How dare the media bash Clinton for saying that she's decided to stay in the race because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June forty years ago!
Does the recent non-binding primary in Idaho, where Obama would have extended his lead in popular votes, get counted under the rules for popular voting that the Clinton supporters claim is the true metric this week? Or don't we count that one?
Just a question. Is Isaac Chotiner related to Murray Chotiner, Nixon's dirty tricks guy, and if so, how come a self-respecting progressive is linking him?
And why no link to the article about Hillary's "best friend" Susie Tompkins Buell in the SF Chron? Her feminist solidarity didn't extend down to her Esprit sweatshops where they robbed the immigrant women of pay, overtime and the right to organize.
Ah, all is sunny in Hillaryland.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 07:44 AMBob, You know a 7869 vote difference doesn't count in Hillaryland... after all, it's only Idaho!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 28, 2008 07:52 AMAlready 2 more Supers added today for Obama... 46 and counting.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 28, 2008 07:55 AMSeven of six,
I'm still new at this new math. Popular votes count unless they don't count. Sort of like Lanny Davis saying that Hillary gets 55% of the Michigan delegates and half of the remaining 45% who didn't vote for her, after she signed a pledge to not participate and said that it wouldn't count at all.
eriposte is a hypocrite, so much of one that he's a hypocrite to himself.
And if you want to see hypocrisy, watch what happens this Saturday. I expect a riot with Clinton supporters trying to strong-arm their way into the proceedings. This is the H. Clinton way of "uniting the party."
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 07:59 AMI have to agree with Driftglass.
I. AM. SO. OVER. THE. CLINTONS.
Sunday Morning Comin’ Down (“Candidate on the Edge of Forever”), http://driftglass.blogspot.com/
"...So if Senator Clinton wants to stay in until June...or July...or September, fine.
If she wants to continue to toss the sofa cushions of the Democratic Party in search of loose electoral change, fine.
If she wants to continue to say divisive things and then play victim when she is called out for being divisive, fine.
If she wants to continue to wildly oscillate her message between "I'm a Fighter" and "I'm a Martyr" depending on the venue, fine.
If her more strident followers want to daily climb ever higher up Mount Crazy and scream their lungs to pudding, fine.
The numbers -- in any configuration -- say that Senator Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, and there is nothing on Earth Senator Clinton can do about it.
Nothing.
It's all over but the shouting, and knowing that makes it easier to shrug and smile and choose the soft answer which turneth away wrath."
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 28, 2008 08:02 AMThanks, eriposte.
Here is the full collection of FITH watch posts.
If I may be gauche enough to note my own personal favorite (and I definitely may be), it's this one.
Posted by vastleft at May 28, 2008 08:12 AMHas Senator Clinton started her Senatorial reelection campaign yet? I hear she's made a number of enemies at home over the last few months.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 08:17 AMGosh, Eriposte, that FITH watch is, umm, interesting.
And classy.
And this whole time I thought it was us "Obamabots" with all the raging passion..........
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 28, 2008 08:21 AMIt's funny, Bob, that web of Clinton lobbyists, loyalists, and associations. Obama gets nailed to the cross for his strange associations to Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Hamas, Hitler, the Anti-Christ, etc., yet some of the most questionable associations of Hillary and her support seemingly becomes willfully ignored by her supporters and bloggers.
Here's another interesting connection, Mr. Abramoff:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/13/215317/551
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 28, 2008 08:28 AMYou're linking to a series which claims that people who support Obama over Clinton are "Fucked in the Head". There are now quite a few people who believe that Clinton has been running a campaign which is, on balance, both negative and destructive to the party. Another running series over there is claiming that such people are really saying "why won't the bitch quit?" That enemies list sure is getting longer and longer, no?
Look at the first entry in the "fucked in the head" listing. The NY Times editorial board (they endorsed Clinton, remember?) wrote:
"Is it even possible that Mrs. Clinton thinks someone out there was not offended by her remark, Kennedy relative, Obama relative, or just plain folks?"
Lambert's response:
I hate to break it to you, Times Editorial Board, but you are fucked in the head.
Now, I was a minor-league journalist for just a few years, yet with a little digging, I managed to connect-the-dots on this alternative theory: someone listing campaigns that remained active into June might have been talking about campaigns that remained active into June.
This is what the pro-Clinton bloggers have been reduced to. The Times editorial board folks noticed the same thing that a lot of the rest of us did: Clinton has trouble choking out genuine apologies. She wasn't capable of saying "I could have chosen my words more carefully on a subject that is very sensitive." The response? Anyone who says something like that is "Fucked in the Head." Not that they're wrong. They're enemies.
And in the very next breath the people who bring us "why won't the bitch quit" and "fucked in the head" characterizations of things-they-don't-like and enemies lists turn around and complain that Obama supporters aren't being nice to them. Words fail.
Posted by Marc at May 28, 2008 08:50 AMHmmmm, where have I heard deadenderism like this?
Oh yeah, Bagdahd Bob!
"The American forces have never entered Iraq!"
"All American forces that never entered have been defeated!"
"All is well in Bagdahd, I speak to you from there, and there are no America forces!"
"The American Forces in Bagdahd heve been defeated!"
Thus, General Eriposte:
"The Enemy forces hold caucuses, which we view with contempt!"
"The Enemy forces use demonic campaigning tactics that we never use!"
And on and on and on, courtesy Gen'ral "Fight to the Death!" Eriposte. What is to be gained by this and when does it end? Oh yeah, On to the Convention!! Civil Rights! Zimbabawe! The Stolen Election! Have fun.
Posted by euzoius at May 28, 2008 08:57 AMI know Axelrod is a genius and all, but his strategy seems short-sighted. For months all we've heard is that Obama is inevitable, even as we watch his numbers deteriorate against Hillary and McCain.
If Obama is going to be the nominee anyway, why doesn't his campaign concentrate on strengthening his message for the general election instead of playing games with the DNC? Over at the Confluence they're having a few laughs at the notion that Obama has never held a full-time job--a charge which, in the words of Henry Kissinger, has the added advantage of being true. This won't be so funny when the Republicans use it as the centerpiece of their strategy to make Obama unacceptable. Running as "not McCain" won't cut it.
Oh the freaking irony hurts thy head.
A nice selection of quotes from Bubba's 1992 campaign:
"Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to believe something destructive is happening. I'd say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."
-- Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (NYT, 3/27/92)
"It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination."
-- Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos on Clinton's last foe (NYT, 4/8/92)
"It's time to close ranks. We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee."
-- West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (NYT, 4/11/92)
"I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season."
-- Democratic Party Chairman Ronald H. Brown (NYT, 4/29/92)
"Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee 'so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.'"
-- NYT, 4/29/92
Hehe.
The actual facts don't matter, misterO.
Surely you can see that at this point.
Deadenderism depends very heavily on intellectual dshonesty.
Posted by euzoius at May 28, 2008 09:25 AMDid those tapes of Michelle and of Barack get released yet??? Oh no....well they will and when they do....Hillary will be there to pick the party up and carry on.
Posted by Kefa at May 28, 2008 09:28 AMOne more Superdelegate... 45 to go.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 28, 2008 09:40 AMThe reason Hillary lost all caucus states after Super Tuesday: she run out of money!
She wasn't prepared at all to fight after super tuesday and was in state of shocked when Obama achieve approximate parity.
This is basic strategy blunder. (ie. she is outmaneuvered)
Posted by Jake at May 28, 2008 09:41 AMMarc, it would be a full-time job cataloging the amount of mis- and disinformation you can cram into one short comment.
A couple:
* As noted in eriposte's post, the author of all the FITH posts thus far is moi, not Lambert
* The posts are not about Obama supporters in general, but about the twisted 72-hours hate frenzy that occurred this weekend, which turned Hillary's historical recollection into a racist call to murder her intra-party rival. I know in your world that kind of manipulative viciousness is nothing to be perturbed about, but oddly in mine it is. Takes all kinds.
Oh, quite the *snap* zinger you've got there, bringing up the NYT endorsement of Hillary... which is mentioned in my post. "Remember?"
Posted by vastleft at May 28, 2008 09:41 AMWelcome to this week's edition of Only Elections Which Don't Count Actually Count! In this week's edition, Clinton supporting bloggers will highlight their own campaign's pathetic organization in caucus states as they extol their candidate's merely poor performance in uncontested beauty contest primaries.
Campaigning and orgaization is important, everyone. Obama does better when he campaigns against the 100% known establishment candidate; Clinton would have performed better in caucuses had she contested them.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 28, 2008 09:42 AMMisterOpus1,
In 1992 didn't Bill Clinton know that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968? Where is that man's decency?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 09:48 AM?Did those tapes of Michelle and of Barack get released yet??? Oh no....well they will and when they do....Hillary will be there to pick the party up and carry on."
This is EXACTLY it. You're clutching to the chances of some gutter-political news scandal breakout. Some incriminating tape of Obama pronouncing a word wrong is your standalone basis for supporting Clinton after Obama has essentially won?
You want catty drama and juicy gossip? Watch Gilmore Girls. Keep that fucking shit out of politics. You are helping Hillary shoot the Democratic party in the foot before she inevitably loses.
There's always 2012 for you though, isn't there? Not for some of those in uniform.
Posted by Chris at May 28, 2008 09:57 AMThe purpose of Hillary's Dead Candidate Walking routine is to hurt the Democratic Party. I know she's not delusional. She's in character. But now I am beginning to mistrust eriposte's continuation of this. He surely cannot be this delusional.
As far as commenters here, some of them are clearly Republican Operation Chaos folks, some are self-censoring low-information true believers who think that gender is more important than H. Clinton's lifelong political resume. I expect Republicans to go back to their party in the fall. True Democrats won't.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 10:01 AMTrue Democrats won't go to the Republicans, that is.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 10:03 AMWhy don't you explain why Hill supported Bush and his invasion/occupation.
Posted by JohnT at May 28, 2008 10:04 AMMy apologies to Lambert then, "vastleft". You're the one who utterly twisted a perfectly reasonable editorial, which had a completely different point in mind, into something that you view as "fucked in the head."
Here is the editorial:
-------------------------------------------
We have no idea what, exactly, Hillary Clinton was thinking when she referred to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in explaining her decision to keep on campaigning when it looks like there is virtually no hope of her winning the Democratic nomination.
(We’ve supported her decision to do so. This is a democracy, after all.)
But she could, at least, have apologized.
Instead, she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”
If?
Is it even possible that Mrs. Clinton thinks someone out there was not offended by her remark, Kennedy relative, Obama relative, or just plain folks?
Mrs. Clinton tried to excuse her inexcusable outburst by saying she was distracted by the shock of the news of Senator Edward Kennedy’s malignant brain tumor. But there was something familiar about what she said, and thanks to Ben Smith of Politico, we remembered what it was. Mrs. Clinton said basically the same thing in an interview with Time on March 6:
“I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.”
What’s next? “Mistakes were made”?
---------------------------------------
I think the main point is, pretty obviously, that she couldn't give a real apology. Even one where she said that she could have used better words, etc. It really was a tedious non-apology apology, entirely typical for her.
And you and your compatriots at Corrente really have created a pretty special mixture of rough insult-slinging and hypersensitivity. One that eriposte here, unfortunately, has also been employing on this subject.
Posted by Marc at May 28, 2008 10:30 AMI have concluded eriposte isa member of the Clinton non reality based team. Moreover they are well aware they are non reality based. Creating daily "mis- spoke" is an effective strategy. Take your opponents pluses and stand them on their head, a la Rove. Playing dirty goes bye a different name, sad to say the constant nonsense sometimes realizes results. Example the push back from the black caucus and the progressive democrats like Move on.org., when Clinton was impeached for the Monica affair in the White House Oval Office. It worked Clinton was saved and now "The Clintons" will bring down the Democratic Party. Let that be a lesson to you do gooders.
Posted by rm forsyth at May 28, 2008 10:44 AM"tapes of Michelle and of Barack" - yeah, and how about those Bill/Monica tapes. Gotta be out there somewhere.
Posted by T2 at May 28, 2008 11:04 AMClinton bashing happens because Hillary lies.
http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858
That is a link of her, on radio, saying that Michigan and Florida do not count. What, she just changed her mind?
Maybe if Hillary were honest, people wouldn't bash her? Maybe she should try that once in a while.
I can't wait for Hillary and her dishonest ways to be out of our party forever!!!
Posted by Scott at May 28, 2008 11:27 AMOH YEAH,
HILLARY LIES TO THE WOMAN CALLER ASKING HER ABOUT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WHO CALLS IN AT THE 20 MINUTE MARK.
I CANNOT STAND HILLARY!!! SHE IS SUCH A LIAR!!!
HILLARY IS SUCH A LIAR IT BURNS ME UP SOOO MUCH!!
"I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IT MATTERS IF I TOOK MY NAME OFF THE BALLOT OR NOT..."
Well, now you are saying it matters. You liar!!!
"IT IS CLEAR, THIS ELECTION IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA ARE NOT GOING TO COUNT FOR ANYTHING..."
You liar!!!
Fucked in the head, eh?
See now, that's an attribute that I'd apply to somebody who is full speed ahead on the HRC Titanic, screaming incessantly from the top of Mount Crazy, flailing about in the Sea of Futility.
It would be good snark, eriposte, were it such. Sadly, yours are the ravings of the righteously vanquished writhing in denial.
Posted by BMF at May 28, 2008 12:12 PMUntil Hillary repudiates all the delgates she has secured in caucuses, all these attempts to rely on the popular vote by excluding caucus states are just horseshit.
If caucuses are so horribly undemocratic that we should simply disregard them when allotting superelegates, then Hillary should disregard the pledged delegates that she has obtained through the caucuses as well. Until she does that, this attempt to point to a ginned-up popular vote number is shamefully illegitimate.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 28, 2008 12:48 PMThanks eriposte! Ha! Ha! Ha! You're such a comedian. Oh no, now there's water shotting up my nose.
Posted by fahey at May 28, 2008 06:34 PMWe already know that Hillary was on board with the DNC stripping MI and FL of their delegates. I have yet to see Turkana, eriposte, Jeralyn, Big Top or any other Clinton bloggers explain the morality behind Hillary's change of mind on the road to Damascus, or Denver.
eriposte, do you really think that Clinton is going to win?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 07:32 PM