NEWS: Hillary Is An Abomination

POLITICS: Hillary Is An Abomination

Yes, I called Hillary Clinton an abomination. I could not be more correct with my description and here is the definition of abomination to prove it:

Abomination - A*bom`i*na"tion, n.



That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.

Fits perfectly. Hillary would, obviously, disagree. A month ago, she compared herself to Rocky.







It's true. Hillary is Rocky because she is not going to win and she is beating the shit out of Obama, while getting the shit beat out of herself at the same time. Sadly, Rocky and Apollo Creed fought for 15 rounds - a fight length that is now illegal because of the damage done to the fighters.







We are now in round 13, with a couple more horrible, bloody rounds to go. I can only assume Hillary will be holding onto Bill at the end, mumbling, "I did it," though her grizzled and battered face. Just like Rocky, there will be no knock out and the decision will go to the judges. In this case, they are known as the superdelegates.



This abomination will not give up. Her spinmeisters are running around telling everyone who will listen that Obama is unelectable and can't win big states. The unelectable argument is moronic because she is behind in delegates and the popular vote. Never thought I'd see someone in second saying the person in first is unelectable. Amazing.



The "big states" argument is equally retarded. Hillary claims Obama can't win big states in the primary, so he won't win the general. I guess that would make sense if Hillary were a Republican, but it turns out Democrats are voting for both Hillary and Obama. That means in the general election, Democrats who voted for both would probably vote for Obama. Anyone buying the "big state" argument is wasting their brain and it should be removed from his or her head -- immediately.



Worst of all is the argument Clinton and her supporters are making that no one is actually saying out loud: Obama won't win big, industrial states because he is black. It's straight up racism and it's disgusting, but it's the claim she is trying to make to superdelegates. If it were true, I'd rather try with the best candidate, who happens to be black, and lose, than toss him to the side for the not-as-good white lady because of racism fears. To choose Clinton for this reason would be morally heinous and I think anyone doing so is scum.



The truth is Clinton's 9-point victory in Pennsylvania was actually a loss. She needed to win by a 20-point margin to make a serious dent in Obama's delegate lead. She didn't. She only gained around 10 delegates out of 158. There are now only 408 delegates remaining in the final primaries. Clinton needs 483 delegates to get the 2024 necessary to win the nomination. See how that might be a problem?



This means the only way Clinton wins the nomination is via superdelegates. But she will need 70% of remaining uncommitted superdelegates to win - if she splits the remaining popular delegates. Which means she has to convince 215 human beings that Obama can't win the election, even though he has received more votes and popular delegates. That's 215 people who have to buy the "black guy can't win" argument. Good luck with that.



And while the Clinton people are at it with the "black guy can't win" argument, they are going to continue to throw every Republican attack possible at Obama. See, the Clinton peeps have this awesome idea in their heads. They don't think Obama can handle the Republican attack machine in the general election and to make that point, they are going to attack him like the Republican machine. It's kind of like an honor killing; we have to kill him to save the family honor.



So, Hillary will continue to hang out with the guy who started the rumor that she killed Vince Foster, and the owner of Fox News, while she praises John McCain. At the same time, she will use all the Republican talking points about Reverand Wright, call Barack an elitist, and point out his connections with the Weather Underground, no matter how tenuous or hypocritical.



She has completely crossed the "vetting Obama" line and is now simply a Republican tool of destruction. If the only way you can win an election is to convince 306 party insiders to overturn the will of the people, and you continue on that path, you are a fucking asshole. It's already having an effect. Just take a look at Fox's newest promo.







That's Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe. Good work, douchebag.



Meanwhile, Obama has done nothing to imply Clinton cannot win the general election. He is only making the case that he is the better candidate. Clinton is dragging them both into the ditch. Her approval rating is plummeting and Obama's is also slowly slipping.



According to Hillary, she plans to take this "all the way" to the convention, no matter how obvious it become that she is done. MSNBC has declared the popular delegate race over. The New York Times ripped her a new asshole yesterday.

The most damage being done by Hillary is the fight over Florida and Michigan. She has been making the case to voters in those states that Obama is responsible for their votes not being counted. It is completely untrue, the DNC made the decision, but Obama's chances of beating McCain in Florida and Michigan have been plummeting, according to polls. Without those states, he has no chance. She is literally killing the Democrats chances of taking the White House.



Which is why she is not Rocky. Sure, Rocky lost to the black guy and both left the ring battered. But Rocky was a lovable character who won by losing. That is not the case with Hillary. A more appropriate comparison would be Jason Voorhees: A horrible, thoughtless, driven killer destroying all in his path. She's just crisscrossing America with a machete, slashing and killing everything in her path.







Kudos, abomination, kudos.



FearTheReaper thinks Rocky has more impact in Italian and Jason Voorhees is scarier with Nordic death metal.

Its amazing to me that someone is writing an article about hillary being a republican in disguise (though both she AND barack are) while quoting right wing talking points.

The democrat rules state that 2025 delegates are needed to win the nomination. Barack does not have enough votes for the nomination. Hence Hillary is still fighting and actually winning.

Stop whining and stop repeating corporate media and obama talking points. There is no harm in hillary running and Obama needs the experience (as evidence from his small town guns comment).

The harm and division is really a product of elements of the obama camp who are rather angry and belligerent, who "hate hillary" and who are mostly affluent white males; Hmm.. maybe the change and hope obama supporters are not that full of hope and change. Maybe they're just afraid of women and really susceptible to corporate media, right wing, and obama campaign propaganda.

Yeah, FTR, why are you quoting such a conservative rag as The New York Times? Couldn't you find a source with a little more journalistic integrity

I assume that is sarcasm. The New York Times is a corporate whore. Noam Chomsky does a very good job of proving this in his book Manufacturing Consent.

"Hillary is a monster, hillary is a bitch, hillary is unlikable, hillary is the devil incarnate, Hillary is dirty, Hillary is just going too far, Hillary is entitled"

- These are all themes the right wing has reiterated again and again for a good 15 years now and notice the title of the article... "Hillary is an Abomination."

Would a man with the same voting record get this abuse. Oh wait Obama is a man with the same voting record (and one whose campaign is far from innocent but the media never picks that up) and he is lionized as the second coming of the new and improved liberal jesus.

How exactly is Obama a republican in disguise?

Every time I read the Times, I know I get the urge to support tax breaks to the rich, buy a Hummer, and get me a gun to protect me from them scary blacks.

You can stop with the gender persecution complex, because it's just patently false. It doesn't make a shit bit of difference to anyone what kind of plumbing she has. Anybody that would make a difference to wouldn't be voting Democratic for a myriad of other reasons.

Hillary is unlikeable, because she does have an enormous sense of entitlement. Her sense of entitlement is why she didn't bother to heed the warnings of the DNC about the Michigan and Florida primaries. She has assumed for several years that the nomination was hers for the taking, and that the primaries would become moot before the convention, which was to be her coronation.

The problem is, she doesn't have the support of the average Democratic voter out on the street. She's built her power base among the party elite and insiders in back rooms. She doesn't give a rat's ass about representing the people of the United States. When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, she didn't go back and run for a seat from Arkansas, or her home state of Illinois, she went to New York, to a district where she could win, and then head straight back to Washington. To put it simply, she's a carpet-bagger.

Her '35 years' of experience is a crock of shit too. Even if you count her eight years as First Lady, most of the remainder of that time was spent as a corporate lawyer representing firms such as Wal-Mart.

Obama, on the other hand, has actually been an elected representative longer than Clinton. Prior to his running for office, he was a full time community activist, not just a summer here and there in between college, like Clinton. Obama didn't seriously consider a run for the presidency, until he was absolutely begged to by other members of the party, he's answered a call to service rather than seeking out a path to power, in the finest traditions of this nation's leaders.

Sheesh, you go on about FTR regurgitating pre-fed Obama talking points, but the whole gender debate is the most idiotic non-issue that's been injected entirely by Clinton.

EDIT: Spelling and Grammar

You realize the New York Times endorsed Clinton in January, right?

She doesn't seem to really care about what effect it has for the party, if the margin is as important as the media says it is then most candidates would have dropped out by now and given their support to Obama (and saved a huge amount of money from not campaigning). But she either just doesn't care or has just gone on too far simply to give up, it just reeks of arrogance either way becuase your going to split the party and if you polarise just under half the voters against your rival whats going to happen at the actual election? will they stay with the same person you demonised? or vote another way?
I'm not surprised I personally think she only stayed with her husband after the affair becuase it was the ONLY way she would be able to run at all also in a democratic country there should'nt be a dynasty of Clintons and Bush's.

Yes, yes they would.

While I can't deny that sexism plays a role in how Hillary's been portrayed by both the right and the left, I can't believe anyone who thinks she's somehow been more demonized than any other prominent politician.

Obama's been slandered as a "stealth Muslim" sleeper agent, an America-hating radical, a homophobe, secretly anti-choice, the second coming of George W. Bush, a gun-banning elitist, "too black", "not black enough", the "imaginary hip black friend" of "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies". Plenty of pro-Clinton website forums are packed to the rafters with so-called Democrats heaping scorn and derision on Barack Obama.

John Kerry's conduct during Vietnam was mocked and slandered by the same goons who trip over themselves to remind everyone that John McCain's a "war hero".

When Bill Clinton was President, he was accused of rape, murder, treason and drug smuggling.

George W. Bush has been compared to Hitler and Satan.

Explain to me again how Hillary Clinton is somehow more of a victim of the "politics of personal destruction"?

The fact that Clinton said she would 'obliterate' Iran in answer to a hypothetical question about a hypothetical attack by Iran on Israel with Iran's hypothetical nuclear weapons should be reason enough not to vote for this opportunistic nut-job.

Oh and Reaper, you forgot to refute her argument that the fact she had traveled to 80+ countries in her time as First Lady is adequate preparation for her to lead the American foreign policy machinery as president. Former National Security Advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, likened this argument to Mamie Eisenhower saying her time as First Lady would make her better prepared to be president than John F. Kennedy.

Mamie Eisenhower would have caught that bullet with her bare hands and thrown it right back at Lee Harvey Oswald.

How?

Experience.

Is it irony that alaric cites Chomsky, but has grammar skills of a elementary school-aged child?

No, it isn't.

Yet its okay for obama to say he would attack and possibly nuke packistan? Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is an obama adviser and key author of the brillant fuckover russia policy.

There is no way in hell that the venon directed towards hillary clinton is a product of policy. No way. This is something else. IIs it the woman factor? Maybe. Its definitely a product of the corporate media, obama campaign, and right wing talking points which are being faithfully reproduced by obama's supporters

As for the new york times. It also supported the iraq war now didn't it. Its a corporate whore that endorses US foreign policy, a policy that is largely supported by democrats and republicans.

Is hillary also a corporate favorite? Absolutely. But that was not the point of my post. My point is that the divisions in the democratic party appear to be coming mainly from Obama's supporters and their very, very, very personal attacks of senator clinton. I'm not voting for either by the way or for McCain.

Now lets examine some obama supporter hypocrisy. Hillary should drop out because its mathematically impossible for her to get the nomination. Oh wait its also mathematically impossible (highly unlikely) for obama to get 2025 votes now. By your logic obama fans, Obama should drop out.

But Obama has the popular vote. Right we should go with the popular vote but hey not if it includes Michigan or Florida because those states didn't listen to the rules, the rules obama fans now want to throw away.

Obama has crossover support from republicans and that's why he did so well. Yet when hillary gets republican votes for hillary its evidence of that republicans consider her the weakest candidate.

etc., etc.,

Stick to the issues stop the personal attacks, let the process work its way out. Correct the process for the future if you don't like it. Trust the corporate media at your own peril. Its not on your side and i assure you of that CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, will never offer positive coverage to a real progressive. That applies to hillary and obama.

Wrong-o!

Clinton's campaign wants the DNC to throw away the rules that led to Florida and Michigan being punished for moving their primaries up. Blaming Obama's campaign for the actions of the Michigan Democratic Party and the Florida legislature is almost as laughable as wanting to count the votes in Michigan, where Clinton's two strongest opponents didn't even appear on the ballot.

Please specify a source for Obama having said that he would do either.

This is exactly what we Obama fans want. Instead, we get a Clinton directed "debate," a whiny candidate who is so quick to complain when her opponent strikes back once for every 10 false, unimportant, or overly politicized non-issue "points" she throws at him.

She has lost. She has run her campaign in a dispicable manner, and is intent on causing the largest rift possible in the party. To her, there is no "losing graceful" that people want in a second tier candidate. She would have been useful in Obama's cabinet, but after the way she's been acting, she should be thrown out of the party.

Obama needs fewer than 50 Super Delegates, and that is only if he is stuck at getting 50% of the remaining regular delegates. Clinton needs close to 200, and that is if she MAKES it to 50% of the remaining regular delegates, and doesn't lose any more Supers to Obama.

That is the math. 200>50.

EDIT: Actually, Obama needs even fewer, thanks to my home state

All Nebraska Super Delegates Go For Obama

Examples please.

Citation please.

Wow, none of that is true. That's great.

First of all, I've never heard Obama say he would nuke Pakistan, I have heard that he wants to make reducing the amount of nuclear arms in the world a priority including the United State's nuclear arsenal. And I remember watching a debate when HRC said that Obama has stated he wanted to attack Pakistan and he corrected here and gave a nuanced explanation about how he would take military action in Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence against Al Queda leadership and Pakistan would not act on that. If you have a link to Obama stating he wants to nuke Pakistan, I'm all ears.

Obama himself has said that this contest is going to go down to the final primary and that he is okay with that. His campaign and surrogates have pointed out several times that it is extremely unlikely HRC will close the pledged delegate gap, and that even in a convention fight without a huge overwhelming lead among Super Delegates she'll lose a first ballot. Neither of them may be able to hit the magic number but there is a clear lead. The people largely calling for her to drop out are voters and journalists who support Obama, and this that this is hurting both whoever the nominee is and the party as a whole.

Clinton is ahead in the popular vote if you count two states that don't count. They don't count according to the DNC's rules for seating delegates, the people in those states(state legislature and state parties) who made that call were told exactly what would happen if they moved their primaries forward and they did it anyway. Incidentally, while HRC runs around blaming Obama for blocking legislation that would result in a revote by the two states many of the top advisers to both candidates were part of the group that made the choice to strip the delegates, among that group is Harold Ickes who is something like the second or third in command in Clinton's group and her chief fundraiser and polling expert. She signed the same agreement that Obama did to not campaign there and in Michigan you probably don't need to be reminded yet again that Obama was not on the ballot. It's a bit unfair to count the popular vote of a state in the totals when only one of the two candidates was on the ballot.

HRC has not done as well with new voters or crossover voters as Obama, that's a fact. You can read the exit polling. He has done much better at drawing people across aisles and getting new voters to the polls than she has. No one's making that up. There is an open question as to whether or not under Ohio law Rush Limbaugh could be prosecuted for vote fraud for encouraging his listeners to vote for Clinton for the purposes of extending the race and bloodying up Obama. The fact is he does better with crossover voters, there's polling data in every state including PA that proves this. Anyone trying to chalk up all crossover voters for HRC to Republicans meddling in the Democratic Primary is probably wrong, but there is a percentage at least that are, no matter how small. Again, this isn't something I've seen either Obama or his campaign state.

Attacking some of the stranger statements made by unaffiliated citizens who have declared a preference for either candidate and trying paint the candidates themselves with the comments of a handful of supporters doesn't make a lot of sense. But then again, neither does not voting.