I’m tired of you:
This morning brings the news that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has launched a new website where they are announcing how they are officially preparing to make the case that the rules of the Democratic nomination process should be changed.
Among many “facts” they declare are some accurate ones, such as the idea that superdelegates, which in true nomenclatural dexterity they now term “automatic delegates” “are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.”
But then comes this juicy non-fact:
“FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.”
That’s not a fact, that’s an opinion.
And it’s clear evidence (not that there was any mystery about it) that the Clinton campaign is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Make it stop.
Geez, how about honoring the letter, much less the spirit, of the rules the candidates all agreed to?
Whatever. I’m pretty sure it’s over now, fat lady or no.
did anyone see that schmuck Mark Halperin on the decaying remains of “Nightline” last night?
he was all over the “Obama is a cult” thing. It was literally pathetic. I was watching him and wondering “do people really believe this shit?” and “Jesus, Nightline’s ratings have to be in the toilet with THIS douchebag running the show.”
You know, when Mark Penn or Wolfson (I forget which one) says that Obama is “not qualified to be Commander in Chief”… I can hear it coming back to bite the party in the butt. McCain will say, “But even some Democrats say he’s unqualified…” blah, blah, blah.
I’d like to see someone actually press Hillary Clinton on why she thinks she’s qualified to be commander-in-chief. What, because she was married to one? She’s seen it done? Wonderful. If I marry a surgeon, will you trust me to operate on you?
The fact of the matter is that both of them are equally qualified (or unqualified) to serve in that role. I’m not even sure what you’d have to do to prepare to be especially qualified to be a commander-in-chief — become a general, perhaps? Be president of some other country first?
Being the head of state of a great power is, by its very nature, a job that requires more than anything else the ability to grasp the big picture and to learn quickly. Both Clinton and Obama probably have the prerequisites. Moreover, the fundamental principles of American government assume that any thoughtful, well-educated American citizen can do the job, which is why the only actual requirements for the job in the Constitution are that you be born here, be at least 35, and have lived here for the last 14 years.
suggested that Clinton may pursue a burnt earth strategy. If it can’t be her, she’ll provide ammunition to torpedo Obama’s November campaign. This would enable her to say I told you so and open the way for another shot at it in 2012. I have to confess that this thought never occurred to me and I’d never think of ascribing such base values to her. Her behavior these last few days is starting to change my mind.
I’ve been suspecting that very thing lately.
and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.
After running a what, twelve-state strategy all this time, plus all the garbage about significant states, that really makes me want to puke. I have officially lost what little respect I had left for the Clintons and their campaign. Please, somebody, anybody that these people will listen to, please tell them to stop.
Here’s the transcript in all it’s insane glory. It’s like listening to your senile grandpa babble on about how the Beatles hooked American kids on drugs.
You have to see Joel Stein to believe him: he’s this stubbly guy from L.A., and he talks like he’s done a dozen bong hits of canada’s finest bud.
Like I said, your senile grandpa bitching about how the Beatles lost us Viet Nam.
and then the closing line, my absolute favorite:
Nightline basically portrayed him as a snake-oil salesman/ televangelist. Mark Halperin made a snarky comment about “if Obama wins the presidency” that was telling in its understated contempt. I’m sorry: you don’t have to be an Obama fanatic to see that he’s head and shoulders above the Clinton campaign. Even Clinton’s supporters recognize that: it’s why they’re so angry and thrashing about right now. And in comparison to McCain, who actually LOOKS like your senile old Grandpa, it’s simply no contest. I will be very surprised if Obama doesn’t win the general election.
That’s what I mean when I say that lying about the candidate in such a transparent and shallow fashion only makes me want to support him.
Idiots.
jezeus, she’s starting to resemble nixon

when do you think she’ll give her “you won’t have hillary to kick around anymore” speech…march 5th?
not soon enough
i think you’re mistaking Hillary Clinton for Mark Halperin. that’s OK: I confused Mark Halperin with Nightline Host Terry Moran, the host of last night’s segment.
Joel Stein is fucking awful, and one of the reasons I stopped reading the Times. He’s incoherent on his good days and a terrible writer. He’d be the worst columnist on any paper that didn’t also employ Jonah Goldberg.
Well, maybe it will stop before it gets to Pennsylvania. Today Bill Clinton said at a rally something to the effect of
“If Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio, I think she WILL be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her, I just can’t see that she can continue.”
Now, I realize he’s trying to rev up her desperate fan base, but I think there may be some truth to the second part of that. There’s some suspicion floating around that the Clintons have been exaggerating their February fund raising numbers and that is why they need the new 527 group to supplement the campaign’s ad budget with unregulated big money from their maxed-out supporters. Obama has just spent double the ad buy of Hillary in Ohio. There may be some money troubles in HillaryLand.
Hopefully she will go away gracefully. Hopefully.
I’m glad he made this statement. It means that if (when) she loses one of those states they are at least entertaining the possibility of admitting defeat.
I don’t see Bill letting her campaign execute a scorched earth policy that destroys (what’s left of) his legacy. It’s one thing to want power back. It’s another thing to face the reality that you probably won’t get that power back and you could destroy what little power you retain in the process of losing a campaign.
Oh, so now they care about the 50-state strategy.
I don’t freakin’ believe this. Except that I do believe this.
HAHAHA!
‘spirit of the 50 state strategy’
MAHAHAHA!
You mean the strategy that the Clinton’s and their shills HATE, and want to replace with a ‘southern strategy?
Yep, it IS time for them to go away.
nalbar
It is a Rumsfeldian charge into the face of reality. The family name ain’t ever gonna be the same.
If Hillary is blown out in Texas and Ohio (>=20% margin) then she has to go away – what can we do to make that happen?
Encourage Mark Penn to keep the current strategy going. Everything they’ve done lately has backfired and made their situation worse. At this rate, she’ll self-destruct in a couple weeks.
That’s how far these students in TX marched…pretty stirring stuff this
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5040
(have to admit Joe over at AmericaBlog put up the link, so thanks Joe)
Its good to see people in the street! Does anyone think we’ll see any MSM coverage of this event?
The primary nomination process SHOULD be discussed and examined…. after this election process is completed. There are any number of ways to make the process easier on the candidates, or allow them more time to campaign, etc. — for 2012.
But attempts to change the rules in the middle of an election, especially coming the candidate who is falling further and further behind with each electorial contest, begins to sound very old. And yes, it begins to sound like someone is a sore loser.
Senator Clinton’s entire strategy appeared to have been built on the faulty premise that she would not have any significant challenges from a primary opponant — perhaps she expected the seven other candidates to cancel each other out early on, giving her an uncontested lead by early February. She started with a huge advantage, particularly in name recognition and really a large support base across the country. She had plenty of money, plenty of support from big donors and the party establishment. All she had to do was win the votes.
Senator Obama started without a lot of those advantages. He started from way behind, less name recognition, no big PAC donors, facing the same schedule of primaries, the same field of qualified, tough opponents. But when the odds were against him, he beat the odds. He built up a fantastically well-organized and highly motivated grassroots support team. He put effort into competing in every state, regardless of size or population or number of delegates. And he has won the votes, across the nation, in every region and almost every demographic.
Hillary’s mantra of “ready on day one” begins to sound a bit hollow — because clearly she wasn’t ready before day one. She didn’t have a plan past Super Tuesday — Obama clearly had a plan that stretched through the entire primary season, and likely through November. I have no doubt he’ll be ready for the Oval Office by January, 2009.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. She figured she was running against the Seven Dwarves, and they’d split about half the votes of the early primaries among them with her getting the other half. No one was going to take Kucinich seriously, Gravel even less so, Edwards couldn’t get the media to pay attention to him, and c’mon, who was going to vote for a guy whose first name rhymes with “Iraq,” his middle name is “Hussein” and his last name rhymes with “Osama”?
Somewhere on the Net there’s a list of things I am NOT going to do when I am the Evil Overlord (e.g. “If I have the hero in my clutches and he asks me, ‘Before you shoot me will you please explain to me what this is all about?’ I will say ‘No’ and shoot him.”). Somewhere along the way Hillary violated some of those rules.
That list of “facts” is barftastic – but to top it off, at the bottom of the page:
“Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President”
then
“Hillary Clinton for President is not responsible for the content of any external websites.”
How do you mock such a mockery?
I mean seriously, where the fuck have these people been the last 8 years? If Democrats would have gone to these lengths in either of the last two general elections, we’d be merrily enjoying the lame duck portion of President Gore’s 2nd term and Crawford Texas would be the most brush free place on the whole god damn planet.
Where have they been? At home or at school or at work, not stirred out political apathy by an inspiring candidate.
(That’s not where I’ve been, incidentally – Howard Dean made me do the happy idealism dance.)
Uh, wait – I’m assuming you mean the 8-mile walkers in Texas. If you mean “why haven’t the clintons cared about fair elections the last 8 years”, then – well, yeah.
I meant, in general, the politicians and campaign workers on the Democratic side of the aisle who have suddenly decided to fight tooth and nail until the bitter end in order to win an election.
(welcome to the pond, btw!)
Erm – anyone else hearing MSNBC, apparently reporting on something from the NYT website about McCain romantically involved with a female lobbyist? They broke into Hardball, much to Tweety’s chagrin I’m sure.