Thanks eriposte for this article.
How can anyone now not get the impression that Obama is, for all intents and purposes, a Republican?
He talks like one; he dissassembles like one; he engages in political tactics like one; he engages in things that directly contradict his rhetoric like one;
I mean, how many more examples do we need?
Come on now.
How was he allowed on the Democratic primary bourse?
This is Howard Dean's fault, apparently.
Posted by Troubled American at May 3, 2008 12:30 PMWell, at any rate, Christopher Hitchens must feel validated. He's always maintained that what he did was a blow for progressive values.
Apparently there are progressives who were convinced.
Posted by julia at May 3, 2008 01:00 PMClaims that the Clinton campaign is "enabling" the republicans are highly disingenuous, to say the least. The lase three (or more) presidential elections demonstrate that the repub "opposition research" people are very thorough. They don't need the Clinton campaign to dig things up for them. Add to that the well known repub propensity for fabricating dirt. Clinton's (slight) advantage there is that she and her husband have been in the public eye for so long that anything old will be obviously recycled and anything new will look manufactured. Obama is new to the scene, so he doesn't have that insulation.
Posted by jwrjr at May 3, 2008 01:15 PMWow! Thank you for a superb post.
I've always admired Sidney Blumenthal's intellect; his book, "The Clinton Wars," is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the pursuit of the Clintons by Republican zealots.
Eriposte,
I am curious, do you think it's appropriate for a Democratic candidate to trump up the experience and abilities of the GOP adversary who's policies are clearly in lock-step with our failure of a president over the past 8 years, over the front runner of the same Democratic party?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/739131.aspx
Do you also think it's appropriate to trump up a gas-tax holiday along with that same GOP adversary despite all common economic sense showing how harmful such policies could be to our economy?:
http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=2qun5
(not to mention what that gas tax helps finance:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4219981.html)
let alone have the audacity to utilize that freakin' horrible "with us or against us" bullshit rhetoric of Bush AGAINST OUR OWN DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS in her wonderful triangulation strategery?:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/clinton-to-congress-you%e2%80%99re-either-with-us-or-against-us/
and then have the gall to join forces with the GOP adversary going against Obama on this issue in large hopes for a short-term gain in votes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3055017520080502?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112
and then explain to me how this wonderful candidate of yours somehow has this strange contradiction of her own to deal with pertaining to a repeal of the gas tax:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/2/202924/4962/454/508048
You see, we can go on and on with the mudslinging, and we can quote other pro-Hillary/pro-Obama columnists ad nauseum and jump into the fray as to who said what, when, how, and why the hell they said it. It's fun, I suppose, but it's becoming tedious and horribly irrelevant at this point in the game. And I would think with your intelligence that I've highly respected in the past, that you'd clearly have the respect to know the inevitability at this point:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190556
Forget the fact that Obama has dropped a few points. Forget the fact that Clinton has done a swell job with our idiot media blowhards and have done their darnest to tie Wright and Ayers around Obama's neck as tight as possible. Forget all bickering between these two great candidates and try to wrap yourself around the inevitable outcome:
Obama will be our Democratic Presidential candidate. The statistical likelihood of Hillary catching him grows larger by the day. As Noah pointed out at Slate:
"71 percent of the vote in every remaining contest"
Try and be the realistic individual that I believe you are here, and tell us that given all the state races thus far, and with only 12% of the races left, how on earth she intends to obtain this near impossibility? You know damn well as we all do that this simply cannot and will not happen.
So since we all know the likelihood of this happening is not good at all for your candidate, I wonder, should you decide to support the Democratic party over the GOP's Bush-like candidate, how you will examine all the anti-Obama posts you have given, considering how they could inevitably come back to haunt us all. It was one thing when the race still pretty much undecided a couple of months ago, even a month ago if I were to be generous, but that's simply not the case now. But the anti-Obama messages you give now combine unfortunately well with the pro-McCain news media lapdogs and the Right Wing Noise Machine, and will do nothing but lower our chances for gaining the Executive branch and help turn this country around.
And yes, if the situation was reversed and Hillary was the current front runner, I'd be just as peeved at Obama supporters for continuing this race. This has gone on long enough. We have to stop fighting one another and focus on fighting the GOP Slime Machine instead of aiding them against our candidate.
BREAKING: Presumtive Dem nominee Barack Obama has crushed Ms.Clinton in Guam. A massive six percent landslide victory is assured, which will add about 200 popular votes to his already superior total. It's clear now, that the ability of Obama to reach all the way to Guam with his message of Real Change shows the is the one who can beat 71 year old Bush retread John McOld. Time for Ms. Clinton to toss in the towel.
Posted by T2 at May 3, 2008 02:20 PMT2, or any other Hillary supporter, I ask once again, given the fact that she will need to win the remaining few races by 71%, and if she does not that percentage needed to win increases by each race, and given the fact that Hillary has not won by such margins in the past, how do you expect your candidate to win at this point?
And if she cannot win, which I thought was the whole reason for running as a presidential candidate, why does she continue?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 3, 2008 02:32 PMOh yeah, this doesn't really help her out either:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4757257&page=1
Yeah, those Clintons really know how to wipe their hands clean. Of course we shouldn't tie the things that Bill had done as President to Hillary, because Hillary is in no way using her husband to trump up her campaign by any stretch of the wild imagination at all. Nope. No way.
Yep, move along folks. Nothing to see here. Nothing but, wait, HEY LOOK, OVER THERE, IS THAT REV. WRIGHT?!?!?!
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 3, 2008 02:42 PMDon't you understand? It is fine to say anything at all about The Evil Witch, but one must not harm The Precious or hold him personally liable for any of his past deeds or associations. Criticism of The Precious will be met with protest letters signed by Very Serious Journalists, picketing outside television stations organized by Sacred Cow left wing bloggers, shrieks, howls, death threats, and whines.
The Evil Witch must never defend herself or criticize The Precious (even mildly). However, she MUST defend The Precious against all Republican smears. All criticisms of The Evil Witch are deserved.
Now unite behind us to defeat McCain, you racist white trash Hillary supporters! HOPE! UNITY! VICTORY IN NOVEMBER!
Posted by rich at May 3, 2008 02:56 PMSupposedly? It's a proven fact that he did it, did he gain anything from his efforts? No, but if you or anyone else thinks it's OK because it did no harm, well think again.
But all in all it's good to know that eriposte supports this behavior. Sad, but good to know.
Posted by fahey at May 3, 2008 03:00 PMLook at me, I'm a Hillary supporter now! ha.
Posted by T2 at May 3, 2008 03:11 PM...the biggest, institutionalized enablers of the right-wing are the Obama campaign...
Ahhh! The old "I know you are so what am I!" defense. Any credibility you had in defending the Clinton campaign against these charges was wasted long ago. Dreier seems to have good proof that Blumenthal perpetrated the acts Dreier charges him with. Indeed, Conason states in his salon piece: When the Clinton campaign distributed stories from discredited right-wing publications to attack an Obama advisor in March.... And who is charged with the responsibility to disseminate media information in the Clinton campaign? Let me help...his name starts with "B" and ends in "L".
That I defended Bill during his troubles riles me quite a bit since there is at the least the appearance that the Clinton campaign has been using the same media sources that were used to attack Bill. If what Drier says is true, the Dems should throw both Clintons under the bus.
Presumtive Dem nominee Barack Obama has crushed Ms.Clinton in Guam.
Damned ingrates. Hillary offered them a special representative, $136 million dollars, and Statehood.
Posted by phidipides at May 3, 2008 03:22 PMHillary rules - she always plays fair.
Obama rules - he's actually worse than he appears.
Shame on you Hillary!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 3, 2008 03:51 PM"Obama has received twice as much money as Hillary Clinton has from donors who supported other candidates in the Democratic race."
Great post, eRiposte. Thanks!
Re phidipide: Smarter trolls, please!
Posted by lambert strether at May 3, 2008 04:08 PM5. Peter Dreier is a no good rat for publishing someone's email without their consent for the purposes of using them in a biased manner with the intent to assassinate his victim's character.
He's a rat!
But seriously, isn't sinking to the lower levels of human development a prerequisite for being an Obama supporter these days?
Huffington Post does not in any way shape or form resemble what used to be known as news. Just because well known people post there, doesn't make their blogs any more newsworthy than the current events articles my 12 yr old nephew writes for school. At least his reports are factually accurate.
Posted by kacey at May 3, 2008 04:38 PMI always try to get to the meat of what eriposte's pieces is saying, but it's so inside baseball and tends to wanders around.
I always find that the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense to not be very effective past third grade. And despite eri's protests that Obama is worse at using Republican talking points than Clinton, or in that Obama is more underhanded than Clinton or dirtier than Clinton, the public consistently comes back saying that Clinton's operation is the shabbier one.
Here: http://www.namebase.org/ppost08.html ia ten year-old essay on Monicagate. It's worth the read, not only for Clinton's ideas on censoring the internet, but also about the people behind the plot against the Clintons.
Here's something in that essay on Sidney Blumenthal.
#
Sidney Blumenthal, fearless defender of the Clintons, co-edited a conspiracy book in 1976 titled Government by Gunplay. This book is hard to find today. It included chapters on the 1960s assassinations (JFK, RFK, MLK, the shooting of George Wallace), as well as one on unsolved Watergate breakins, and another on Nixon and organized crime (by Jeff Gerth before he joined the NYT). It's a classic of its day.
No fewer than four of the current advisory board members at Public Information Research contributed to this 1976 book: Robert Fink, Peter Dale Scott, Carl Oglesby, and L. Fletcher Prouty. Jeff Cohen, who at one time was a colleague of mine in Los Angeles, and is now the head of FAIR, a media organization in New York, contributed another chapter. Another friend of mine, Philip Agee, wrote the introduction.
Fast forward 22 years to the New York Times of February 28, 1998, in a story by John M. Broder:
Blumenthal Friday accused Starr of pursuing an imaginary plot of obstruction of justice involving him and other defenders of the president. "It's a lunatic plot being pursued by crazy prosecutors who think the White House is a mafia family," Blumenthal said. "They just don't understand democracy."
It would be more accurate if Blumenthal had complained that these crazy prosecutors understand the White House the same way that Blumenthal himself did 22 years ago. On the very day that Blumenthal made this statement, ABC News reported that Kathleen Willey has claimed that Nathan Landow encouraged her to change her story.
Obama stops Clinton PA momemtum cold in its tracks with Guam win!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 3, 2008 05:28 PMRe phidipide: Smarter trolls, please!
And I thought you couldn't be any more inane or support the right's goals more than the crap you spew on Corrente. I stand corrected! But then, you're just another CSWTUTA.
You know, if you got urself a collitch dagree you could be an Obammy saporter.
Posted by phidipides at May 3, 2008 05:30 PMBlumenthal has written articles about the Bush administration that shed light into the administration secret programs and law breaking activities. If he forwarded any articles to anyone, he must have found them interesting and informative; I don't doubt that. The Obama disciples are out to defend their guru by smearing Blumenthal. I don't go to Salon.com much anymore, and plan to discontinue my subscription when it ends.
Posted by Prabhata at May 3, 2008 05:41 PMJeebus, how old are these people like Dreier again..it's like he's never been involved in politics before.
Anything short of praising The Precious...oooh those meanies...what a whiny arsed titty baby that Dreier dude is. Pa.the.tic! Yes, but people like Dreier do this to any life long progressive (hello Krugman) who isn't swooning and fawning when The Precious speaks. Do they even remotely realize how stoopid and ridiculous they look when they whine like this. That SNL spoof pegged the Obamabots just like Dreier perfectly.
These people like Dreier need to get a life outside of Senator Obama...really. Cause if they're gonna get the vapors over silly non issues like this, jeebus...wait til the general election ...it'll send them over the edge...and it won't be pretty.
Posted by emal at May 3, 2008 06:57 PMemal, Have you read the Carl Bernstein piece I linked? He mentions Blumenthal as well.
How many former Clinton friends and journalists have to come forward with information about the Clinton's negative campaign tactics, before people start believing her campaign is actually playing dirty?
Clinton fans act like she's a saint and Obama is the Devil!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 3, 2008 07:30 PMClinton fans act like she's a saint and Obama is the Devil!
Well, at least that's the feed they get from the likes of Blumenthal through the right's media. It's kinda like teenagers. They demonstrate their independence and nonconformity by having to dress, have the same hairstyle, and use the same language as each other. With the Clinton supporters they have to sound like each other, all on a smear from the right fed to them by the "left". It proves they are rational analysts of the campaigns...in their minds.
Cause if they're gonna get the vapors over silly non issues like this, jeebus...wait til the general election ...it'll send them over the edge...and it won't be pretty.
Exactly. We need to be hitting the real issues...Hillary lied to the FEC about financing for her Senate campaign. Leadersheep you can trust! Felonious leadersheep, that is.
Posted by phidipides at May 3, 2008 08:32 PMeriposte, i'm always impressed at the detail and incisiveness of your analyses. thanks again for a great post which (like your other posts) has made weathering this primary circus sh*tshow a little easier.
Posted by kangeroo at May 3, 2008 09:01 PMNow for the real news about Guam. Obama appears to have won by 7 votes. But here is the catch - that result is not official. The reason why not is that with a 7 vote "victory" for Obama there are 500 "spoiled" ballots and 3600 more ballots than votes. They are NOT going to certify this vote until the "spoiled" ballots are re-checked. Representing the Guam caucuses as a "done deal" is, to say the least, premature.
Posted by jwrjr at May 3, 2008 09:31 PMSos, I should read another bashing Clinton article by Bernstein (who is totally a Clinton basher) because why? I'm certain it wouldn't be objective. Plus, I can get that same type of biased commentary just by clicking on this site and reading the comment threads or visiting almost any left blog. Clinton's are the evil, Bill Clinton sucked as president and is the worst worst worst of them. Clinton's are the. worst. dirtiest. evilest. Campaigners. evah! Can you imagine any politican acting this way. I mean, they are more evil and dastardly than the RnC -Rove- swiftboating machinery that brought forth Nero and is currently working for McSame. Did I get it right. Because I'm sure the repukes are loving that comparison and your scripting of their narrative for them.
phid, buddy. please, just stop. Believe it or not, I'm not your enemy here. I know it's hard to remember or believe that through all your anger. Sorry I just don't hate Clinton(s) or luv Obama as much as you do. Honestly, the anger directed at peole like myself just totally baffles me, especially since I've said numerous times, neither candidate is my first or second preference, and that I'll vote for either over McSame in the ge should they win the nomination....why do I have to remind you almost daily of that fact for some reason. I give up.
I'm not gonna hate Clinton just because you are seething with it on these boards daily. And yes getting some link "proving" yet another "felonious" activity of Clinton while your able to simultaneously ignore anything from Senator Obama that also could be considered political backstabbing, dastardly at all is helpful here because why? Please tell that to Alice Palmer (you know the former obama mentor in Illinois who he had knocked off the ballot-but that was just funtimes and happy talk when he did that, not political at all). If anything, I find that anger and hatred and your double standards extremely immature...but you go on and bash those of us on the same side who have admitted that both candidates aren't perfect, both are politicians and have acted like them, but both are better than McSame...please you keep doing that because it must make you feel better and fulfill some need you have.
Posted by emal at May 4, 2008 05:19 AMEmal, evidently there are a few of us here that do not care for either candidate.
My anger is directed at the Democratic Party. Why in God's name are we saddled with these two candidates?
Posted by Judith at May 4, 2008 05:45 AMJUdith,
My point still stands...each candidate on the democratic side of the aisle is far better than the repukes. I'm sorry, I'm sick of this infighting. I have never ever said Clinton was perfect or without political gamesmanship (heck at one time she was my 4th choice, even below Obama)...but for her and them to be thought of as the anti-kerist...well sorry just because someone here actually disagrees that Senator Obama is above it all...well, nuff said. Even his longtime spiritual mentor pastor said he was a politician and had to say what he does because he is a politician.
Don't know if this is kosher, but apparently Fitz was banned from this forum. This is a message he would have posted if he'd had the opportunity. I don't see anything here so offensive that it would offend the eyes of the readership.
+++
"from tfitznc (BANNED from Left Coaster):
eriposte,
A couple of comments:
(1) So Drier is somehow an official spokesman for Obama? I agree that Blumenthal is an official spokeperson for Clinton.
(2) Why are you defending Sid 'Vicious' Blumenthal who, as Bob cites above, has a chronic history of absolute lunacy?
The 'Donald Segretti' of the primary?
The guy who just plead guilty to DUI?"
By the way, why is it so shocking for eri to find that people presume intention from the actions of someone on Clinton's campaign staff? eri certainly presumes bad intentions and sees connections on the Obama side of the universe.
I'm not even sure what the big deal is over Blumenthal except that when people get too deep into a political campaign they get some of their own mud on themselves.
By the way, if anyone knows where to find Blumenthal's book "Government By Gunplay," I'd like to buy it.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 4, 2008 07:30 AMI'm certain it wouldn't be objective.
Anything short of praising The Precious...oooh those meanies...what a whiny arsed titty baby that Dreier dude is.
just because someone here actually disagrees that Senator Obama is above it all...well, nuff said.
If anything, I find that anger and hatred and your double standards extremely immature...
Believe it or not, I'm not your enemy here. I know it's hard to remember or believe that through all your anger.
Cause if they're gonna get the vapors over silly non issues like this, jeebus
There are several markers associated with cult behavior. Should I plug your statements in?
When you suddenly demure on Clinton and Obama you remind me of the swamp king in The Holy Grail. After all the guests are bloodied and hacked to bits you slap on your kingly grin on and proclaim, "Let's not squabble about Who killed Who!"
I spent years defending that lascivious skirt-chaser, Bill. I wrote letters, called people...god knows how many hows I spent defending him in conversation. The idea that Clinton's campaign would use those same "news outlets" to push her campaign forward galls me. She's just a politician? It's expected and acceptable? Those sources are fair game? Cool!
Did you ever see this list of people who mysteriously died around Clinton? I realize it's from "that kind of source". But, hey! It's just politics. Right?
Please tell that to Alice Palmer (you know the former obama mentor in Illinois who he had knocked off the ballot-but that was just funtimes and happy talk when he did that, not political at all).
Seems Alice's signature sheets were so fucked-up that they could be legally challenged. Hmmmm. I throw in with you. This is really bad...much worse than Hillary attempting to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Blacks and Hispanics in Texas because they didn't vote the right way. But you know, I really don't really think any Clinton supporter should start talking about others throwing people under the bus.
Posted by phidipides at May 4, 2008 08:20 AMHi Eriposte,
I would really like to hear a response to this question that I asked earlier:
Given the fact that she will need to win the remaining few races by 71%, and if she does not that percentage needed to win increases by each race, and given the fact that Hillary has not won by such margins in the past, how do you expect your candidate to win at this point?
And if she cannot win, which I thought was the whole reason for running as a presidential candidate, why does she continue?
And what are your thoughts about that gas-tax holiday that Hillary is siding with the GOP's candidate, which is by most economic analyst accounts, fiscally irresponsible? Also what are your thoughts pertaining to this whopper in Indiana for Hillary?:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4757257&page=1
I await your analysis on these points (most likely in vain, I'm sure).
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 4, 2008 08:35 AMThanks for an excellent article and the braveness to once again face the wrath of Obama supporters who don't like to hear one single thing negative about their candidate and have demonstrated such in the posts above. Yours is also a blog I love to read since you are not one of the ones I used to read daily that has turned to such a biased, and in my opinion hateful approach to Clinton in their zeal for Obama and you still have articles from both perspectives.
I read that article at Huffington Post but then again he didn't say much other than the same old negative about anyone who supports Clinton. As for the likes of Carl Bernstein, I used to respect him greatly for his investigative work. However since the campaign began he has had but one desire and that is to appear on CNN constantly, which he does and is way more than I want to see him, constantly trashing Hillary and pushing his anti Hillary book he wrote. As a non American I don't have to spin every spoken word as something always against what would have been my candidate. But I will say in all my years, and there are many since I am retired, I have never seen such a one sided, unfair, and biased media coverage as I have this year. One side is always branded negative yet the other says worse and gets away with it. The likes of calling Clinton Rovian is thrown in for slurs, or she is constantly called untrustworthy, divisive etc. while the other campaign throws around racist claims as if they were going out of style. I can't believe that Bill's comment about Obama's stance on Iraq can be turned into a slur against a candidate's ability to run and be branded racist. Finally, for those who state the world is waiting to be saved by Obama - please don't speak falsehoods on my behalf. I am getting to the point that because of his lack of info in his speeches, the cult mentality support he gets via surrogates and blogs, that I am to the point I mute him on TV now. When I see him all I see is his supporters unfair attacks and slurs while claiming to be above the fray and it makes me sick. Does the latest video subtitled and calling possible Clinton supporters "sh*t" or "White n*****" passed on to the attention of the media by an Obama supporter in NY just before they go to the polls on Tuesday suggest the new kind of politics Obama is pushing? Sorry! You can take my comments with a grain of salt because I am one of those old people that Obama supporters seem to feel don't need to be listened to, but I get the same media you do, reach the same internet sites you access, and read the same newspapers anywhere around the world. Just think of me as "an independent" bystander with plenty of time on their hands, who certainly prays that a Democrat takes over the White House, but getting to the point where even my neutrality at watching this race has come to an end.
Robert Parry's essay on "The Clinton Wars", that is, "The War on Obama," here:
http://consortiumnews.com/2008/050308.html
####
Last December, when I first learned via Clinton insiders that their “oppo” package would include Barack Obama’s associations with fiery black preacher Jeremiah Wright and Vietnam War-era radical William Ayers, I shrugged at what sounded to me like sub-standard fare from the dark side of American politics.
So what if someone’s minister said some stupid things or that an aging one-time student radical had lent some support to a politician’s campaign, I thought.
Besides those two themes, Clinton insiders were plotting how to exploit Obama’s past political ties to indicted real-estate developer Tony Rezko, and they even were hashing over how they might slip in suggestions that Obama’s dead mother had been a leftist. (When I heard the “oppo” about the dead mother, I really couldn’t believe my ears.)
Even then – in December before the first votes had been cast – the Clintons were so caught up in their ambition to return to the White House that they were veering toward the worst aspects of politics, what is generally associated with the American Right and the most ruthless Republican operatives – guilt-by-association, red-baiting, McCarthyism and racial messaging.
The rationale that I heard from the Clinton operatives was that these Obama vulnerabilities would be exploited by the Republicans in the general election, so it was necessary to destroy Obama when there was still time for another Democrat (i.e. Hillary Clinton) to be nominated.
But part of me didn’t believe the Clintons would go through with this War on Obama. I had trouble envisioning people who had been victimized by similar tactics – indeed whom I had defended when they were on the receiving end – resorting to such acts against a fellow Democrat, who by all accounts is a decent fellow and a good family man.
It is now clear, however, that the Clintons did decide to go through with it, “throwing the kitchen sink” at Obama, as one Clinton aide explained to the New York Times.
#####
So, at least per Parry, all this crap thrown at Obama originated within the Clinton campaign, as research, and was in place in late 2007. Beautiful. And still she's losing. Maybe Blumenthal was out of the loop when this went down. Maybe he's still out of the loop. Ultimately, Blumenthal's credibility and character aren't the issue. It's H. Clinton's. More work to do, eriposte.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 4, 2008 08:45 AM...the cult mentality support he gets via surrogates and blogs...
And not to mention the cult mentality support he gets from Hillary Clinton's former advisors, big ticket donors, campaign staffers, and former Clinton administration officials who joined his campaign complaining that they didn't like the tone of the Clinton campaign. Damned cultists.
Given the fact that she will need to win the remaining few races by 71%, and if she does not that percentage needed to win increases by each race, and given the fact that Hillary has not won by such margins in the past, how do you expect your candidate to win at this point?
You are being silly, MisterOpus1. All you have to do is clap! Clap to keep Tinkerbell alive!
Also what are your thoughts pertaining to this whopper in Indiana for Hillary?:
C'mon, that's the old politics. Why the Hillary bashing? It was just a silly mistake. Besides, she's stated she's always been against NAFTA even when she was so vocally for it in 1996. Now that's the new politics!
Robert Parry's...
I've heard that Robert Parry is a well known Clinton hater, sexist, and misogynist. Why would anyone read his stuff? Drier is the kind of guy who would have sex with a goat. And all those ex-Clinton staffers, etc. who bailed on her due to the tone of her campaign? Uhhh...misogy...sexi ...uhhh... malcontents who just don't get it!
Posted by phidipides at May 4, 2008 09:00 AMphid.... buddy ...you're the gift that keeps on giving..you're the Clinton hatred that never ends. You're the rightwing smear merchant's wet dream. Sigh..you've exposed yourself for being truly what I hoped you weren't. Enjoy it because you obviously need it for some reason.
no one answered how she will win...
no one can successfully defend how her tactics are equated with those of the same repubs that attacked bill... no one can defend her gas tax fiasco. no real economist that is. all politicians pander, but to insinuate that big oil will foot part of the bill is farsical at best.
Dreier provides some examples, but unsurprisingly, not only is his post egregiously misleading (bordering on character assassination of Blumenthal) he is completely clueless about how his article is very revealing of a particular, hypocrisy-filled, anti-Clinton mindset that has been somewhat common among pro-Obama bloggers during this primary campaign.
Substitute "eriposte" for "Drier", "Drier" for "Blumenthal", and swap "Clinton" and "Obama", and the above sentence makes total sense.
I have no idea why the others on this blog haven't taken eriposte aside and let him/her know that he/she has gone overboard on this issue.
Posted by Anonny at May 5, 2008 10:20 AM