divisive figure) but it's too late to deny him the nomination without fracturing the base.
And they blame one another for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html/5
Posted by Musashi at March 15, 2008 11:31 AMMarie Cocco claims Hillary won MI... I guess she did, under Clinton rules!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 15, 2008 11:33 AMPaul, re: "He never says anything that may hurt Clinton in the general election should she be the nominee."
It's reassuring to know that continually trumping up charges of racism, running ads that claim "she'll say anything and change nothing," and intimating that his supporters wouldn't vote for someone with her "higher negatives" couldn't hurt Hillary in the general election. I am so relieved.
Posted by Vast Left at March 15, 2008 11:48 AMYawn...this game has gotten old. Clinton's hands are not clean. Obama's hands are not clean. There, everyone should be happy and move on.
There's a Republican named John McCain running for president if anyone remembers.
Posted by Mike P at March 15, 2008 11:54 AMMike,
Thanks for being above the "Obama Rules" fray.
Of course "move on" means for Hillary to concede, right?
Posted by Vast Left at March 15, 2008 12:07 PMeriposte, this would be hillarious if it weren't so true!
If you needed an example of this last night's Countdown is a good example. Olbermann (who I usually like) slapped a big wet kiss on Barack on the Wright matter-- after crucifying Hillary the night before in a "Special Comment" about Gerry Ferraro.
Samantha Power was Obama's Condolleeza Rice, for godsake, and Wright is his pastor, spiritual advisor, and officiated at his wedding. Gerry Ferraro was small time-a fundraiser- in the Clinton campaign, nothing more, and her statements were distorted and taken totally out of context.
Add one to the Clinton rules: everytime anyone says anything about Obama being black, it's "divisive" but anytime anyone says anything about Hillary's gender, it's time to bring up Bill.
Posted by at March 15, 2008 12:11 PMBrilliant, hilarious, true and so very very sad.
Posted by VoicelessInDC at March 15, 2008 12:13 PMummmm
No. It is not fun. It is petty, pointless and destructive. It is this sort of childishness that ends up with the likes of Bush and McCain as our leaders.
We have a system that involves citizens as voters. Either trust that or don't.
Posted by glichte at March 15, 2008 12:15 PMSen.Obama's credibility is in question with this
Rev. Wright issue. He would like to "skip" away
from it and continue to dazzle with words, by
saying that he didn't know. It begs credulity over their 20year relationship that he supported
with more than 20k per year.
check: http:// archive.Newsmax.com/archives/2007/
8/8/194812.shtml Judgement? Rezko?
This isn't going away. Obama rules are seeing MSM
cheerleaders trying to downplay and explain away
this Rev. Wright fiasco, like KO did. Can you
imagine if it had been Sen.Clinton in his place?
The media "bloodlust"? The 9/11 comments cut deep.
This is not equatable to Hagee and McCain. This is
not about an endorsement or giving a speech at Bob
Jones University. This is not done yet for Sen.
"Hope".
You forgot the TMTR: The McCain Trump Rule. Or should it be a generic TGRR(The Golden Republican Rule?)
The only rule that matters in the corporate mainstream media is the one where the Republican (McCain) candidacy Trumps all of these rules therefore invalidating TOR1 & TOR2...with the only other remaining rule in effect being TOR3 (Hillary is to blame for the loss and all the problems of the Democratic candidate in the general election).
On a more serious side...Yes this problem is sad and so very true. And I'm not sure how to explain it...so many A-listers (and mostly males I see) have become the very people they've railed against. How this happened I'm not sure...is there money here with this particular issue? I doubt it. It can't be as I see Josh's site is the only one with an Obama for president advertisement. And I frankly don't find that a problem...I just don't understand.
Posted by emal at March 15, 2008 12:48 PMglichte, re: "We have a system that involves citizens as voters. Either trust that or don't."
Does demanding that 50% of MI and FL voters get automatically assigned to Obama count as trusting the citizens? And does demanding that superdelates not vote their conscience (until and unless Obama has a majority of them, natch) count as trusting the system?
Just wonderin'
Posted by Vast Left at March 15, 2008 12:50 PMOh, and are the constant calls from Obama supporters for Hillary to fold her tent showing great faith in our citizens and our system?
Posted by Vast Left at March 15, 2008 12:53 PMRE: emal- "I just don't understand."
(have I broken some blogworld rule by linking one comment to another?)
"It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf."
Ah, yes, remember '72. Divide and something or other was the plan... And, if you remember well enough, it worked so well they destroyed McGovern’s career and the anti-war left. Nixon was reelected with the nonexistent ‘silent majority’. . .
Also, you might be well to remember something called ‘the Vietnam War 64-75.’ Turned out that the FBI and others sent many agent provocateurs into the American anti-war left to foment violence at demonstrations and make the left look crazy for supporting Weathermen, Black Panthers, etc. at a time when National Guardsmen were shooting students at American universities. Also, remember something quaint called the ‘Church Committee’; Cheney and company, for some unknown reason, hate the Church Committee so much even after all these years. Bush/Cheney repealed the last rules about the domestic spying oversight committee, which grew out of the Church Committee, on the anniversary of the day the same rules went into effect --just a few days ago in fact (‘Just a coincidence’ said a Bush spokesmen). This effectively strips any oversight within the Executive Branch, finally!
‘Course people don’t demonstrate today, they are too selfish, disorganized and programmed to hate hippies too much. But they sure seem to get on the internet and speak out these days, even raise money for progressive causes and have something called blogs, like Huffinstuff and DailyKaos. Bet Cheney hates that. Now consider how the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI, plus something new called Homeland Security have billions and billions (much more money than during Vietnam in fact) to set up all kinds of great secret new domestic spying. Just to look for terrorism, don’t worry! Oh, they said they never would, but we accidently found out that the NSA and company are in fact tapping every email, phone call and credit card transaction not only around the world, but domestically as well. Of course they aren’t listening to the content of your communications! Heaven’s no! Of course, there is no warrant required, and they can tap directly into the ATT hubs so nobody can check. And now, thanks to Bush/Cheney/Rove there is no oversight of any kind.
Do you really think all this domestic spying does not include covert action to disrupt and discredit ‘domestic enemies?’ Pray tell what enemies might they find in our country, anyway? If I recall, Bush, Cheney, Rove, McCain, and the whole GOP has said on many occasions that those evil Democrats are working for terrorists! McClain speculated, just the other day, that the terrorists would do something to take the upcoming election away from him- cause we know he’s gonna win!
Today in 2008 do you seriously think these out of control spy powers --under the direct thumb of Bush/Cheney/Rove-- are NOT in fact being used against Clinton, Obama and the Democrats, as these spy powers were in groovy 1972?
Still think you are safe and secure? That all this spying going on is only to ‘protect’ you? That the lefty blogs are not being manipulated if not controlled by the same evil forces today? That it is all just ‘pure accident’?
Go do some reading and wake the hell up. Start with the Church Committee’s APRIL 26 1976 “D. Using Covert Action To Disrupt And Discredit Domestic Groups” at http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIcd.htm
“Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.”
Posted by Tom The Patriot at March 15, 2008 01:02 PMTCR 4.0: Anything Clinton does strategically to get votes is cheating, conniving, sneaky, and sinister, regardless of the actual rules. Corollary: When Clinton states the rules, it means she is breaking them.
TOR 4.0: Obama only gets votes because people like his message of hope. No strategy is needed.
Posted by Dawn at March 15, 2008 01:09 PMDon't forget the TLC rules:
If anyone points out that we are supposed to be on the same team here and that we should be fighting against the Republicans and John McCain instead of fighting each other, they are immediately labled blasphemers and attacked as blind Obama supporters.
Seriously, this is just now becoming beyond ridiculous.
We are bickering over who should be team captain to the point that we are literally bloodying each other and each candidate. It has now reached a level where we will be so divided and the candidates will be so nuetered by the BS that we are guaranteed to lose come November. Meanwhile McCain has taken the ball and left the field.
I am done with this division. It does absolutely nothing for Democrats.
As far as any kind of Party Building - you know bringing people into the Party because we actually have ideas on how to heal this Nation and the world and bring this country back to some resemblence of the kind of goodness and greatness that it once was - TLC has utterly failed.
Posted by Anjha at March 15, 2008 01:11 PMVast Left,
Did you see my write "Clinton concede"? No. So don't put words in my mouth.
Thanks for finally writing these down eriposte, some measure of organization for "the rulz" is definiely needed. Please do not forget that living abroad for a few years as a child counts as foreign policy experience, while 8 years as first lady does not. It is one of my personal favorites.
Posted by cdo at March 15, 2008 01:14 PMMike P.,
Most of the "get over it" and "move on" talk I'm hearing in these threads is in support of the idea that this campaign should just stop, and Obama should be declared the winner. Glad to hear that's not your specific intent.
However, since one of the most powerful and most poisonous factors at play is the distorted media and blogosphere coverage of Hillary, telling us to "move on" past it is a pretty close analog, methinks.
Posted by Vast Left at March 15, 2008 01:25 PMJust a few wordsmithing points, eRiposte. You write:
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination (through her evil machinations)
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination
Similarly, you write:
Statements by any supporter or surrogate of Barack Obama's that may cast him in poor light
Statements by any supporter or surrogate of Barack Obama's that some may say cast him in poor light
Mike P.
Okay, if I accept that you aren't calling for Hillary to drop out of the race:
What exactly do you mean by saying "...everyone should be happy and move on."?
How are the campaigns to do this?
What must the candidates do to ensure that they, the media and their supporters "move on"?
Anjha, I agree with you. We are wasting valuable time, that cannot be retrieved, to define our Party, our ideas, our plans for the future, and to bring new people into the Democratic Party. It's almost like the Democrats don't want to win in November, or mistakenly believe that the WH is an assured victory in November.
Posted by Judith at March 15, 2008 02:16 PMHillary destroyed the old movie studio system. Geraldo said so when he unearthed the secret Irving Thalberg diaries
Thalberg: "I may not live to see the end of the studio system but end it will thanks to Miss Diabolical herself. No not Joan Crawford but Hillary Clinton....whoever she is."
She got Dore Schary fired too.
Posted by Daryl at March 15, 2008 02:20 PMWhat exactly do you mean by saying "...everyone should be happy and move on."?
How are the campaigns to do this?
What must the candidates do to ensure that they, the media and their supporters "move on"?
I am not speaking for Mike, but I did not see anything in your post that restricted the response just to Mike.
"...everyone should be happy and move on."?
Maybe we should quit attacking each other and each other's candidates and get on with focusing on issues and the Republicans and John McCain. There is a whole lot to write about that does not include attacking the Democrats. Perhaps we should leave attacking the Dems to the Republicans.
How are the campaigns to do this?
Seems they are doing this. It is the 'supporters' that keep harping on this crap. I watch as many of the campaign events and speeches and interviews that I can, I don't see them harping on this petty crap.
What must the candidates do to ensure that they, the media and their supporters "move on"?
If you are waiting for Hillary to ask you to move on and focus on what is important, truly, to this Country and our Party that says a whole lot more about you than her. Maybe you should lead by example and move on to what is truly important.
This is fun!
Only for the Republicans. They love to watch us eat our own.
"or mistakenly believe that the WH is an assured victory in November."
There you go Judith. It's just your destiny...when it doesn't happen...you're just going to wonder "whay happened".
Posted by peter at March 15, 2008 02:31 PMto define our Party
We also need to define McCain, the Republican Party, their disastrous plans for this country and for Iraq. We do have a lot of work to do.
We are wasting time on this and it does not feel good.
We should be a united Party. Excited about the turnout in the primaries. Excited about the possibility of the first woman or the first black president. I mean, holy crap, they are both enormously excited prospects. This should feel good.
It doesn't.
It feels sad and scary. I did not think that we could be so divided. This is what I do not get.
Posted by Anjha at March 15, 2008 02:37 PMYou know, it's tough to read Obama. I don't know if he has his head stuck in the clouds, or stuck in the sand.
Posted by blogtopus at March 15, 2008 03:03 PMExcited huh.
This years turnout ranks seventh in the last ten Democratic primaries, well behind 1984, 1972, and 2004, and not even up to those of 1992 and 1976 or 1988 for that matter. It does exceed the turnouts of 1996, 2000, and 1980. Yeah, get excited, and lose.
Posted by peter at March 15, 2008 03:05 PMHere's a couple a roolz.
1. IOKIYAO
2. It's OK to label everyone around your opponent a racist even if your mentor has been making racist comments since long before your 20 year relationship with him (especially if you had the good fortune to miss every single one of his racist "sermons").
Posted by OxyCon at March 15, 2008 03:50 PMMore Clinton and Obama rules:
1. If race is discussed in the campaign either by affiliates of the Obama team or the Clinton team, it is "playing the race card" by Clinton
2. If gender is discussed by the Clinton team it is Clinton playing the gender card
If gender is discussed by the Obama team (or gender-specific language is used to describe Hillary (such as that she is whining about campaign tactics) it is just stating a fact!
Posted by misfit at March 15, 2008 03:51 PMyou say in rule TCR 2.0: Every statement of any supporter or surrogate of Hillary Clinton is a reflection of Hillary Clinton's personal views or directives.
actually, individual statements should be judged individually, BUT, patterns that emerge, such as ...let's see, how many is it now? 5 ? 7? 8 ? "staff" people reminding voters that Obama is a Black Man....
patterns like this suggest something beyond individual "mistakes", unless Hillary just surrounds herself with incompetent individuals. and if that is true, that should bother us, since a president is only as good as her advisors and staff.
OxyCon, i have listened to Wright's sermons and heard very little of what you call racism. he DOES point out how society generally is structured to benefit the white man.
he does point out that the white power structure sends a huge number of black men to jail.
he does remind people that some (white ) presidents supported apartheid in S Africa.
all of which is true...none of which we white folk like to hear.
Joe from Okalahoma: give. it. up. I mean you may buy this crap, and the TPM and Huffpo types may buy this crap. But it ain't gonna play in Altoona. He is so toast.
Posted by chris at March 15, 2008 04:15 PMOh...hey... what happens if Hillary gets the nomination and wins?
Are all you little Obamaroids going to shut the f### up?
Posted by LuigiDaMan at March 15, 2008 04:21 PMaltoona chris, give what up?
LuigiDaMan, if she gets the nomination she gets my vote.
may just have to hold my nose going into the voting booth, but of course i could never vote for John "100 years war" McCain, even if Hillary does think he would be better than Barack.
no realistic alternative. tho she wont carry oklahoma anyway.
Any votes that Obama receives from Independents and Republicans is because they realize the value of a Unity Pony.
Any votes that Clinton receives from Independents and Republicans is because they are just trying to throw an election.
You're never going to resolve this argument. Each side has good examples to back up their arguments. Meanwhile, Obama picked up seven delegates from Iowa today:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/15/iowa-delegate-selection-goes-on/
The only thing that matters is the numbers.
Posted by at March 15, 2008 04:47 PMhe also picked up a number of endorsements from retird generals and admirals:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_in_chicago_obama_flags_m.html
Posted by joe in oklahoma at March 15, 2008 04:54 PMHow about this:
HRC takes the low road. Therefore all campaign staff, surrogates and supporters only take the low road.
Obama takes the high road. Therefore his campaign staff, surrogates and supporters only take the high road.
Posted by TSL at March 15, 2008 05:06 PM(not to be mistaken with the other Judith who posts on Digby and here.)
I think the blogs have allowed the loons free reign for a long time. You remember, the ones who said Bush was Hitler etc - the people who got their history from movies and comic books.
Well, Ya told these people it was okay to be deranged as long as they were deranged at the GOP and now they are turning on fellow Democrats.
Suggest a little policing in future - idiots dont get wise without a little help.
Posted by Me - Judith at March 15, 2008 05:32 PMWhen Obama wins 1627 pledged delegates (a certain majority), which should happen when Oregon votes, the superdelegates will break for him. From the NYT:
"While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Posted by at March 15, 2008 05:33 PMJoe, if you think White people are the scourge of the Earth, then please go and self flagellate yourself. You'll feel alot better.
As for agreeing with Wright's hate America rants, that crap doesn't sell too well in most of this country.
Oxycon, are you a racist?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 15, 2008 06:14 PMWasab, re:
"Any votes that Obama receives from Independents and Republicans is because they realize the value of a Unity Pony.
Any votes that Clinton receives from Independents and Republicans is because they are just trying to throw an election."
Absolutely. This one belongs on the list.
Posted by Vast Left at March 15, 2008 06:34 PMshorter eriposte: sniff, wah, wah, wah
Posted by gay veteran at March 15, 2008 07:40 PMhere's another rule (that is most apparent at dailykos):
everything that clinton or one of her supporters says needs to be intrepreted in the worst way possible to support the narrative that clinton will either do anything to win or is exploiting race.
Posted by rjarnold at March 15, 2008 08:41 PMMickey Kaus is getting into the act.
The First Rule of Obama?
"If it offends you, I condemn it!"
By Mickey Kaus
http://www.slate.com/id/2186324/
Posted by OxyCon at March 15, 2008 08:45 PMYeah Bob, I'm a racist. I'm mixed race and I hate all the different parts of myself and I hate my Mom and brother who are both darker than Obama is.
And I hate all the unfortunate minorities that I food shop for, delver food to and feed each week. I just want to make sure they all suffer on a full stomach.
I mean, really, how the hell do you get the idea that I'm a racist based on what I posted?
Or are you pulling an "Obama" on me and just calling me a racist because you disagree with me?
These are the eriposte rules of the campaign.
Eriposte will blame every negative thing eriposte hears about Hilary and every positive thing eriposte hears about Obama as a conspriacy against Hilary.
Eriposte will imagine that mainstream media and mainstream bloggers ignore every postive thing eriposte hears about Hilary and every negative thing eriposte hears about Obama.
My God, eriposte -- you have really descended to the level of the Fox News junkies. You have absolutely no objectivity left. This is the last of your posts I will read until the nomination is decided.
Posted by ren at March 15, 2008 09:09 PMMe - Judith, go back to your bridge, right-wing troll
Posted by gay veteran at March 16, 2008 06:02 AMJust for the record, I don't post on Digby. This is the only site I have ever posted on.
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2008 07:39 AMAs usual Peter, your response makes no sense.
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2008 07:43 AMBob in Pacifica:
Are you an obnoxious jerkoff?
Posted by at March 16, 2008 08:13 AMBrilliant eriposte.
Posted by durendal at March 16, 2008 09:29 AMFox news wants to talk about that they are fair and balanced, but in reality they are not. To talk about the rest of the media is avoiding talking about the pastor of Obama and try everything they can to make Obama (A Half Black/ Half white person) to be a black suppressor. But if they want to talk about the media avoiding, why are they avoiding to talk about the case that Hillary Clinton has in November with Peter Paul? The news was all over it when they didn't have evidence on the Peter Paul case, but as soon he came out with recorded tapes and so much evidence that could put Hillary Clinton in jail for 5 years, the media chicken out. Not everybody in Fox News is unfair, even Bill O' Reilly said the media itself was corrupted.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t!
As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.
Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.
Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.
Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.
Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.
The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.
In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.
Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media!
Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000?
Check out Hillcap.org for proof of Hillary Clinton commiting crimes. The evidence that could have put Hillary Clinton in jail for 5 years.
Posted by pedro at March 16, 2008 09:32 AMEasy to count to 263 when you count Texas, Florida, and Michigan. Except Obama won Texas's delegates, Florida at best will get half its delegates seated, and Michigan is re-voting.
Plus Obama is polling better against McCain in California and Texas. Because the issue is not about fault -- it's about electability.
C'mon, it's a long, serious uphill battle for delegates now for Clinton. It's pretty hard to see the route that nets another 125 or so delegates for Clinton to reach parity with Obama.
Brilliant.
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at March 16, 2008 02:04 PMLoved it! Great stuff.
Posted by SN at March 16, 2008 04:23 PMre: Posted by pedro at March 16, 2008 09:32 AM
is there a limit to comment length? how about providing just a link next time, pedro.
Posted by snow-moon at March 16, 2008 05:18 PMOne of the useful side-effects of the Jeremiah Wright brouhaha is its ample illustration of The Clinton Rules and The Obama Rules for this campaign.
Huh? I've been seeing the Jeremiah Wright verbiage all over the place. This is supposed to be good press for Obama? Where? In which parallel universe?
Posted by joeldanwalls@yahoo.com at March 16, 2008 06:43 PMPointing out that Sen. Clinton gets votes from women is ok. Pointing out that Sen. Obama gets votes from African-Americans is racist.
Sen. Obama is winning because he's formed a coalition of whites, AAs, the rich and youth voters. While Sen. Clinton is being propelled by Hispanics, Asians and Gays masquerading as old white women.
(Feel free to rewrites these in the witty language of your OP)
Posted by StuffObamaLikes at March 16, 2008 10:55 PMTCR 4.0 - You forgot to mention that it's also because Rush Limbaugh told them to vote for her.
Posted by DaveOinSF at March 17, 2008 12:07 AMObviously cutsey trumps truthy for you. As of this date Obama has won states with 1415 pledged delegates. Clinton trails with 1245 pledged delegates. And since this match is for the nomination, another other numbers are irrelevant.
I'll leave it to you to decide which rule applies.
Posted by DaCoach at March 17, 2008 12:17 AMThis is great!
I wrote my own version of this a week or so ago. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Posted by madamab at March 17, 2008 05:46 AMClinton Rule:
Whenever in doubt, bring up race and then accuse Obama of playing the race card, and then accuse the world of being sexist because they don't buy your meme.
I was neutral until Clinton went negative and decided to attack Obama. If by miracle she pulls this out without ripping the party apart, I will hold my nose and vote for her in the fall.
Posted by caseynm at March 17, 2008 10:16 AMI loved this post. It is SOOOOOO true--it would be funny if the history of the world didn't depend on the outcome of this election.
Posted by Tricia at March 17, 2008 02:59 PMcaseynm,
i know memories are short in this long drawn out contest, but Obama was the first to personally attack Clinton way back in August. His mantra hasn't really changed. And his campaign was the first to bring up race by claiming that the "fairytale" remark was Bill Clinton using "racial code words" about Obama.
As for Obama, consistently using the words "bamboozled" and "hoodwinked" are racial code words if I ever heard them. As a Black person, I know EXACTLY what he's talking about when he says it.
Posted by kacey at March 17, 2008 03:01 PMHey, you're pretty good at this. Even though I've known what they've been doing for a while now you caught some I missed.
Way to go!
I sort of like "Black is the new Bitch."
To feminist bitch is a very loaded word, means strong woman really when you think about it, but it means a strong woman is not good.
I felt that one really hits up Blacks and women almost equally. (Women weak, not good for a man to be percieved as a woman.) But it aHey, you're pretty good at this. Even though I've known what they've been doing for a while now you caught some I missed.
Way to go!
I sort of like "Black is the new Bitch."
To feminists bitch is a very loaded word. It a means strong woman really when you think about it, but it means a strong woman is not good because naturally it takes away from a man (b breaker type of thing).
I felt that one really hits up Blacks and women almost equally. (Women weak, not good for a man to be perceived as a woman, etc.) But it also puts it into terms of Women against Blacks and Blacks come first. Sort of a trump ya' thing.
When maybe the truth is we are in this together.
Sorry about that my post got all messed up.
Hey, you're pretty good at this. Even though I've known what they've been doing for a while now you caught some I missed.
Way to go!
I sort of like "Black is the new Bitch."
To feminists bitch is a very loaded word. It a means strong woman really when you think about it, but it means a strong woman is not good because naturally it takes away from a man (b breaker type of thing).
I felt that one really hits up Blacks and women almost equally. (Women weak, not good for a man to be perceived as a woman, etc.) But it also puts it into terms of Women against Blacks and Blacks come first. Sort of a trump ya' thing.
When maybe the truth is we are in this together.
Maybe the web owner can delete the first one.
Wanting to wait for all the states to vote is divisive and means that you are willing to destroy the Democratic Party in pursuit of your own selfish ambitions. Evidence: A ruthless insistence that voters in meaningless places like Florida (fourth largest state), Michigan (only the eigth largest state), and Pennsylvania (just sixth largest state) should have some stake in selecting the Democratic nominee. Isn’t it enough that people in Wyoming (smallest state), Vermont (#49), and North Dakota (#48) have already voted for Obama? And Wyoming and ND are just SO going Democratic in the general. After all, it’s only been 44 years since that happened and who cares if Johnson had the spectre of JFK behind him that time.
Asking about a candidate’s (or their spouse) personal life or past history represents the “old politics” that Obama despises … except when it comes to the Clintons ,.
It is wrong to cherry pick people’s comments. Context is important … so is the sum total of a person’s public life … unless you support Hillary Clnton. Examples: Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, etc.
Posted by The World's Turned Upside Down at March 18, 2008 02:22 PMIf you are white and voted for Hillary, you are a racist. If you are white and voted for Obama, you are able to transcend race. If you are black and voted for Obama, you are just one part of a transformational coalition that has moved past race. If you are black and voted for Clinton, you can be harrassed and chased down the street but no one cares.
If you are a woman and voted for Obama, you are part of the third wave of feminism. [Lorrie Moore in the NY Times: “In my opinion, it is a little late in the day to become sentimental about a woman running for president. The political moment for feminine role models, arguably, has passed us by.”] If you are a woman and voted for Hillary, you must be (1) bitter, (2) trapped in your whitebread world and blind to the evils of racism, (3) over 50, or (4) all of the above.
Posted by at March 18, 2008 02:26 PMWanting to wait for all the states to vote is divisive and means that you are willing to destroy the Democratic Party in pursuit of your own selfish ambitions. Evidence: A ruthless insistence that voters in meaningless places like Florida (fourth largest state), Michigan (only the eigth largest state), and Pennsylvania (just sixth largest state) should have some stake in selecting the Democratic nominee. Isn’t it enough that people in Wyoming (smallest state), Vermont (#49), and North Dakota (#48) have already voted for Obama? And Wyoming and ND are just SO going Democratic in the general. After all, it’s only been 44 years since that happened and who cares if Johnson had the spectre of JFK behind him that time.
Asking about a candidate’s (or their spouse) personal life or past history represents the “old politics” that Obama despises … except when it comes to the Clintons. Then it is perfectly acceptable to ask about the sex life of their opponent's spouse or claim their opponent's spouse profited from 9/11.
It is wrong to cherry pick people’s comments … context is important … so is the sum total of a person’s public life … unless you support Hillary Clnton. Examples: Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, etc.
You forgot one:
When a politically active family name (Clinton, natch) shows up on Hillary's side, it's a Dangerous Precedent of Political Dynasties, Poisonous to the Very Nature of Democracy!!!!!!!!
When a politically active family name (Ted Kennedy and how much Obama reminds him of his brother) pops up on the Obama side of the fence, it's perfectly okay. Political dynasties are great if they're pushing for your side.
Posted by Janis at March 20, 2008 11:33 AMYou're missing a critical rule:
TCR on race: When a Clinton supporter talks about race as a factor in Obama's appeal (i.e., Geraldine Ferraro), it is racism. And if Clinton does not immediately denounce the comment, she is racist too.
TOR on race: When an Obama supporter talks about race as a factor in Obama's appeal (i.e., Senator Kerry), it merely confirms the fact that Obama's race is important in sending a positive message to the world.
Posted by Angry Mouse at March 26, 2008 12:45 PM