At this point, I've reached the conclusion that further criticism of Hillary Clinton's behavior from people who everyone knows prefer Obama on the merits is useless and perhaps even counterproductive. What's needed is for people who prefer Clinton on the merits to defect now that her campaign has lost and is continuing to engage in bizarre and reckless behavior. But I suppose it is worth noting that comparing her situation to that of the opposition movement in Zimbabwe is a really offensive way of trivializing the work of some very courageous people.
« McCain and Parsley | Main | Many Causes! Many Solutions! »
Zimbabwe
22 May 2008 11:10 am
Comments (54)
Never gonna happen. Clinton supporters simply don't have a problem with the lies. As long as Obama loses, they don't care.
But I suppose it is worth noting that comparing her situation to that of the opposition movement in Zimbabwe is a really offensive way of trivializing the work of some very courageous people.
I know the Clinton people have worked hard under some bad weather conditions in Iowa, but characterizing them as "very courageous" is stretching it a bit.
I've decided that I have been WAY too kind in my Clinton posts. She does not deserve the mercy of a quick death via a massive stroke. She deserves to be flayed alive, and then drawn and quartered.
Strangely enough, Robert Mugabe is comparing himself to Hillary Clinton. He insists he is staying in until all the votes are counted -- and that the graveyards have a right to have their votes counted as well.
What's actually funny about the Zimbabwe situation is that on the face of it, it's not hard to see something very ironic.
Namely, that she's Mugabe.
Let's look at the facts. Hillary was:
1. The establishment candidate.
2. She has already held the reigns of power in the executive branch (thru Bill).
3. Was clearly perceived as the dominant candidate and was expected to win the election.
4. As part of the party Elite, agreed to the election rules (enthusiastically, as you noted a while ago, when she talked about punishing the early primary holding states).
5. She then lost an election against a relatively unknown upstart candidate with wide popular support.
6. She is now trying to overturn the election by changing the rules and rearranging vote totals in her favor.
I've already sent this in an email to Sully, but I figure it's probably more relevant here..
Now, I know the media's going to say this is about race, but it really isn't. But I just have to say, this whole situation reminds me of Zimbabwe. Like, a few years ago the people who made the country work were prosperous white people. Kind of like me and Hillary. But then you have this uppity black guy who can whip up a mob, and they go and take from the whites what's rightfully theirs. Now, does that seem fair to you?
sherifffrutfly obviously has tremendous insight into all Hillary Clinton supporters, but I'm afraid I'm an outlier in his finely-tuned equations.
I prefer Clinton on the merits but about a month ago I came over to the Obama camp because I realized that Hillary couldn't win and that her campaign was hurting the party's chances in November. And though I prefer Clinton on most issues, Obama is still a great candidate.
I give her credit for not referring to it as Rhodesia.
The Clinton supporters like the ones at Hillaryis44 would never denounce her recent bizarre behavior because of their overwhelming hatred of Obama.
Well, sticking Barack Obama's travails and accomplishments into the narrative of African-American oppression and liberation is "a really offensive way of trivializing the work of some very courageous people" too, and the fact that most African-Americans currently endorse the gambit (thanks to an agile PR campaign from the Obama campaign) doesn't make it less offensive.
I think the Clinton campaign is much more like the french resistance to Hitler than the Zimbabwe opposition. Or maybe she's like the Jews of the holocaust, or Joan of Arc... No! Sacajawea! ...or Betsy Ross!!
"Well, sticking Barack Obama's travails and accomplishments into the narrative of African-American oppression and liberation"
Yeah, because the story of the first African-American who has a real chance to be President of the United States doesn't have any place at all in that narrative.
Better Hillary trolls please.
Mike
Obama is a liar who has said anything, including redefining "Fairy Tale" as a racist slur, in order to win.
He has endlessly played the race card, sought to exempt himself from all criticism, abandoned campaign promises (a battalion a month as but one example) while lying about others (talking to Adaminijad without precondition), appeared with and promoted openly homophobic black ministers, is in the process of telling us which states don't matter in the GE, and it just goes on and on.
But HRC who is waging a contest for the Democratic nomination
A NOMINATION THAT HUSSEIN HAS NOT WON!
is engaging in bizarre behavior?
What I call bizarre is a supposed "progressive" calling for an end to a nomination battle before anyone has won.
Interesting how Matt and his Fellow Dickweeds want to shut down the voting. The Fascism of the Left revealed in all its glory...
As to HRC being "destructive" that can be said more accurately about Matt who is determined to lose the presidency.
Fuck 'em...
I voted for Clinton way back on Super Tuesday so I guess that made me a Clinton supporter.
I don't actually know when I switched to Obama.
The gas tax holiday was one issue and the FACT that Obama was going to win was another issue.
But I have started to detest Clinton for her actions on Florida and Michigan.
This morning, the thought actually entered my mind that McCain might be better than Clinton. I can't imagine it will come to that and, as a yellow dog, I am sure I will eventually pull the lever for the Democrat.
Writing this post gives me the chills to think that I am so upset with Clinton that I might not vote for her in November.
I voted for Clinton way back on Super Tuesday so I guess that made me a Clinton supporter.
I don't actually know when I switched to Obama.
The gas tax holiday was one issue and the FACT that Obama was going to win was another issue.
But I have started to detest Clinton for her actions on Florida and Michigan.
This morning, the thought actually entered my mind that McCain might be better than Clinton. I can't imagine it will come to that and, as a yellow dog, I am sure I will eventually pull the lever for the Democrat.
Writing this post gives me the chills to think that I am so upset with Clinton that I might not vote for her in November.
I am SHOUTING. Can anyone HEAR ME?
Funny how Obama supporters were once derided as mindless, soulless cultists ... seems so long ago ...
Talk Left and other Hillary-centric web communities now feel like Jonestown ... only hours before big Jim spiked his sacramental Kool-Aid ...
*sighs*
Someone needs to save those folks from themselves ... before they begin sacrificing good and innocent bystanders to their deranged Goddess ... !
Better Hillary trolls please.
Be careful what you ask for: just look at the next comment. At this point, people like JTHB are probably representative of the remaining Hillary dead-enders.
JTHB's comment reminded me of this for some reason...
Brian Fantana: Don't get me wrong, I love the ladies. I mean they rev my engines, but they don't belong in the newsroom.
Champ Kind: It is anchor*man*, not anchor*lady*. And that is a scientific fact.
Brick Tamland: I don't know what we're yelling about.
Brian Fantana: You're with us, Ron, what do you think?
Ron Burgundy: [shouting] She... Sh... It's terrible. She has beautiful eyes, and her hair smells like cinnamon.
Brick Tamland: [shouts] Loud noises.
What's actually funny about the Zimbabwe situation is that on the face of it, it's not hard to see something very ironic.
Namely, that she's Mugabe.
Let's look at the facts. Hillary was:
1. The establishment candidate.
2. She has already held the reigns of power in the executive branch (thru Bill).
3. Was clearly perceived as the dominant candidate and was expected to win the election.
4. As part of the party Elite, agreed to the election rules (enthusiastically, as you noted a while ago, when she talked about punishing the early primary holding states).
5. She then lost an election against a relatively unknown upstart candidate with wide popular support.
6. She is now trying to overturn the election by changing the rules and rearranging vote totals in her favor.
I've already sent this in an email to Sully, but I figure it's probably more relevant here..
Hilary supporters seem to becoming increasingly deranged. Look at JTHB's post, it's hard to read that post without imagining a person in dirty clothes shaking on a street corner.
I really have a hard time understanding how the average person can "hate" Obama. Not trust, maybe, find inexperienced, sure. But as politicians go he's a pretty decent guy and damn likeable. I mean after comparing BHO to a philanderer and corrupt pol like McCain, people can really hate Obama? What kind of resentments and slights drive these Clinton supporters?
Has any reporter asked Clinton, point-blank, "If what's happening to Florida and Michigan is so unfair, why did you agree not to seat their delegates in the first place? Why did your campaign go along with the DNC's rules, and what made you change your mind about them?"
I'd be very interested in her answers.
See, this is where pundits are missing the point. They say, "oh, well as long as she doesn't go negative, let her stay in as long as he wants." This is bullshit. She may not be acting explicitly negative, but she is giving her deranged supporters the illusion that this nomination process has been something short of legitimate. Her goal is to keep BHO out of the White House. How this is not obvious to everyone, I'm not sure.
Meanwhile, Obama's starting to hunt for a VP. His lead in national polls grows, and he's recognized as the party's nominee.
The sooner the Clinton campaign realizes its heading into Ron Paul territory, the better, but the party's patient. We can wait.
She has zero class.
Meant to say "as long as she wants."
This statement of Clinton's is so Bush-like that it's breathtaking. It's that unique combination of utter offensiveness, clueless inappropriateness, and blithe destructiveness that Bush has mastered. Words fail. She doesn't have the character to be president. I wouldn't vote for McCain in a million years (he doesn't either), but Clinton would depress *my* turnout. Rather than holding my nose to vote for her, I'd need a full hazmat suit.
I find the best of dealing with Hillary Clinton now is to ignore her. She is irrelevant. Obama is on the right track by not even acknowledging her criticisms any more. I don't really care if she leaves now, or leaves later, it just doesn't matter any more.
Dear Clinton Supports:
Please, before you post, consider the following:
As of this morning, Obama has a 199 delegate lead.
Assuming Clinton wins 100% of the remaining pledged delegates (86), the leaves Obama was a 113 delegate lead.
Assuming the rules committee provides a full delegation for Michigan and Florida, and assigns them based on their primary results (including Michigan where Obama gets zero votes), that is a net gain of 54 delegates. This would reduce Obama's lead to 59 delegates.
There are 211 undeclared superdelegates. Meaning that, in order for Clinton to secure the nomination, they would have to support her at a rate of over 70% - essentially agreeing to overturn the pledged delegates.
The above scenario is literally the best case possible. Do you really think that will happen?
"What's needed is for people who prefer Clinton on the merits to defect now that her campaign has lost and is continuing to engage in bizarre and reckless behavior."
Those few who do will likely be derided as Judas's.
Based on the rules - which the Obama campaign is very fond of quoting - she hasn't lost.
Not to mention this: anyone whose ever played a role playing game or a complex board game will know what I mean when I say that people hate rules lawyering...
Clinton is talking about Florida in 2000, but she's embracing the Bush role, busing in "rioters" to intimidate those making the decisions.
the reason you only see Hillary Trolls here is that most of the posts above (flaying alive? hitler?) are so antagonitically overblown and so characteristic of the rapidly dropping level of discourse in these comments threads. No one replies to vitriol except vitriolic people. All of you should really breath deeply before posting. You make us all look stupid.
Are people in New York starting to talk about whether they really want Hillary Clinton to represent them in the Senate? People talk about the madness of the Clinton campaign in the blogosphere, but nobody cares out in the regular world. That scares me. She can channel George Wallace one day then grotesquely compare her campaign to the Zimbabwe opposition the next and nobody even seems to notice.
"anyone whose ever played a role playing game or a complex board game will know what I mean when I say that people hate rules lawyering..."
James Robertson, It's interesting that you mention role-playing games here, 1) because they're un-American -- played only by latte-sipping elites who were good at math in Junior High -- and 2) because they cause people to become delusional, as illustrated by the excellent early Tom Hanks movie, Mazes & Monsters. So, I guess you're right that the fact that she hates rules lawyering, as you suggest, is a sign that Hillary Clinton has adopted a "role playing game" attitude toward this campaign. That would also suggest why she appears so delusional right now.
"Based on the rules - which the Obama campaign is very fond of quoting - she hasn't lost.
Not to mention this: anyone whose ever played a role playing game or a complex board game will know what I mean when I say that people hate rules lawyering...
Posted by James Robertson | May 22, 2008 12:56 PM"
I'm not sure admitting you're trapped in your mom's basement is the best way to make yourself look sane.
As someone who has friends from Zimbabwe, stuff like this just pisses me off. Next she will compare herself to the French Underground, Kim Dae Jung, Gandhi and Saladin just for good measure.
"Are people in New York starting to talk about whether they really want Hillary Clinton to represent them in the Senate? People talk about the madness of the Clinton campaign in the blogosphere, but nobody cares out in the regular world. That scares me. She can channel George Wallace one day then grotesquely compare her campaign to the Zimbabwe opposition the next and nobody even seems to notice.
Posted by Psittakos | May 22, 2008 1:08 PM"
Rangel was an early endorser of hers and he seems to be becoming increasingly and publicly annoyed with her antics.
Mike: Sorry, I'm as good a Hillary troll as you're likely to get around here. And just give the word, if you want to start talking about Obama as the first African-American anything.
szr - 6 months ago, the possibility of Obama winning looked pretty far fetched too, and look how things changed between now and then. Will Obama win? Yup. Has he won yet? Nope. If the remaining super delegates wanted Obama to win the primary, this thing would be wrapped up. But for whatever reason, they're either not convinced or are unwilling to go public, and so the competition goes on.
What's pissing off a lot of Clinton supporters isn't Obama (I'll proudly vote for him in November) but the attitude so many of his supporters display. In just this comment thread alone, Obama supporters have said:
1) Clinton supporters don't care who wins, as long as Obama loses
2) Clinton supporters have no problem with the "lies"
3) Clinton deserves to be "flayed alive, then drawn out and quartered"
4) Clinton supporters have an "overwhelming hatred of Obama"
5) That Clinton is really no better than Bush
Even John Aravosis at Americablog has, twice, outright accused Clinton of deliberately designing her ads to play to racist. This type of mindless blustering really starts to get to people.
Yes, I know there are some Clinton trolls (JTHB, you're a moron), and that some people are voting for Clinton because they have racist fears about a black man becoming president. But the vast majority of her supporters prefer her solidly on the merits, and genuinely think she'd be a better president than Obama. All the controversy about Florida and Michigan aside, this is an extremely close race. Is it really so horrible to have it go on for a few more weeks?
All the controversy about Florida and Michigan aside, this is an extremely close race.
THIS is why people are screaming, Gheby. It just *isn't* a close race anymore! Your wishful thinking is...well, sorry, but it's pathetic. Obama was not my first choice either, but IT"S OVER. (MY was sly in naming another post about this subject after a line in 'Rambo' - viz, 'Nothing is Over!!!')
I'm the one who made the comment that HRC's Zimbabwe statement was pure Bush. I said that becuase it's (nauseatingly) true. I never dreamed I'd say something like that about HRC, but I never dreamed she would run this kind of campaign. I used to have respect for her - not now.
Hillary is fighting for the nomination the way you fight back Stage IV cancer -- absolutely without a thought for any other thing than winning. As with some stricken people fighting all-out for their lives, valor and indomitability are now giving over to heedless entitlement to the sacrifice of others, so that the devolution from hero to survivor to millstone is becoming complete. I cannot judge people who fight for their lives with every resource they can remotely lay claim to, including the best interests of their families -- they have no choice, and the survival instinct trumps anything we know. I do judge Hillary, who has many excellent choices about how to live on, politically, doing herself and others much good.
All I see is that a politician who has been hailed for her pragmatism above all other qualities cannot now tell where her true interest lies, does not now act in the interest of the party whose nomination she once bid fair to capture. This is more than anything else a failure of pragmatism, something even people who have been her ardent apologists must be galled by.
Hillary and Obama have both been up against it this primary season, under the kind of pressure that can only reveal character. The big question is, whose reality test is better? Who can regroup for victory without the appearance of desperation or bone-deep ill will? Who can, for the common good, refrain from playing the most lethal cards he's holding -- and win anyway? That's the one who will be the better president; those are the qualities that the president needs. Only one Democratic candidate for that office possesses them -- it's been demonstrated, and we no longer have to guess.
Gheby, how many people actually read blogs? DailyKos, the biggest liberal blogging communities, has fewer users than about a quarter of the Democratic primary turnout in a decent-sized state. Clinton's supporters also tend to skew older, so they are also less likely to read blogs. Now, there are probably Obama supporters that just piss of Clinton supporters, but considering your evidence is all blogosphere based, I'm wondering how much such a factor can really be the cause of anything.
Okay so I assume you, Matt, will now stop criticizing Hillary Clinton since everyone knows you prefer Obama
LEAVE HILLARY ALONE! SHE'S A HUMAN!!!! HOW DARE ANYONE OUT THERE MAKE FUN OF HILLARY!!! AFTER ALL SHE'S BEEN THROUGH!!
(This is, I dare say, excellent news!! for Hillary!!!!)
I am an Obama supporter, but I will say one thing positive about Hillary: I wish it was her rather than Gore who was behind by 500 votes in Florida in 2000.
I've supported Hillary Clinton in this race since Bill Richardson dropped out. I like Obama (though I think he's inexperienced and I'm not captivated by his speeches everyone else is so goo-goo over) I don't in any way presume to speak for other HRC supporters, but I would say that hearing Obama supporters call HRC a "psychopath", a "sociopath", a "liar" and call everyone who supports HRC a racist - I'll just come out and say its a real turn-off. Further, I heard this same crap coming out of the mouths of Ralph Nader supporters back in 2000. You want HRC supporters to defect to Obama? How about talking and acting like a rational and decent human being when refering to the Clintons. How about not insulting Bill Clinton's presidency - the ONLY successful Democratic president since FDR and THE model for how a future successful Democratic president would perform. How about practicing what you preach when talking about "changing the discourse." Those are just some ideas if you seriously want people to agree to stop supporting HRC and start supporting Obama. After all, if it wasn't for Bill Clinton's presidency, do you honestly think that moderate voters out there would even contemplate allow a bunch of tofu eating liberal finger-pointing douchebags to run this country? As a tofu-eater, I'd say no and if you say yes, you're an idiot.
"How about talking and acting like a rational and decent human being when refering to the Clintons. How about not insulting Bill Clinton's presidency - the ONLY successful Democratic president since FDR and THE model for how a future successful Democratic president would perform."
I agree with your larger point about engaging people, especially people like yourself who seem to want to have an intelligent conversation.
However, why do these two ideas in your comment necessarily connect? Bill's presidency, after all, wasn't successful enough to ensure Gore the presidency over a functional retard. He did do some good things, but just because there are a lack of viable alternatives that have been tried doesn't mean that alternatives won't work. If a country had only had a recent history of Marxist and ultra-libertarian economic rule and one turned to have worked better than the other, it doesn't mean alternatives wouldn't be superior. In addition, the political context today is so much different than in the 1990's that I'm not sure that Bill's approach could even work at all today. If Bill's record was something that the vast majority of Democrats saw as the model we must follow, Hillary would have sailed to the nomination. A lot of rank-and-file Dems were simply dissatisfied with much of the 1990's.
Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton not only lacks political talent, but is not particularly intelligent? All the tone-deaf pandering and intellectual dishonesty -- it's not exactly that she doesn't know any better, but she can't actually do any better. She has been driven to near madness by her frustration with her own limitations.
Clinton AND a subset of her supporters are simply venal, twisted, vicious scumbags for whom power and greed and maliciousness are the only motivations.
Clinton once again said she will go all the way to the convention.
What part of that aren't you people getting? She's in this to insure that Obama loses the election.
And she will.
The Democrats have already lost this election by nominating this BITCH.
And fuck anybody who says that word is "sexist" when applied to this BITCH.
Myth
Hillary was the establishment candidate.
Reality
Obama became the presumptive nominee after Iowa. The pundits have been trying to push her out ever since.
Myth
She then lost an election against a relatively unknown upstart with wide popular support.
Reality
She hasn't lost the election. Obama has raised close to $200 million dollars this year. He outspent her in OH and TX by 3 to 1. He was going to knock her out of the race. He lost! He outspent her 4 to 1 in PA and lost. Let's stop the nonsense about being an unknown. As another blogger stated, he could be on the Wheaties box.
If Obama had the wide popular support, he would have already won in PA, OH, IN, FL, and MI. He has not!
Myth
She is now trying to overturn the election by changing the rules and rearranging vote totals in her favor.
Reality
According to the Obama supporters, adding MI and FL wouldn't change anything. Then why did Obama block the revote? He knew he would lose.
Myth
Obama has lost some primaries because of Clinton's scorch earth strategy and his race.
Reality
Voters reject Obama because he is inexperienced. Three years in the Senate is a thin resume. Many voters are one paycheck away from financial disaster or an unexpected crisis After seven years of President Bush, they will not risk their future again.
Judging from all the snide remarks, Obama's supporters believe he can win without Hillary's voters. If he is the nominee, a Democratic Congress and a McCain Presidency would be best for the country.
EWard, you know that when you put forward a hypothesis and then attempt to refute it, you have to 1) refute the actual hypothesis and not some other random idea you didn't write and 2) have actual evidence showing that your assertions are true. An assertion is not evidence, but you seem to think they are. I've never seen someone make strawman arguments against themselves, but congratulations, you've mastered the stupidest form of argumentation I've seen in my life. It takes a special type of talent to be so clueless.
Myth
Hillary was the establishment candidate.
Establishment does not mean what you think it does.
Reality
She hasn't lost the election. Obama has raised close to $200 million dollars this year. He outspent her in OH and TX by 3 to 1.
If you do a little research, you will find out that Hillary Clinton has spent $202,038,129 as of May 1st. During that same period, Obama has spent $225,542,917. A difference of $23m, which is 5% of the total expenditures of both candidates combined. Otherwise in Hillary terms, it's a tie.
If Obama was outspending her 3-to-1 is so many states, surely she must have been outspending him in many states too right? That's a bad argument that I don't think you want to make. How much did she spend in Iowa again? And to what result? Furthermore, Hillary grossly outspent Obama in Nevada, her whole staff stayed at the Bellagio, but she lost the delegate race there and by the way, Obama actually won the delegate contest in Texas.
Please make better arguments, because each one of your claims can be easily refuted. And now you see why we Obama supporters think that Hillary supporters are a bit out there.
EWard is a perfect example of the sort of Clinton supporter I referenced - a lying, vicious, venal fanatic who simply wants to win no matter what scumbag behavior she has to resort to.
Six Reasons to Ignore the Posts of RSH
1. He is off his meds.
2. He has an anger managment problem.
3. He robbed a bank.
4. He used a bus as a getaway vehicle.
5. He spent 7 or 8 years in prison.
6. The brain chip implanted by the Iranians has malfunctioned.
Bubba
Obama's strategy from February through April was to knock Hillary out of the race. According to the pundits, he had to win in OH, TX, and PA to push her aside. He poured all this money in and lost! What in the world does her spending in NV and IA have anything to do with it? The electoral map favors Hillary because she is winning the voters in the big-swing states. There is a total of 85 electoral votes among OH, PA, MI, and FL. With Obama as the nominee, the Democrats will lose these states in November.
Comments closed June 05, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Okay so I assume you, Matt, will now stop criticizing Hillary Clinton since everyone knows you prefer Obama.
Posted by Tim K | May 22, 2008 11:16 AM