• commentary
  • TUESDAY FEBRUARY 19 2008 6:00 AM

Hillary Goes Pathetic

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Obama, Hillary, Rezko, Democrats, Election 08

When candidates get desperate, they often go negative. Some go for the jugular and go dirty, while others apparently attempt to go negative and just end up looking pathetic. Hillary Clinton is running one of the saddest campaigns in recent memory. And by recent memory, I mean Rudy Giuliani.

For the first time in the race, Hillary has found herself on the back end of some serious ass kickings. Obama has rolled off eight, straight primary wins and looks to add to that total tonight, with Wisconsin and Hawaii. Hillary has adopted the Rudy template for failure by basically giving up those states and hoping for big victories in Texas and Ohio in March. At the same time, she is trying to go dirty on Obama and it’s fucking sad – oh, and if successful, it will tear the party apart.

The most distasteful aspect of the Clinton campaign is the “win at all costs” attitude. It’s great in a general election, but in a primary you just end up turning off millions of people you will need to vote for you in November. Examples of Clinton stupidity abound.

Yesterday, the co-chairman of Hillary’s Michigan campaign told Democrats in red states that they are completely useless.


"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."


“Oh. Thanks. That is very nice of you,” says HALF the country. And for those of you thinking it was just a guy in Michigan slipping up, I give you the man running the Clinton campaign.


“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”


Yes, it does. I mean, what kind of an asshole is popular in red states? What you want is someone who isn’t popular in red states, that way you can be sure to only win in blue states, like Kerry and Gore.

And while were on the subject of superdelegates, know that the Clinton campaign is listening to all the Democratic voters and party members who are concerned the situation could destroy party unity at the convention. The popular wisdom says that whoever wins the popular vote, should receive the majority of superdelagate votes, so voters don’t feel disenfranchised. Of course, the Hillary people could give a shit.


"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.


Oh, good. Thanks for putting to rest everyone’s fear that the candidate would be chosen by a bunch of party insiders in a smoke filled room and disenfranchise voters, you stupid assholes. What’s that? There is something worse that you can do to tear the party down the middle?


Senior strategist Mark Penn also indicated that the Clinton campaign would press the issue of seating pro-Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan, where she won unauthorized primaries conducted after the national party barred the states from holding contests before Feb. 5 and after other major candidates agreed not to compete.


Right. The Michigan delegates should totally be counted, because not only was Obama not on the ballot, but also voters were not allowed to write in his name. Oh, and never mind that Hillary agreed that the votes would not count before primary season began. That’s just her word, why would we believe that?

Even Clinton supporters, people working hard on her behalf, are getting pissed off about the tactics.


"You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period,” said former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, when asked if the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be represented at the Democratic National Convention. “No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to,” Kerrey said firmly.


She’s never going to listen, Bob. I mean, it's her fucking throne, not Obama's. And she is pulling out all the stops, calling for her friends to start a swiftboat campaign against Obama. Hillary’s people are reaching out to her rich supporters to make their own ads.


Some of Sen. Clinton's top fund-raisers, who have "maxed out" at the individual limit of $2,300 and have tapped out their personal network of donors, are consulting with lawyers about how they can create "independent" groups that can spend unlimited money in support of her campaign.

Susie Tompkins Buell, founder of the Esprit clothing company, was weighing whether to start her own entity for buying ads to promote Clinton or to put money into an existing pro-Clinton organization, like the feminist political organization Emily's List which has already spent about $1 million on Clinton's behalf.


Oh, good, that always ends well. Many of these supporters believe Obama is too big of a pussy for the job and are impressed with Hillary’s fightin’ attitude.


Some Democrats, who have e-mailed me, praise the ruthlessness of the Clinton political machine, arguing that only a readiness to throw sharp elbows can defeat the Republicans this fall. These Democrats hate what they call Barack Obama's "Kumbayah" message of national reconciliation, a reference to the campfire song based on an old African spiritual.


And while you’re at it, why don’t you reach out to some neo-cons for some help, Hillary?


Mr. Mantz held a quick meeting in a hotel lobby in Washington with donors, some of whom are involved in the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC and were in town for other business.


Yes, AIPAC. Just a lovely group of people who did everything they could to make sure the Iraq War happened. Pick a neo-con strategy in the Middle East and you can be sure AIPAC is doing what they can to make it happen. And now, they are giving money to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Good news.

The heat is also rising on Obama’s dealings with a shady Chicago businessman named Tony Rezko. Hillary has been trying trying to get this scandal on the front page, with little success.


"We still don't have answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko," Clinton also said last week.


I have gotten a few emails from Clinton supporters about the Rezko land deal and it’s been popping up on pro-Clinton blogs and message boards. Sadly for them, this scandal appears to be nothing. It was investigated and there was no crime. Yesterday, the people who sold the home to Obama were finally interviewed.


The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller.


But, I’m sure that’s not the last we’ve heard of that deal. Clinton will keep it alive and well, because having been on the other side of the bullshit Whitewater scandal, she is able to take the low moral ground and try to put a fellow Democrat through the same horseshit. Classy lady.

Another good way to forever alienate the supporters of your Democratic opponent – people you will need to vote for you in November – is to label them a cult. The Clinton machine started in on this two weeks ago.


Democrats fear that the Clintons are putting their personal ambitions ahead of what's good for the Party and the country, that they are ready to dirty up Sen. Obama with attack ads and dismiss his millions of supporters as -- what one key Clinton backer called -- "a cult of personality."


Let's see, how would this work?


You're all in a cult!


No, we're not. We just really like this guy.


I win. Nevermind. Vote for me!


Good luck with that, dipshit.

So, what’s left? How about charging Obama with plagiarism?


Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, today accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of committing “plagiarism” in a speech in Milwaukee on Saturday night.

On the call, Wolfson said: “Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he’s breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn’t his own.”

"When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader," said Wolfson.





Oooo. But what if the person who was plagiarized says it didn’t happen? Hillary’s campaign was accusing Obama of stealing a speech from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Unfortunately for Clinton, Patrick and Obama are old allies who often share talking points.


Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.


Huh. Maybe before accusing someone of wrongdoing, you should check with the alleged victim to see whether or not you are going to look like an asshole. Also, check to see whether or not you are a pot calling a kettle black.


I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.


Oh, probably because Hillary has taken Obama’s campaign slogan and used it in a speech.



Could this woman get any more pathetic? I submit she could not. But, maybe her daughter could.


“Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?” a student asked Chelsea Clinton on Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Ms. Clinton replied: “She cast a vote based on the best available evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that’s extraordinary.”


Holy fucking shit. Shut your mouth, you stupid asshole. I’m not clairvoyant, but I knew the Iraq War would be a disaster. You know why? Because I know how to read books. They are these things that have lots of ideas and words in them about stuff like tribes, religions and societies. Some people have actually written a few about Iraq. Crazy huh? Oh, and maybe Hillary should have actually read the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before voting for the fucking war.


Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.


Shut your pie hole, Chelsea. If you’re going to be pimped out, don’t embarrass the pimp.

This is pretty simple: The Democrats have about a month to get rid of Hillary Clinton, or they are never going to win in ’08.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Next

Comments
Dracomicron

Dracomicron

Minneapolis, MN
April 2007

FEB 24, 2008 06:01 AM

vermicious_knid said:

Plus, the big players in the defense industry are constantly doing shit LIKE THIS and this.



I challenge anyone to look at the Carlyle Group without concluding that there's a terribly incestuous relationship between government and Big Defense.

Official site:
http://www.carlyle.com/

The expose':
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

FEB 24, 2008 06:38 AM

martinj_b52 said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

FellOnEarth said:
Well, she's definitely getting desperate. I think Obama's response was a slam-dunk on the issue. Her characterization of his political mailers as "Republican tactics, right out of Karl Rove's playbook," may be accurate, but it's no different then what her campaign has been doing after months of attacking Barack. Is it disappointing that he's stooped to her level? No. He's simply leveling the playing field and is justified in using the truth as leverage, highlighting their differences. By saying that Obama is being unfair because he isn't pushing universal health care is besides the point. He does have a health plan, it just doesn't require everyone to pay into it. If she supported NAFTA touting it as one of the great successes of her husband's presidency, he has all the right to make that fact know, especially if it's hurt American jobs.

Now that he's fighting back and giving her a taste of her own medicine, she's crying foul when there is none.

My 3D analysis: Desperation, Death-Throes, Destruction. Hillary's campaign is past it's peak, plateaued and is now failing fast.


If being of "Karl Rove's playbook" involves showing some class, not making outrageous claims that are just one short step shy of claiming aliens ate my homework, not being shrill and relying on childish name-calling, and not racing to the first tv camera when someone insults you or makes some outrageous claim, then ALL politicians should be proud to use it. Unlike that lunatic Sheryl Crow attacking him at a "dinner" (sorry folks, that was just no class).

Uh, yeah... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I don't exactly see how anything related to Karl Rove could be remotely synonymous with "class". I'm not even sure if I can figure out what your point is, but since were on the subject... If being classy means that your interpretation of the Hatch Act is to hatch your political plans from within the walls of the White House, then Rove is your man.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

FEB 24, 2008 07:16 AM

Dracomicron said:

martinj_b52 said:

There wasnt one big reason for going to war in Iraq. There were a bunch of little ones. 16 toothless U.N. resolutions made by a body representing primarily dictatorships was not about to commit to war to enforce their own resolutions. That, in effect, makes them worthless as a world body. International intelligence agencies were claiming that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis had bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility before the gulf war.



There was, in fact, one big reason for going to war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney probably thought that, due to the initial success of Afghanistan operations, we'd be done there fairly quickly and would need a replacement war to keep their lock on power (it is extremely rare for incumbants to be voted out of office during wartime).

There were a lot of little reasons that went along with this, of course: serving big oil and defense contractor interests, personal satisfaction over toppling a dictatorship that Bush's father not only set up but failed to destroy later, and testing the Rumsfeld doctrine of fighting war on the cheap.

What were NOT reasons for us to invade Iraq were: WMDs, democracy, or terrorists. They were excuses, not reasons. I could tell that they were bullshit at the time (some of us actually pay attention to non-American media), and the administration slander of outspoken critics like Joe Wilson pretty much confirmed that hunch as accurate.
.



Of course we can't forget the main reason so many countries we're against the invasion of Iraq: taking kick backs from Saddam, with "No Blood for oil" as the excuse. These people then have the nerve to play moral high ground, and end up playing anti-war types as puppets. It wouldn't suprise me at all if "non-American media" were serving the intrests of those in Russia, Germany and France in voice opposition to the war. No blood for oil indeed.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 08:10 AM

scylis said:

coyotemike said:
I've never been quite sure how "overeducated" can be an insult.



it's an insult unto God. it denotes your use of reason. reason is the enemy of faith and an affront to God. or so says Martin Luther.



actually, it indicates education overload. Someone who has been given more information than their limited common sense can process to arrive at a logical outcome.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 08:12 AM

Dracomicron said:

martinj_b52 said:

There wasnt one big reason for going to war in Iraq. There were a bunch of little ones. 16 toothless U.N. resolutions made by a body representing primarily dictatorships was not about to commit to war to enforce their own resolutions. That, in effect, makes them worthless as a world body. International intelligence agencies were claiming that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis had bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility before the gulf war.



There was, in fact, one big reason for going to war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney probably thought that, due to the initial success of Afghanistan operations, we'd be done there fairly quickly and would need a replacement war to keep their lock on power (it is extremely rare for incumbants to be voted out of office during wartime).

There were a lot of little reasons that went along with this, of course: serving big oil and defense contractor interests, personal satisfaction over toppling a dictatorship that Bush's father not only set up but failed to destroy later, and testing the Rumsfeld doctrine of fighting war on the cheap.

What were NOT reasons for us to invade Iraq were: WMDs, democracy, or terrorists. They were excuses, not reasons. I could tell that they were bullshit at the time (some of us actually pay attention to non-American media), and the administration slander of outspoken critics like Joe Wilson pretty much confirmed that hunch as accurate.

Why we're discussing this in the Clinton thread, I'm not sure, but I thought it needed to be responded to.

With regards to Clinton, acting the wounded victim will not work on a large scale, though it has worked some (her margin for defeat in Wisconsin was the lowest in 10 contests, merely 17 percent). The negative campaigning that she's railing against is what she's been doing herself this whole time.

At this point, all she's doing is scorching the earth and entrenching her followers in a "No Obama at all costs" mindset that will only help McCain in the general election. I hope she finds a classy way of fixing this when the nomination is chosen, but I'm not certain it's going to happen.



The Bush-Cheney stuff is just more nutty conspiracy theories.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

FEB 24, 2008 08:17 AM

martinj_b52 said:

scylis said:

coyotemike said:
I've never been quite sure how "overeducated" can be an insult.



it's an insult unto God. it denotes your use of reason. reason is the enemy of faith and an affront to God. or so says Martin Luther.



actually, it indicates education overload. Someone who has been given more information than their limited common sense can process to arrive at a logical outcome.



interesting. so an excess of education can atrophy the brain? at what level does this begin? grad school? undergrad?

high school?

junior high?

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 08:19 AM

FellOnEarth said:

martinj_b52 said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

FellOnEarth said:
Well, she's definitely getting desperate. I think Obama's response was a slam-dunk on the issue. Her characterization of his political mailers as "Republican tactics, right out of Karl Rove's playbook," may be accurate, but it's no different then what her campaign has been doing after months of attacking Barack. Is it disappointing that he's stooped to her level? No. He's simply leveling the playing field and is justified in using the truth as leverage, highlighting their differences. By saying that Obama is being unfair because he isn't pushing universal health care is besides the point. He does have a health plan, it just doesn't require everyone to pay into it. If she supported NAFTA touting it as one of the great successes of her husband's presidency, he has all the right to make that fact know, especially if it's hurt American jobs.

Now that he's fighting back and giving her a taste of her own medicine, she's crying foul when there is none.

My 3D analysis: Desperation, Death-Throes, Destruction. Hillary's campaign is past it's peak, plateaued and is now failing fast.


If being of "Karl Rove's playbook" involves showing some class, not making outrageous claims that are just one short step shy of claiming aliens ate my homework, not being shrill and relying on childish name-calling, and not racing to the first tv camera when someone insults you or makes some outrageous claim, then ALL politicians should be proud to use it. Unlike that lunatic Sheryl Crow attacking him at a "dinner" (sorry folks, that was just no class).

Uh, yeah... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I don't exactly see how anything related to Karl Rove could be remotely synonymous with "class". I'm not even sure if I can figure out what your point is, but since were on the subject... If being classy means that your interpretation of the Hatch Act is to hatch your political plans from within the walls of the White House, then Rove is your man.



Sorry. Doesnt fly. Karl Rove was a Bush appointee, who, had he remained until the last day of Bush's presidency, would have immediately been replaced by a similar apointee of his successor. The Hatch act of 1939 was a law written to keep bureaucrats like State Department, FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and other employees WHO ARE NOT REPLACED every time a politician is replaced, from actively engaging in promoting anti-constitutional activities.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 08:20 AM

attn_ho said:

martinj_b52 said:

scylis said:

coyotemike said:
I've never been quite sure how "overeducated" can be an insult.



it's an insult unto God. it denotes your use of reason. reason is the enemy of faith and an affront to God. or so says Martin Luther.



actually, it indicates education overload. Someone who has been given more information than their limited common sense can process to arrive at a logical outcome.



interesting. so an excess of education can atrophy the brain? at what level does this begin? grad school? undergrad?

high school?

junior high?



for a few of you, it seems to have occurred on the first day of kindergarten.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

FEB 24, 2008 08:22 AM

Over-education. Really? Seriously? I must be too educated to understand this concept.


whatever

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

FEB 24, 2008 08:23 AM

martinj_b52 said:

scylis said:

coyotemike said:
I've never been quite sure how "overeducated" can be an insult.



it's an insult unto God. it denotes your use of reason. reason is the enemy of faith and an affront to God. or so says Martin Luther.



actually, it indicates education overload. Someone who has been given more information than their limited common sense can process to arrive at a logical outcome.



Seriously. You people are so educated stupid.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

FEB 24, 2008 08:31 AM

martinj_b52 said:

attn_ho said:

martinj_b52 said:

scylis said:

coyotemike said:
I've never been quite sure how "overeducated" can be an insult.



it's an insult unto God. it denotes your use of reason. reason is the enemy of faith and an affront to God. or so says Martin Luther.



actually, it indicates education overload. Someone who has been given more information than their limited common sense can process to arrive at a logical outcome.



interesting. so an excess of education can atrophy the brain? at what level does this begin? grad school? undergrad?

high school?

junior high?



for a few of you, it seems to have occurred on the first day of kindergarten.



This reminds me so much of the guy in class who said "but I'm never going to need to know how to do (insert subject) in the real world." And you know what? They were right. McDonalds uses pictures at their registers.

soulcompromise

soulcompromise

I'm lost
November 2006

FEB 24, 2008 09:03 AM

I'm just really tired of their same debate tactic and I haven't even watched or read it since the primaries.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I still think Clinton will win

darwinsjoke

darwinsjoke

Virginia Beach, VA
July 2003

FEB 24, 2008 09:39 AM

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:

scylis said:

coyotemike said:
I've never been quite sure how "overeducated" can be an insult.



it's an insult unto God. it denotes your use of reason. reason is the enemy of faith and an affront to God. or so says Martin Luther.



actually, it indicates education overload. Someone who has been given more information than their limited common sense can process to arrive at a logical outcome.



Seriously. You people are so educated stupid.


I can still feel the stupid of that site burning my retinas. Damn you
BlastProcessing!

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

FEB 24, 2008 10:34 AM

martinj_b52 said:
The Hatch act of 1939 was a law written to keep bureaucrats like State Department, FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and other employees WHO ARE NOT REPLACED every time a politician is replaced, from actively engaging in promoting anti-constitutional activities.



I'm sorry, has your right to free speech ever been restricted by the Hatch Act? Mine has, and all because I did my job. I was an entry-level employee at a federal agency, and because of the Hatch Act, I wasn't allowed to participate in any partisan political debate. The Hatch Act is nothing but a shameless attack on the First Amendment.

So unless you've had to stop speaking your mind because you were employed in service to our country, kindly shut the fuck up.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 10:44 AM

gdarklighter said:

martinj_b52 said:
The Hatch act of 1939 was a law written to keep bureaucrats like State Department, FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and other employees WHO ARE NOT REPLACED every time a politician is replaced, from actively engaging in promoting anti-constitutional activities.



I'm sorry, has your right to free speech ever been restricted by the Hatch Act? Mine has, and all because I did my job. I was an entry-level employee at a federal agency, and because of the Hatch Act, I wasn't allowed to participate in any partisan political debate. The Hatch Act is nothing but a shameless attack on the First Amendment.

So unless you've had to stop speaking your mind because you were employed in service to our country, kindly shut the fuck up.



Get lost. You are employed BY the government. Your only right to determine how it is run (other than your vote at the election booth) is by mandate from your President, your Congress and your Supreme Court. You DO NOT have the right to interpret the laws and regulations to change the system. The POLITICIANS retain that right, and you have the right to remove them with your vote-NOTHING MORE.

If you want the right to speak your mind and determine how things are done, go start your own business. When you work for the government, or a corporation, your only right to speak your mind and determine how it is run is by your superiors. Personally, I find low level government employees sporting "kerry edwards" stickers on their cars to be easily led schmucks. But I will be damned if I will listen to them deliver pro Kerry speeches and pro Edwards talking points from behind their customer service desks. Thank God for the Hatch Act!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Next

featured interviews