« The Dirty, Dirty Farm Bill | Main | All Those Dirty Words... »

May 22, 2008

Comments

Does she have no shame? She agreed to and participated in "disenfranchising" FL and MI, but now its "Zimbabwe?"

She's making the argument that she's having the nomination stolen from her, "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people." This is truly madness on her part, and it needs to stop immediately. Can Chelsea tell her to knock it off?

Do Clinton voters even know where or what Zimbabwe is?

Does she have no shame?

Obviously not.

SATSQ.

Clinton is employing precisely the Bush political (and every other) strategy: negative sum. It's OK to be as cynical, lying and destructive as you want, because, as Bush put it to McCain in S. Carolina, 'It's just politics'. For the first time, I have decided that Clinton doesn't have the character to be president, character being just a teensy bit important in a presidential choice. For all my reservations about Obama, he is manifestly the better one. The very last thing we need now is another post-modern pol being president.

Clearly, this is exactly like Zimbabwe, since Mugabe and Obama are both black men. In fact, if you spell "Obama" backwards, remove the o and the extra a, add a g, and then hit "shuffle" you get Mugabe.

I blogged about this late last night, and got into it with a couple of commenters at another site, and their defense was--and I am not making this up--that the opening of the piece you quoted, Hilzoy, was biased and so you can't trust the context of the statement. When I pointed out that the statement was vile no matter the context, I was treated dismissively. The only way that statement isn't insulting to both Florida voters and Zimbabweans is if it's immediately followed with the statement "of course, here in the US we're not dealing with anything as serious as that."

she is a shameless, hollow, disgrace.

the more of herself that she shows us, the happier i am that she'll never be president.

I've been so good because I agree that Republicans were major drama queens with respect to the Clintons in the 1990s, but I can't take it any more.

The Clintons are divisive. That is what they do and who they are. When they decide you're an enemy, the don't worry about decency because you don't count any more and you will never count to them again. (Just ask the Democrat who proposed another health care plan around the time that Clinton proposed her plan, hmm I can't even remember his name. It was something common, how sad is that?) There have been no Republicans involved with Clinton's doings for months now, yet now is the time we hear not-particularly-crypto racism and general crazy-talk.

Bush is pretty much the same way.

We really don't need to add another 4 to 16 years of this. Obama offers the hope (maybe just a hope, but a hope nonetheless) that we can tone it down a touch and try doing useful things instead of always screaming at each other.

Maybe Republicans won't go along (though if they aren't careful they might not matter). But I don't know if you've ever noticed people fighting, but when they are both screaming at each other you tend to dismiss them both regardless of the merits. When one appears to be acting reasonable you tend to side with them just a touch (even if on the merits they aren't as grounded). Maybe that could happen in politics. Heaven knows we haven't tried it in decades.

Bush should probably avoid this. So, should Hillary. So should Americans. Who is allowed?

Does Hillary realize Zimbabwe is full of black people? That means it doesn't count.

I've worked very hard over the past months to tell myself that Hillary is a good candidate, she'd be a fine president, you can't blame her for campaigning hard, we'll need unity in November, etc. etc.

All to no avail. I hate her bleeping guts.

I thought that it was just the fanatical Hillary supporters at Talk Left and Taylor Marsh that were going through a meltdown, but low, I have been proven wrong. It's the entire campaign.

And so we have finally have the proof that she is sabotaging the Democrat's chance for the presidency in 2008. To say she ought to be ashamed is quite an understatement.

Damn apostrophes in the wrong place. Sorry. "Democrats'" obviously.

Gary Farber once yelled at me for not knowing the code to link to the internet the fancy way. That’s been weighing on my mind and I’ve finally learned to do it. I can grow.

For those who think that life under George Bush sucks, life sucks worse in Zimbabwe. And for those Zimbabweans who think that life sucks in Zimbabwe, life sucks even worse in South Africa, where people are beginning to show intolerance.

This despite the fact that back during the days of plenty of food, Zimbabweans and native South Africans showed strong solidarity in tearing down the two-legged one. Proving that four legs sucks worse.

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
-Attributed to James Madison, Federalist 10

I think I missed the 66000% inflation rate currently ravaging Florida....

Every time I need to remind myself just how far the Clintons have strayed, I say "What if a Republican had said this?" Democrats would be rightly offended by this comment, but myopic Hillary supporters justify it as being "tough" or a "fighter". Go away Hillary and take Karl Rove and Dick Morris with you!

And so tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans - hardworking Americans, white Americans - I ask for your support.

Another day, another chance of Hillary to display behaviors right out of the textbook definition of Psychopathy.


You cannot deal with a Psychopath. You can only destroy them like rabid dogs.

You cannot deal with a Psychopath. You can only destroy them like rabid dogs.

That comment is over the line, I think

You cannot deal with a Psychopath. You can only destroy them like rabid dogs.

That comment is over the line, I think

Posted by: Hartmut | May 22, 2008 at 01:40 PM\

====

They're a Hillbot troll trying to smear the comments and make the place look bad.

What scares me is that looking (quickly -- they burn my eyeballs) at pro-Clinton blogs like Talkleft, it looks like HC's supporters are eating this up. Is she really going to succeed in convincing a lot of people that the nomination was stollen from her -- and thus sabotaging Obama's general election chances?

libarbarian: that comment is indeed over the line. See the posting rules.

They're a Hillbot troll trying to smear the comments and make the place look bad.

libarbarian's definitely not a Hillbot.

Calling my girl Hillary a "psychopath."

Ouch.

Saying you "can only destroy them like rabid dogs" is a reference, I suppose to Hillary and her supporters -- like me.

Forget the psychopath reference. As the owner of three dogs -- CoCo, Bowser and Hamilton -- I take offense to the "rabid dogs" reference.

But go ahead:

Keep bashing Hillary, people.

If it makes you feel good, keep bashing Hillary.

Kind of makes you wonder about Obama's promise of "hope" and "change" and "unity" when his supporters bash his opponent so gleefully and, by extension, the millions of Democrats who have voter for her.

So the next time, you scream for Hillary to get out of the race, try instead to focus -- and live up to -- those ideas of hope and change and unity.

Or are they just ideas?

Just campaign slogans?

In addition to hilzoy's point about the disproportinate nature of the analogy, it's worth noting that the analogy works against Clinton in any case. See my post: 'The Democratic Republic of Michigan' -- we don't normally think that fraudulent elections with only one name on the ballot are a good guide to the will of the people.

Condemning a comment within ten minutes is obviously not fast enough, even if it is not one by an old hand but by a more or less drive-by. How many Ave Hillary do we have to pray to atone for that sin?
Btw, that comment would have been over the line independent of the person it is directed at (including certified psychopaths).

This despite the fact that back during the days of plenty of food, Zimbabweans and native South Africans showed strong solidarity in tearing down the two-legged one. Proving that four legs sucks worse.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain exactly who the two-legged and four-legged ones are in Zimbabwe and SA, would you Bill?

Hartmut,

My point about the gleeful Hillary bashing -- in direct contrast to Obama's message of hope and change and unity -- not by the offensive commenter but by many of the Obama supporters here stands.

Keep bashing Hillary, folks.

It will serve the Democrats well in the GE.

Not.

(Silence)

It’s all gotta be part of the plan.
Right?

Back here was my comment:
“The persistence and depth of her misjudgment about what people will be able to believe just keeps on amazing me...I just couldn’t grasp it, and thus forced to grasp at straws, I figured; her campaign is FUBAR and it must be the squirmy Slimeball Penn’s fault.
But this sheds light.
The bogus spin is just a smokescreen.
She really thinks she did do those things she was talking about that aren’t (objectively) true. She isn’t hive-minded with Clever IsIs Bill. No.
She’s delusional.
They must know, and they’re humoring her.

(This had to do with Tuzla, of course.)
I’m ready to claim vindication.

Those closest to her understand: She’s mad, crazy, insane.
That’s why they’ve done all those unaccountably stupid things. They’re terrified for all of us if she won. They may even have encouraged her to show her colors, so people would catch on and practice due diligence in blocking her rise.

Makes sense to me.

Not that it isn’t all so incomprehensibly crazy.
Scary that she seemed (spin, I know) to come so close.

Or, just scary.
And not what we need. Now, or ever.

It's getting impossible to tell spoof from reality with Hillary people. I hope a regular tells me that bedtimeforbonzo is the Insane Fake Professor of ObWi...

I'm pretty embarrassed that so far the most asinine thing to come out of the campaign season has come from my own party. But since HRC knows good and well that Florida is not Zimbabwe, asinine isn't exactly the right word. I can't think of the right word to encapsulate so much craven calculation and unadulterated hypocrisy, though.

damn blockquote tag. That second para, obviously, is me to Bill.

shorter btfb: nice Party you have there. it would be a shame if something happened to it.

bonzo.
I’d be delighted to not feel compelled to speak negatively of Sen. Clinton.

It’s important to me that Obama seldom (relative to the opportunities) speaks of her in a way other than respectful.

I’m happy as well, or at least content, that anyone and everyone can speak up.
Thank Heaven for a haven like this, where I don’t have to endure the stomach-churning blood-boiling stuff.

But high-minded down-and-dirty from a candidate?

I protest; nor do I think, too much.

I understand you finding it distasteful; but it doesn’t necessarily derive from ill-will and deeply ingrained hostility.
It’s only that I deplore and reject her choice of actions.

BTFB, maybe instead of complaining about "gleeful attacks" on Clinton, you'd care to defend her? The reason people are attacking her is that she's saying patently silly things. Seriously, Zimbabwe? The Civil Rights struggle? Can you honestly say that the situation in FL and/or MI is even remotely comparable?

Also, as far as "serving the Democrats well in the GE," how do you think telling voters in FL and MI that the Dem nominee is trying to disenfranchise them is going to help?

Felix,

I can respect that.

Amazingly, millions upon millions have voted for Sen. Clinton to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and, thus, do not "deplore and reject her choice of actions."

So, while I respect your viewpoint entirely, I only warn -- and not of you -- but to those Obama supporters who take so much delight in bashing Hillary, I only warn:

Be careful.

Be careful, because disparaging her and her candidacy is taken by many of her supporters as disparaging them -- especially those over-50 women who have supported Sen. Clinton so strongly.

As a Hillary supporter who will vote for Sen. Obama if he is indeed our nominee, I say be careful:

Obama will need those who voted for Clinton to win the GE. Most of them will go his way, others won't -- and when the Obama people cry about that, they can only look in the mirror.

Change.

Hope.

Unity.

Practice what you preach.

Ezra Klein is now convinced that Clinton is working for a McCain win. I'm still trying to find some other possible explanation for what she's doing. This is really vile, and I wish Al Gore would speak up about her Florida recount tour.

Yes, Larv, she went over the top.

But I imagine some of the voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised without any reminder.

Something needs to be done about that.

Any suggestions?

btfb, please attempt to tell the difference between criticism of a truly breathtakingly brazen move by Clinton herself and "bashing" "by extension" "millions of Democrats". I personally believe that millions of Democrats are capable of seeing that Florida is not Zimbabwe and I for one am not bashing any of them. You can at least concern troll where someone is actually doing what you're talking about.

KC, how about this as a possible explanation: she's trying to prompt the undeclared superdelegates, those folks who evidently don't leave the house all day because they can't decide on breakfast, to go ahead and declare for Obama, making him the nominee since she already said she won't leave until there's a nominee..? I don't believe it either, but I sure HOPE she's decided to stop trying to tear the party asunder for a CHANGE so that we can finally have UNITY behind the man who is going to be our NOMINEE.

Anna Quindlen has been a Clinton supporter, and I thought this was classy. http://www.newsweek.com/id/137511

"My point about the gleeful Hillary bashing -- in direct contrast to Obama's message of hope and change and unity -- not by the offensive commenter but by many of the Obama supporters here stands."

Please link to the specific comments you wish to criticize, or don't tar "many of the Obama supporters here" without backing up your claims with specific cites.

Thanks.

But I imagine some of the voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised without any reminder.

Something needs to be done about that.

Any suggestions?

Seat the number of delegates the states were originally allocated, and give half to Clinton and half to Obama. The outcome is unchanged, and no one is "disenfranchised" (though I don't really see what grounds they have to be upset any more or less than anyone in a state that hadn't yet voted in a past election cycle had grounds to be upset when the nominee was chosen before their state's caucus/primary. Someone everyone has, despite being annoyed, managed to get on with their lives, and not flee the Democratic or Republican Party in outrage.

I don't observe that Republicans are bellowing because McCain clinched the nomination months ago, long before "the voting was over."

Why is that? Are Republicans more broadminded and calmer and sensible than Democrats? They're all passive zombies? Or what?

And why would Democrats this year suddenly be outraged over not getting to vote before the nominee was picked than they were in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, and all the previous presidential elections in which primaries didn't even matter?

Why? Answer that, and we'll get closer to understanding why Suddenly It's All Different Now. Because right now, I have no idea, other than the notion that some folks are having a hissy fit for no sane reason whatever.

I would bet that many in the earlier primary/caucus states now regret their choice of vote (independent of candidate they voted for), so that fact that they voted one way in the past does not necessarily mean that they are tied to that candidate independent of his/her behaviour.
You are right that glee is counterproductive but a serious discussion of questionable behaviour is not out of place (and I personally think that there is currently more of that coming from the Clinton camp than from the Obama camp*).
There is a lot I do not know about Obama and his ability to be an effective and good president (I am naturally suspicious of charismatic figures) but what I am pretty sure of is that he is no worse than the other options.
1) Son of Cain: Bush squared
2) Hillary Clinton: burning through her credit at an alarming rate
3) Obama: Unknown quantity with potential (for good)
I'd prefer Obama as VP for Gore for starters allowing him to build national credentials and running for the top spot later for that very reason.

*If there is one thing I admire about Obama it is that he (until now) managed to deal with the dirt thrown at him without looking either weak or answering with throwing dirt back (as is usual these days).

But I imagine some of the voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised without any reminder.

Something needs to be done about that.

Any suggestions?

Any suggestions on how we're supposed to react when Clinton and her advisors say absolutely bat-sh!t crazy things that (i) aren't true; (ii) poison the well for Obama in the fall (she had the nomination "stolen"); and (iii) are manifestly hypocritical (she was all for punishing FL/MI until she needed them and how many times did we hear her advisors talk about states that "don't count"?).

Seat the number of delegates the states were originally allocated, and give half to Clinton and half to Obama. The outcome is unchanged,

never. according to my math, Clinton needs to win all but 8 of all the outstanding delegates to win (or, 257 more than she has now). Obama only needs 73. Clinton needs a heavily lopsided settlement to give her any hope at all of winning this numerically.

Not to mention how disenfranchised I and millions of Obama voters would feel if, perhaps, the superdelegates bought into Hillary Clinton's argument and gave the nomination to her over the heads of the majority of the voters?

Of course she should stay in the race until it's over. That should go without saying.

I don't understand how the irony of her vows to fight for the seating of delegates from the states that she "won" while being perfectly willing to have superdelegates choose the candidate who earned less pledged delegates escapes people.


The truly sad thing is the way Hilary is abusing the trust and hopes of her supporters. Worse than abusing, she's literally robbing them - taking their money to pay off her debst in what she has to know is a lost cause. Of course someone like that should be anathema to any Democrat, or any feeling human being.

What scares me is that McCain's road to victory seems pretty obvious - he just needs to nominate a woman Republican as VP. He could grab a significant portion of the angry over-50 HRC supporters who seem to have so much invested in seeing a woman in the White House. Sure it smacks of pandering, but if it's subtly portrayed as a response to Democratic "elites" stealing the nomination it might work. I suppose McCain's problem is finding such a candidate, I don't think Condi would fly at this point.

not getting to vote before the nominee was picked than they were in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960,

Gary; Hart and Mondale, at least, fought it out right down to the final vote at the Convention.

before the primary season, i thought that hilary was a very strong candidate. the only reason i didn't want her to run was that i thought it would galvanize the neo-con base, regardless of who their candidate was. when she declared, i felt i could support her. for the past couple of months, however, i have reached the decision that i cannot.

i am sick and tired of the pandering. i am sick and tired of the phoniness of watching her loft a cold one in bars she would never be caught dead in if she weren't running. most of all, i have become convinced that she will say or do anything just to get elected, regardless of the consequences to the rest of the democratic party and the country at large.

she agreed to the rules in florida and michigan ahead of time. now, when it is convenient for her, she fights for the "rights" of those she at first agreed to disenfranchise. where was she before the primary? i dare say that we would not be hearing a peep from her if she did not "need" the delegates from florida or michigan to sew up the nomination.

i would note that i do not consider myself a hilary basher. i have tried with all my might to stay neutral, and to be in line to support the democratic candidate who emerges from the process. this was my intention at the start of the electoral season. i would cast this warning, however, to clintonites, of which i used to consider myself one of, and the democratic party.

if hilary is the nominee, i will not vote for her. i will vote in other elections, but will sit out the presidential vote. i dare say that i am not the only one who feels this way.

You'll be able to tell that Hilary is emulating the suffragettes when she goes on a hunger strike.

Gary,

I'm sure you read the post: "Kentucky Primary -- Not Exactly the Democractic Wing of the Democratic Party."

Let's get this straight: That is not Clinton bashing.

But it is revealing as to the mindset of the editors here.

I mean, the day after Clinton beats Obama -- by 35 points! -- Obsidian Wings figures the story to tell is that, heck, Kentucky really isn't part of the Democratic Party, or at least the part of it that counts.

Instead, how about a post examining why Obama lost to Sen. Clinton by significant margins in Kentucky. And West Virginia. And Pennsylvania. And Ohio.

How a post about examining if this will be a hindrance to the Democratic Party -- every part of it, dammit, even Kentucky (which Bill Clinton won) -- come November?

And what about Obama's 50-state strategy that I have been lectured about on these pages?

Does the 50-state strategy include writing off Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio?

After Obama's loss in Pennsylvania -- after his bowling and beer-drinking experiences with regular folk there -- he seemed to have no patience with campaigning in Kentucky and West Virginia, putting in no more than token appearances.

I guess he's forgotten about his 50-state strategy already.

Back to that Kentucky headline:

The headline itself isn't bashing -- but coming the day after a huge Clinto win -- I would definitely say that it tilts the coverage in a pro-Obama direction.

But go ahead. Bash Hillary -- and the evidence of such piled-on critisms are right here on these pages.

My goodness, millions have voted for that no-good, manipulative, win-at-all-costs ---- (pick your own word).

Millions must be wrong.

Uninformed.

Or stupid.

Or maybe they wish Michigan and Florida had been given a chance to vote.

Maybe they see Clinton -- God forbid -- as the better candidate to defeat McCain in the fall.


N.P.D.

That is the clinical description of the Clintons and their behavior.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

It's all about them. And always has been. Will do anything to attain their ends.

Hillary lost me when she wouldn't admit that her vote for the AUMF was a mistake (didn't even read the classified NIE on Iraq).

Bill, who I once admired and long defended, lost me when he cynically went on the RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW, during the runup to the Texas primary.

The country will be better off without the Clintons controlling either the Executive Branch, or the Democratic Party.

Time to turn the page.

For those Clinton voters who made up their minds because Obama is black, it is like Zimbabwe. Bear with me...

Before there was Zimbabwe, there was Rhodesia. Rhodesia was a great place while the white minority was running it (if you were white). Then those uppity black Africans decided that they didn't like being ruled by a bunch of racists and they decided to do something about it.

Then came the Chimurenga (Chimurunga), the Bush War. Mugabe's (ZANU) and Nkomo's (ZAPU) groups took the fight to the white Rhodesians. The white minority went from being rulers of Rhodesia to living precariously as the tiny minority under siege. They went from ruling the country to ruling a patchwork quilt of areas separated by no-go areas. ZANU and ZAPU won in the end, the shingle outside got changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe has ruled the roost from 1980 until today.

When you think about the siege mentality a portion of Clinton voters have when it comes to black people, the Zimbabwe analogy actually makes perfect sense. The white minority in Zimbabwe has faired increasingly worse over time under Mugabe's rule, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some dead-end Clinton supporters start making the argument that Obama is just like Mugabe.

Millions must be wrong.

I happen to think that was the case in 2004.

Let's get this straight: That is not Clinton bashing.

Publius is actually from KY. Are you? Do you think his analysis was wrong? How can it be Clinton-bashing for someone from KY to offer their perspective on their friends and neighbors?

But it is revealing as to the mindset of the editors here.

It might reveal something about Publius' mindset. So I cry uncle: what do you think it reveals? I mean, instead of insinuating, would you please come out and say what you think Publius' mindset is and what's wrong with it?

Instead, how about a post examining why Obama lost to Sen. Clinton by significant margins in Kentucky. And West Virginia. And Pennsylvania. And Ohio.

OK, how about this? The quick summary: Obama has a problem in Appalachia relative to Clinton. He also has a problem with old people, and WV's demographics are heavily tilted to the old folk. That's not really surprising: racism is more prevalent amongst the elderly.

Look, if you don't like what topics the blog owners here choose to write about, then I suggest you quit whining. You don't pay anyone here, so you don't get to dictate what people write about. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Publius will not be your monkey.

How a post about examining if this will be a hindrance to the Democratic Party -- every part of it, dammit, even Kentucky (which Bill Clinton won) -- come November?

Bill Clinton won KY by 1% -- in other words, by the skin of his teeth. Gore and Kerry lost by 15 and 20 points respectively. It seems that KY has been trending red and the citizens there think that the Iraq War is a great idea and that Bush has done a fantastic job.

Now, can you please explain to me why you think Clinton would beat McCain in KY? I mean, given that her husband only won by 1%, do you think she's a much better politician than him? Even when competing against a war hero?

And what about Obama's 50-state strategy that I have been lectured about on these pages? Does the 50-state strategy include writing off Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio?

I've explained this before to you and you did not listen, so I'll explain it again. The 50-state strategy does not mean "contest every single state and expect to win". It means contesting many states so as to force Republicans to bleed cash and go on the defensive. There are several states that will not be viable Dem wins no matter what.

Why do you think the 50-state strategy involves blowing off PA and OH? Do you think those states are not in play?

After Obama's loss in Pennsylvania -- after his bowling and beer-drinking experiences with regular folk there -- he seemed to have no patience with campaigning in Kentucky and West Virginia, putting in no more than token appearances.

No, I think he realized that there was no way he was going to beat Clinton in WV and KY and decided that his time and his donors' money could be better spent fighting McCain for the general. Frankly, I like the idea of a candidate who is not throwing his donor's money away for no apparent reason.

My goodness, millions have voted for that no-good, manipulative, win-at-all-costs ---- (pick your own word).

So, how many people in CA or NY or NJ do you think would have voted for her on super tuesday if they had seen her behavior today? I seriously considered voting for her back then, but if I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn't have even considered it.

Millions must be wrong. Uninformed. Or stupid.

Um, no. No one has said that. You just made that up. I don't know why you fabricate bizarre insults, imply that people here issued them, and then take umbrage. It sounds like you don't really respect the people here.

Or maybe they wish Michigan and Florida had been given a chance to vote.

They had a chance to vote, but their state party's decided to throw it away. Tough luck for them, but that's the price of having an incompetent or evil state party. People get the government they deserve.

Maybe they see Clinton -- God forbid -- as the better candidate to defeat McCain in the fall.

See is the wrong word there. The word you want is saw because these people voted in the past. People who voted two months ago can change their minds. In fact, the national polling indicates that many of them have.

jbeaux from 5/22/08 at 3 pm --

Read that Quindlen piece before going to bed last night.

You're right:

It was a great read. And probably the most thoughful thing I have read about Clinton exiting this race.

have no idea how that got bolded

sorry

Or that.

I will get the guy here in the office who knows computers to give me a hand when he gets a chance.

Be careful, because disparaging her and her candidacy is taken by many of her supporters as disparaging them -- especially those over-50 women who have supported Sen. Clinton so strongly.

If her supporters are such fair-weather Democrats, then they aren't Democrats and they ought to STFU over who the nominee is. I doubt whether any of these DINO s would vote for Clinton over Gramps McSame in the general anyway.

================

I suppose McCain's problem is finding such a candidate, I don't think Condi would fly at this point.

Clinton could, and at this point it wouldn't surprise me if she did, pull a "Lieberman" and make a deal to be VP under McSame. All the better for her when McSame has an aneurysm two years in office and she becomes Grand Wampus President Clinton.

(See, bozo, THAT is Hillary-bashing!)

=======================

After Obama's loss in Pennsylvania -- after his bowling and beer-drinking experiences with regular folk there -- he seemed to have no patience with campaigning in Kentucky and West Virginia, putting in no more than token appearances.

He knew that campaigning would make little difference, so he started up the 50-state strategy in Michigan, Mississippi and other "Republican stronghod" states, blasting McCain. Why should he waste his supporters money on races that Just Don't Matter?


bedtimeforbonzo,

Don't worry about the bolding, you didn't do anything wrong.

I wrote my comment in an editor and I just verified that I didn't do anything wrong either. However, looking at the markup on this page, it looks like the typepad software completely flipped out after my last paragraph and started inserting tons of spurious bold and unbold tags in the comment headers and footers starting with the end of my comment.

My only guess here is that my use of bolding and italicizing the same word triggered a bug in typepad.

WTF? Now the spurious bolding and unbolding tags are gone. Did one of the blogowners just edit comments?

I've got two view source windows showing this page, one showing the crazy brokenness and one not.

Ugh from 3:19 pm,

Answering a question w/ a question is, well, I don't know.

What is it, Gary?

Actually, I will take a stab: I don't think it makes for much of a dialogue.

Hartmut from 3:13 pm --

Thoughtful appeal.

And not as hard-edged as those of most Obama supporters or most Clinton supporters (that's me, guys, for it appears I am the Lone Clinton Supporter here at the moment).

In addition to the obvious idiocies, it can't be pointed out often enough that couting their popular votes and/or delegates would do absolutely nothing to "enfranchise" voters in FL or MI.

Turb: it was me. You did, in fact, leave a bold tag unclosed.

Fwiw, I don't edit comments except for closing tags, or in case of genuine horribleness, posting of someone else's personal info, or something else that needs to be deleted. In the latter case, I always indicate what I've done. In the case of closing italic and bold tags, generally I don't.

hilzoy,

Thanks. I checked and I neglected a slash in the closing bold tag. No worries about editing without commenting; I was just curious to see if typepad had done something funny.

I still don't get why typepad started inserting spurious bold tags through unrelated comments after my unclosed tag, but life is full of mysteries. Also, I don't get why typepad doesn't have the 5 lines of code needed to automatically add appropriate close tags to comments.

As larv said,
"Be careful, because disparaging her and her candidacy is taken by many of her supporters as disparaging them -- especially those over-50 women who have supported Sen. Clinton so strongly."

Never supported Hillary and think she has demonstrated she would be a terrible president. I've thought many unprintable things about her, that I would never say in public. But we do need to be careful, no matter how badly she behaves. We need to engage her supporters not alienate them. She's lost, we can take the high road.

"If her supporters are such fair-weather Democrats, then they aren't Democrats and they ought to STFU over who the nominee is,"
----Jeff from 6:44 pm

I think Obama wants to unify the Democratic Party.

That kind of language smacks of someone who would rather divide the Democratic Party.

Also, did you read Jeff's phg's 5:22 comment:
"If Hillary is the nominee, I will not vote for her. I will vote in other elections, but will sit out the presidential vote."

So, it would seem we have fair-weathered Democrats among Obama supporters, too.

I have said numerous times that if Obama is the Democratic nominee he will get my vote.

I suppose that makes me all-too-weathered.

Turbulence: for reasons best known to itself, once a tag is left open, it continues bolding/italicizing the rest of the comments, until it's closed. Plus, when you leave off the slash in the close tag, there are two unclosed bold tags, so merely closing one in a subsequent comment doesn't do the trick. Sometimes, subsequent comments can't be used to close tags at all. It's a mystery to me.

Thus, my going in and just fixing it.

As larv said, "Be careful, because disparaging her and her candidacy is taken by many of her supporters as disparaging them -- especially those over-50 women who have supported Sen. Clinton so strongly."

Actually, I didn't say that, bedtimeforbonzo did. But I will comment on it.

bonzo, are you saying that criticizing Clinton on her behavior regarding FL/MI is somehow disparaging her or her campaign? You yourself said it was over the top. Is it that you perceive the tone here as excessively "gleeful"? You didn't seem to find much to object to in the Quindlen piece jbeaux linked to, and she was saying a lot of the same things I've seen here. So what's the problem? At what point does legitimate criticism become disparagement?

in defense of myself and others of my ilk.

i consider myself a democrat; however, that does not mean that i will blindly vote democrat always. i review candidates, their statements and their positions. i assess their abilities to handle the pressures of the campaign, as i believe it reflects upon how they will govern if elected.

as noted in my prior post, i have been a clintonite in the past, at least until this election. i took a long time to decide who i favored in this election, lurching from richardson to edwards to obama, with some hilary sprinkled in at the beginning. at the beginning of this campaign i would have voted for hilary if she was the nominee. based upon hilary's actions and the way she has handled the campaign, i do not believe she would serve this country well if elected, and therefore, i will not vote for her. that said, i will not vote mccain either. i cannot say that i would have had the same reaction to any of the other demo candidates. i don't go around foul mouthing hilary or any of the other candidates, but if this makes me a hilary basher, so be it.

Also, regarding the "fair-weather Democrats"; I don't think you're comparing apples and apples. Phg was saying that they wouldn't vote for Clinton based on her (and her campaign's) behavior during the primary and how that directly reflects on her character and judgment. I don't personally agree, but I respect that position. On the other hand, you seem to be warning us that Hillary supporters might not vote for Obama because his supporters were mean to them on the internets. Unless I've misread you, I haven't seen you link the alleged mistreatment of Clinton to Obama at all, so it seems a curious reason not to vote for him. I know you've said you'll pull the lever for Obama, but you seem to think that those Clinton supporters who won't have a legitimate reason for doing so, and I just don't see that.

Sorry, Larv.

Phg made the statement flat out that Hillary would not get his/her vote if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

And, hey, your vote -- or non-vote -- is yours.

But I would call that a fair-weather Democrat, just as I would call Clinton supporters fair-weather if they were to do the same.

Thanks to all of those fair-weather Dems who voted for Nader -- and not Gore -- we wound up w/ Bush in the first place.

A final comment before I head off to pay some attention to the wife and son and CoCo, Bowser and Hamilton -- and Tiger and Baby (the cats):

I must say my bull-headed support for Sen. Clinton seems to bewilder many here. I have always liked her fighting, never-give-up, I-can-play-with-the-boys (yet often over-the-top) style.

I often view Clinton as I would a close friend or family member, you take the good with the bad, and vice versa.

Or: I would no sooner disown Sen. Clinton than I would a member of my own family.

Loyal to a fault?

I don't think so.

So go ahead and call me a Hillbot, a term I saw for the first time in one of the above post.

This Hillbot is logging off.

Thanks for the back-and-forth today, guys. It was fun and made a tough day at work go a whole lot faster.


fair-weather Dems who voted for Nader

There were far more fair-weather Dems who voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for Nader, and those are a lot more like the Kentucky Dems that you were so offended by the discussion of (people who are registered Democrats but almost never vote that way for president, despite voting in the presidential primary when it makes a difference).

Hey bedtimeforbonzo -

Apparently you've called it a day. In case you're still reading, perhaps I can simplify this a bit.

Clinton is a smart, tough, capable politician. She is, apparently, doing a good job as Senator.

She has every right to run for President, and to run as long as she can and/or cares to. Best of luck to her.

The issue here for *her* is that she's acting like a jerk. She should knock it off.

The issue for her *supporters* is that she's losing. I'm sure that sucks from their point of view, but it is what it is.

Everyone doesn't get to win. Most people lose at something at some point in their lives. Actually, most people lose at a number of things, sometimes very important things, at some point in their lives.

Big people suck it up.

Thanks -

Gary, for heaven's sake, read the second comment in this thread.

I mean, you're quite within your rights to ignore the dafter Obamite comments, but as far as I can tell you (generic) can say almost anything about Hillary supporters here and nobody will say anything.

You'd be all over `Republicans don't even know where Zimbabwe is', quite rightly. Why does having `Hillary-supporters' in there make it any better?

I really don't have much sympathy with `oh, teh noes! The Hillarists are going all rabid dog' when the one, moderately pro-hillary person here gets accused of being a troll or a spoof. That's not good faith.

/concern trolling, if you want.

"Of course she should stay in the race until it's over. That should go without saying."

Why? Should John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, etc., also have "stay[ed] in the race until it's over," and does that also go without saying? Should all the past losers who dropped out after only one or two or three or five primaries, in past presidential elections, also all have not dropped out?

If so, why?

"Obsidian Wings figures the story to tell"

"Obsidian Wings" can't figure anything; it doesn't have a consciousness; if you mean Eric or Hilzoy or Publius didn't write a post you think they should have written, fine, but it also makes no sense to demand that someone should write what you think. Write your own darn post.

"the only reason i didn't want her to run was that i thought it would galvanize the neo-con base,"

There's a neo-con base? Is it in a volcano?

Millions must be wrong.

Uninformed.

Or stupid.

Millions voted for Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and for that matter, the [GODWIN] Party in Germany during the 1930s: what's your point? That if millions of people do something, they can't be stupid or uninformed?

"I still don't get why typepad started inserting spurious bold tags through unrelated comments after my unclosed tag,"

If a tag isn't closed, it affects all the comments below it, as well as the sidebar (under the previous template, at least) until either the tag is closed in a subsequent comment, or at the source.

"You'd be all over `Republicans don't even know where Zimbabwe is', quite rightly. Why does having `Hillary-supporters' in there make it any better?"

Because you rewrote the comment.

Also: John Cole is sarcastic: film at 11.

"I mean, you're quite within your rights to ignore the dafter Obamite comments, but as far as I can tell you (generic) can say almost anything about Hillary supporters here and nobody will say anything."

I am uninterested in finding and linking to the various comments I have made here in which I pointed out that an anti-Clinton comment violated the posting rules. But you are welcome to make the effort to see that "what you can tell" has greater connection to reality, and less connection to your imagination.

Yes, Gary, it isn't a word for word quote. That's because I'm not interested in playing `close reading -- the blog version' with Gary Farber (see also: porcupines, arse kicking contests with), but rather pointing out why a member of the Democratic Party who supports Hillary Clinton for President might feel a bit pissed off at reading that, and might possible feel that the `be reasonable civil' rule's more of a guideline when it comes to them.

And I'm sure you've pointed out that pro-Obama posts have been over the line, because that's the sort of thing you do, and it's one of the things that I admire about you.

Still, it'd be hard to deny that being pro-hillary is not easy in an environment where people seem think it's funny to suppose that Hillary voters are idiots, even if just in jest.

Dear Hilzoy: I hope you are well.

I agree that Hillary Clinton's comparing her trivial troubles to the agonies being suffered by the victims of Robert Mugabe's thuggish dictatorshiin Zimbabwe is downright OBSCENE.

Poor Zimbabwe! It should have been one of the richest countries of Africa. That creep Mugabe makes Ian Smith look better and better.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but Archbishop Pius Mcube of Zimbabwe appealed to the UK to reoccupy the country and overthow Mugabe. However, I doubt PM Gordon Brown has the nerve to do that.

Sincerely, Sean

Keir from 12:55 am --

I know you were talking in general terms. But thanks.

Keir from 2:23 am --

And thanks.

russell from 12:04 am --

Thanks for your reasoned response.

What you write is a reflection of the back-of-the-book column in this week's Newsweek by Anna Quindlen.

In her usual calm, cogent manner, Quindlen writes of the need to make a graceful exit and, at the same time, complements her on several fronts -- especially for breaking the glass ceiling for future female candidates who want to run for president.

I sometimes find that members of the media, yes, even the dreaded MSM like Quindlen, offer better advice to the candidates -- in this case to Hillary -- than do their high-paid, highfalutin consultants/advisors/strategists.

In that sense, Hillary -- as Al Gore should have in 2000 -- should have dispensed with the consultants/advisors/strategists long ago and followed her own political instincts.

I don't think it's an accident that Sen. Clinton hit her stride after Mark Penn was dismissed/demoted.

Just as Gore was a victim of too-little, too-late, so it seems will Hillary's candidacy.

In the end, she was a pioneer -- just as Obama would have been a pioneer (and still is) had he lost.

In the end, despite all of the harsh words exchanged between both campaigns, this primary battle has brought out millions and millions of voters. It has broke records. It has stirred up Democrats as I have never seen in three decades of voting.

In the end, were it Obama or Clinton, I would hope the Dems would be united enough -- and smart enough to bring in needed Independents -- to defeat McCain and the Republican machine.

Then again,the voting public granted Bush a second term -- still makes you scratch your head, doesn't it?

So you never know.

"What you write is a reflection of the back-of-the-book column in this week's Newsweek by Anna Quindlen."

If you're talking about this, and you want people to read it, I suggest linking it.

I don't know how to freakin' link.

And I've told you that.

And I would need some very hands-on teaching to learn to do some linking -- hands-on teaching -- but thanks for providing the link. It is a very fine column, or so I've said.

Sometimes I wonder why you let "links" -- To link or not to link, that is the question -- and the definition of "is" is, as Bill Clinton might say -- and the simple act of giving a simple opinion -- and well I should stop -- get in the way of open lines of communication.

Hell, I am a computer idiot -- and a Hillary supporter, so that must double my idiot quotient but:

In this age of googling, even a computer idiot like myself, would know to google Newsweek or Quindlen's name and attain the information almost as quickly -- almost -- if someone truly wanted to attain said information.

Then again, you know better.

Gary,

I have an idea.

You be my copy editor -- every writer should have one.

And when a link is needed, you provide it. Or when a correction is called for, you correct it.

Thanks.

You kind of do that already, anyway.

"You be my copy editor -- every writer should have one."

My standard rate tends to be around $20-$25/hr.

"I don't know how to freakin' link.

And I've told you that."

Here you go. Now you know. Cut and paste it, and you'll never be unable to link ever again. HTH.

$20-25/hr

Fair rate for a good copy editor.

But, sorry, I can't afford it:)

What you write is a reflection of the back-of-the-book column in this week's Newsweek by Anna Quindlen.

Damn it, she's stealing my stuff again!

I need to have my people contact her people and straighten this out...

Thanks -

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad