Proof: ALL Obama supporters are PSYCHOTIC! (Update)
Trying to make a point about how long primary battles have gone on in the past, Hillary Clinton said the following: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
I might have said the same thing. Frankly, If RFK had not been killed in June, I would have forgotten that primary races have indeed been known to last that long. But the O-Bots interpreted this remark differently: They say -- get this! -- that Hillary was calling for Obama to be assassinated.
No, I'm not kidding. Moulitsas even published calls for Hillary to be killed.
(Update: I contacted a Secret Service field office and read off the death threat against Hillary published on Daily Kos. The person I spoke to seemed to take the matter seriously, and he has promised an investigation.)
We'll get to that presently. First, savor the psychosis over on DU:
She is not safe to be let loose
This Bitch has really done it now!!
Imagine the uproar that would (properly) result if an Obama opponent ever said: "This coon has really done it now!"
THIS IS WHY SHE CAN'T BE THE VP CHOICE! She's horrid.
She is demented.
maybe she's so incensed about the nomination being "stolen" away that she and Bill are thinking of the unthinkable.
Howard Dean was worried about the Clintons' ties to the Dixie mob going back into the nineties.
Oh yeah. Let's see the Dean quote backing that assertion. What ties to the "Dixie mob"?
Get out the straight-jacket for her - this is outrageous!
While many have thought about this (because of the fear in it, and worry about Obama...)..... for her to mention it, as an opposing candidate..is beyond belief...
My God, Hillary, that's just sick.
She is OFFICIALLY a fucked up human piece of trash.
Oh! My! GOD! This woman is wacko!!!!If you ask me, I think she's trying to "plant" ideas. If anything happens...she's Guilty as hell. I'm saving this link and I will make sure she is charged and brought to justice!
I would prop up a stinking corpse before I turn to her.
Now the only vote I would give Hillary is for her expulsion from the party.
I don't care what her point is, you don't talk about the possible assassination of a presidential candidate as reason to stay in the goddamn race.
Do you Hillary supporters have NO shame? This latest scummy utterance from Hillary Clinton is completely indefensible. Completely.
this latest effort on her part clearly destroyed any shred of decency she had.
She is pulling out every trick she can think of. She has stooped as low as Limbaugh now.
So now she's staying in the race just in case somebody kills the nominee?
How much is the bitch offering for the job?
Guess we know where to look if anyone takes aim at Obama. And there for all those years I dismissed those rumors of Clintons killing to get what they wanted or to stay in power. Guess I was wrong!
this is UNCONSCIONABLE, DESPICABLE, UNFORGIVABLE.
HRC's intention is clear: Some RW gunman, lone or not, *could* make an attempt on Mr. Obama's life
Hillary is appealing to the very people who could carry out such a deed, both domestic and foreign.
SHE IS THE WORST PERSON OF THE CENTURY!!! I hope the Secret Service pays her a little visit.
But when Michelle threatened physical violence against Bill Clinton, that was okay...?
Good Plan, Hillary. You could probably wrangle your way to deliver Obama's eulogy. You'd get at least an hour of free air time. There would be pictures of you hugging Michelle Obama. And best of all, there would plenty of contributions coming your way to pay off your campaign debts as well as your hit man.
And now, let us strike the Messianic note:
Obama is too good. If the some of the forces in our government are as evil and dark as some of us suspect, then he will be a target.
Over on DU, the main post is -- of course -- a variant on the theme of "Get this to Keith!"
Please do not give this violent pathological woman the benefit of the doubt. Remember "obliterate Iran" and her war vote. She is violent.
She calibrates everthing she says for political gain
This, from some idiot who believes that she wants to kill Obi. Conclusion: She must think that there is political gain to be had in announcing murder plans to the world in advance. Typical Kossack logic, right?
Put it together with the rest of her garbage. She is hoping that will happen now. itis her last hope.
What kind of society condones political opponents talking casualty about their rivals being assasinated?
and a "who will rid me of this turbulent priest" possibility is one strong reason why this shows a terrible lack of judgment.
I never wondered that she did not have this in the back of her mind...She is that low and that blindingly ambitious...We have been talking about what she meant by 'something might happen'! for a long time!!!! True colors will out!
She wants to be president, if she believes he needs to die for her to be nominated, then I believe she wants him to die. She is a monster and should never be trusted with any decisions regarding the future of this country.
Of course she's saying she wants him dead.
Turns out Sullivan was right--they are sociopaths.
Her words are unconscionable. She no longer deserves the title Democrat. I'm done with her.
The media has given this awful woman an easy time for too long. She is just awful, and it has reached the point of outrageousness. When will they admit that there is something seriously wrong with this woman?
Well, she is, after all "Our Nixon". The American id come to life.
Hillary -- the Id? She was considered Ms. Overly-Calculated not many months ago.
I'VE HAD IT WITH HER DOG WHISTLE RACISM... SHE IS BEHAVING IN A MANNER THAT SUGGESTS THAT SHE IS NOT STABLE.
How amusing: A Kossack calling someone else unstable! Let us continue with this bizarre "dog whistle" theme:
Just like she dog whistled to all her racist friends in WV and KY she's calling for his assassination!!!
SOMEBODY PLEASE STOP HER FROM DOING THIS!!!
I swear to god I will leave this country and damn it to hell if anything happens to him!!!!
It seems like she is possibly using the "dog whistle" technique that could encourage some crazy person out there to act on her comments.
I think it's another seed she's planting
Desperate people...do desperate things.
Hillary, though, is always calculating about everything she says. This is no different.
The "calculation" note is struck again. Odd, isn't it? These people refer to the statement as a major gaffe -- and yet they also think it is calculated.
She couldn't pick another candidate out of all the presidential races who was still in it in June? She had to pick one who was assassinated?
Actually, yes. 1968 was the last time (if I recall correctly) a "come from behind" candidate could have raced out in front in the final stretch. RFK did not have front-runner status going into June, but he probably would have had it by month's end. RFK would have won the nomination late in the game, if not for the assassination. I don't know how you can mention this history without making any reference to his death.
In other words, in terms of Democratic primary history, she was comparing her chances to RFK's chances at a similar point in his campaign. The full video makes this clear. Rosy thinking, perhaps -- but she was hardly saying "Kill Obama!"
I've had it...FUCK YOU HILLARY
She's become a madwoman.
"Bitch" is too kind a word to describe this megalomaniac.
You have to read the following comment in context to understand that this is a Kossack calling for Hillary to be killed. Moulitsas does not delete the comment or alert the Secret Service.
And a Drive-By Won't Be Out of the Question. What goes around, comes around. The stupid fucking bitch !!
The same commenter, jcarter, later writes:
Talk About WHITE TRASH that bitch better keep looking over her shoulder.
The Vince Foster Issue Should Be Investigated Again. Clintons just showed that their ambitions know no limit.
Does she have a hit on him?
She knew the ramifications before she made the statement. She is playing percentage politics.
Again: This is from someone who thinks she called for assassination. Apparently, there is a "percentage" in making such a statement in public. Kossack logic.
I know she is capable of some real slimy subliminal messages.
So Hillarys "Nuclear Option" Is An Assasination
She is giving permission to nutcases to lock-n-load and to aim-n-fire, to 'help' her.
Looks to me like all the nutcases are on Obi's side.
This strategy worked quite well in ancient Rome. I think the preferred method of knocking off rivals to the throne was by poison. Maybe Obama needs a taster.
Kay has a list of dead peoples somehow related to Clintons.
HRC: Why Cant We Kill Him Bill Why Cant We...
She IS a Republican
Breaking* Hillary vows to continue race until all the bullets are counted.
You know that racists and nutty supporters are out there listening to you. You know the effect this is having on them. Your behavior, Sen. Clinton is subhuman. In fact even animals will be ashamed of you if I were to compare you to them.
A Kossack accusing someone else of being subhuman. Now that is funny.
All one has to do is go to the Argus Leader website, Hillary is 44, my blog, or any number of other sites to get the complete video Clinton's remarks in context. Of course she was talking about the historical context of extended primaries, which have been the rule rather than the exception. She made a good argument against the frontloading of primaries.
Clinton was brilliant in the interview. She answered a variety of questions, including questions about water issues, Native American issues, health care, and so forth. She was great.
Did I call the shot or what? It's not official yet, but word has it that an L.A. Times poll will put McCain ahead of Obi (but not Hillary) in California. I told you: We ain't as blue as you think.
I purposely am making a second comment so you can delete it after reading it. You left out the letter "t" in the word cheating. You might get more hits if you put that t back in, lol, unless you know something about google that I don't.
Actually, the official URL address may stay the same even if you correct it, so I don't know if changing it now helps, but I assume it will???
"Hillary Clinton may have scored a solid win over Barack Obama in California's presidential primary on Feb. 5 (as she frequently likes to remind folks these days), but a new L.A. Times/KTLA poll finds he would fare better than she in the battle with John McCain for the state in November (a result the Clinton camp won't be touting)."
Hours have passed and my hate brigade has not written me any love letters. Where are you now that I need you?
I'm going to put together a compendium of the most psychotic, over-the-top, hate-filled rants by Obama supporters. I may even offer an award of some sort for the most insane example of Clinton-hate. So please...
1. If you are an O-Bot, don't stop now! I know I've been deleting all your offerings. But now you will have an audience. So pass it on, and puh-leeeze...make it as sick as possible! I know you can do it. I've seen you do it.
2. If you are not an O-Bot, please send along the choicest examples you can find from elsewhere on the net.
No one can drive me to the brink of madness like the Clinton family. No one.
And then, once again, the only family who can do this to me, had managed to push me yet again into unholy madness. It is mind-numbing. This isn’t an election anymore. This is a secret bet between Bill and Hillary ala Trading Places in which they bet how much bullshit they can make the electorate swallow.
It's official, everybody hates her
there is no way Mark Green would let Sam say anything bad about killary!
Yep, the 1990s really were the Nightmare Years, weren't they?
I'm not sure yet what to call the award, but it will go to the World's Sickest O-Bot. If anything particularly rank (or funny) comes to your attention, send it to my email address or append it as a comment. I'll be putting the entrants on their very own page.
Permalink
well Joe, I am fresh out of vile comments about anyone including you. Just thought I say hello, since you seem lonely! BTW, consuming that much hate can not be good for your health.
Like fuck I would ever help you or any other lover of Killary Hinton I bet she fucks you in the ass with a heated dildo Calling you a piece of shit is an insult to pieces of shit.
You just live for one purpose to destroy everything that is good and natural and anti-corporatist. In closing, I would just like to say John 3:16 in the Bible, you lying fuckface.
hahaha, john 3 16 you fuckface. doesnt get any sweeter than that. i dont even like hillary but the zealous bomotrons make me wanna support her even more. priceless, all of these so called democrats(libertarians i mean) demeaning their fellow comrades .
Ooh..I have one.. here is a typical post from the clownhouse called democrat underground: This little gem comes from an ass named "ballsalicious" if you can believe it.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6086551
The title of this intelligent tamtrum is "Fuck you Hillary Rodham Clinton... Fuck You" and its on Democrat Undergrounds greatest page..aren't the Proggies making us proud? Jon
Ignore the 10% or so of haters. Most of the Obama people I know have a mix of mild annoyance with some of the Clinton tactics to significant respect for her as a person and politician with much good memories of the 8 years of peace and prosperity and just WELL RUN GOVERNMENT from Team Clinton compared to the fiasco now with Bush.
Anyway, it looks like your woman may be the VP choice for Obama. What do you think of that?
Well, Joseph obviously you suffer from an unrequited love for that LESBIAN murderous SHE-BITCH Hillary (remember VInce FOster!!) but give it up, she only cares for that MUSLIM al qaeda agent Huma Abedin (can't blame her though--I'd let her lick my balls).
This is pretty amazing. This guy that I have a professional relationship with kept sending me anti-Hillary crap. (he is a big time lefty and Obama supporter). I told him to stop, but he kept sending these crappy emails. Finally, I said that I would not be able to keep contracting with him until after the election due to his overboard Hillary hatred.
He relented . . . or so I thought. I hired him to write some tax stuff for my firm (totally unrelated to any political issue). One issue he is writing about is a recent Supreme Court tax case originally from Kentucky. Here is part of what he wrote (to me in an email):
". . . Kentucky (home of the hardworking, white, working class -- read "redneck" -- vote that that multimillionaire, Wall Street funded Clinton has suddenly found an affinity for), . . ."
I did everything I could not to respond. So, I decided to respond here . . . just to show how these Hillary haters continue to walk around with a Hillary ball and chain around their ankles. Free yourselves Hillary haters!
gary, you can't fake psychosis. Although your obsession with Huma does carry the day.
phlipper, PLEASE send that stuff to me! Or tell your pal to write to me directly. My prediction is that he would do it even if given advanced warning that doing so would not be in his interest -- for reasons given in my "Frog and the Scorpion" post.
anon, Hillar is not "My woman." As I've stated many times, I wish she had not run. I support her only because she is the only thing standing between Obama and the nomination. My picks were Edwards and Biden.
I don't think Hillary should take the VP spot. She can't win him any states. He would still lose Ohio and Florida, which means that he is sunk. His best bet would be to tab Bill Richardson, whose task it would be to bring NM into the fold.
Here's one. Not from online, but happened to me personally. I told an African American friend that I was supporting Hillary, not Barack, and I got an envelope a couple of days later with a cut out newspaper article in it. The article was about how if anyone doesn't support Obama, then they must be racist. The funny thing about the article- it was using the same lines in defense of the argument for Obama that the women's movement has been using for years... like that men are "assertive" in business, but women are "bitches", just with just a little change of words to fit African Americans instead of women.
Also, I guess I underestimated the stupidity of Oregonians, since I thought it would be a closer race here. Sorry.
What bugged me about the Oregon coverage were the bloggers who brayed about the 50,000 (or was that 70,000?) who showed up "to hear Obama." These stories rarely mention that the Decembrists gave a free concert.
If you go to the new Indiana Jones movie tonight, try this: Just before the lights go down, bow tot he audience and say "Thanks for coming." You'll feel like a jerk, true. But afterwards, you can claim that they all showed up to see YOU.
You are a wise and clever man, Joe Cannon. I too had the same idea. (hehe).
If you want a never ending psychosis of Anti-Hillary babble to demonstrate just how psychotic the internet pro-obama fringe is, check out Huffington Post any time day or night.
I did an article on Hillary-wins.com in which I correctly predicted the Huffington Post Headline spin on Hillary Clinton's West Virginia Win a day in advance.
The hate out there is really something. You'd think there'd be a certain level at which it would start to peak. Most days I hope today is the day it begins to ebb. Why haven't we reached that day yet?
I've been hoping to avoid it, but we might as well deal with the exit poll of Kentucky voters. The poll said that some 20% of respondents admitted that race played a factor in their vote. The vast majority of that 20% went for Hillary.
Damning evidence of racism in the Democratic party? Not if you look at the wording.
I would have answered "Yes" to a question of that sort if asked why I voted for Obama in the California primary. The Democratic party has never picked a black person as either the presidential or vice presidential nominee. I felt (and feel) that it is high time for the party to do so. Hell, it was high time before I was born. Of course, this was not my sole criterion for choosing Obama -- my main concern was electability. But, yeah, race did enter into my thoughts.
What if I lived in Kentucky? Again, I would have answered "yes" to the question. Race -- or at least racial issues -- would have affected my decision to vote against Obama. I feel that his campaign has unfairly accused the Clintons, and Clinton supporters, of bigotry. That doesn't mean I would have voted against Obama because he is black; I would have voted against him based on the way he used race in the campaign.
Lots and lots of Democrats turned against Obama for this reason. The media and the Big Blogs try to minimize our numbers. They try to pretend that Obama's only remaining Democratic foes are Hillary-crazed feminist silly-billies who will fly into a rage if the person behind the president's desk owns something other than a vagina. But millions of people share my sense of outrage at Obamabot "racist-baiting."
Right now, Obi may be the only black person I definitely don't want to see in that office. Jeremiah Wright? Alan Keyes? Lemme think about it. But not Obama. For all sorts of reasons, he has pissed me off.
I'm seriously thinking of switching to Cynthia McKinney in the general. If I go that route, race will have very little to do with my choice. I like her on the economy, on the war, and on the impeachment of W -- although her friendly attitude toward the 9/11 kooks bugs the hell out of me. I must admit, though, that it'll be cute to watch my enemies try to call me a bigot for being a man of Cyn.
What about those voters who, not racist themselves, don't feel that a black person can win in the general? They may have voted for Hillary not to block a black man but to block John McCain.
In Georgia 18% of voters said that gender was an issue, and those voters backed Obama by 12 points. Does that mean that Georgians are a bunch of sexists who would never vote for a woman? I don’t remember the media making a big deal about that at the time.
Nahh. Sexism doesn't matter. On Florida:
Additionally, when asked if the US is ready to elect a woman President, 17% said no, and the majority of them voted for Obama. Using their very same logic it is starting to look like Obama supporters are a bunch of sexist cavemen.
In Connecticut, which Obama won, 15% of voters said that race was a factor in their voting decision. Of those voters, the overwhelming majority voted for Obama. Since only 9% of the voters in CT were black, then some of those voters who considered race must have been both white, and voted for Obama. Using the media’s stupid reasoning, how can we explain this?
Next time, the exit pollsters need to ask a follow-up question. If race affected the vote -- in what way and to what degree?
Permalink
Harold Ford: A brief, important point appeared on The Confluence:
Question For The Day: If Appalachia’s inbred racist hicks...
...explain BO08’s 30-65 loss in Kentucky’s closed Democratic PRIMARY Election — how did Harold Ford possibly rack up 48% of the statewide popular vote for Senator in Tennessee’s 2006 GENERAL Election?
Of course, mention of Harold Ford's name will automatically trigger the progs to scream about the ghastly DLC. But that reaction misses the point.
I would add: Why did Obama's campaign manager say that all the white racists were now hard-core Republicans?
Colin Powell: In earlier posts, I've asked: If racism is the sole factor motivating opposition to Obi, then why was the presidency once Powell's for the taking? The Real Spiel took note of this point, and added
In fact, the press went all a-twitter when a Time/CNN poll in 1995 showed that Powell could potentially beat Bill Clinton by 10 points if he decided to run as a Republican. The article opened with this telling statement, "To be born poor and black and into an inner city neighborhood does not mean you can't achieve your highest ambitions."
"One must be careful about what one writes." That's my favorite line from The Four Musketeers -- and it should be pasted above every blogger's monitor. Consider Kos, for example. His words from January -- not so very long ago -- seem to come from another, saner universe:
Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.
So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.
Who is tested against the Right Wing smear machine?
Clinton, by far. No one has taken more shit from the VRWC, not by a long shot... Obama has never had a competitive race against a Republican. His best experiences comes from winning primaries. But he's never been in the crossfires of the GOP. Maybe that's why he can pretend that he can move beyond partisanship. Because he's never had to run a partisan race.
He goes on to dis Bill Clinton as an anti-progressive triangulator -- at least that part is consistent -- but he then goes on to say that Hillary is an improvement. Moreover:
Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified.
(Emphases added) What the hell happened to Kos? It would be cynical to suggest that money exchanged hands. So I won't suggest that.
By the way, if Bill Clinton's (successful) presidency was the epitome of triangular evil, then I say "Screw Moulitsas and Stassinopoulos. If we must take political advice from a Greek, take it from Euclid."
Gene Lyons: Although I've been disappointed by Joe Conason, his one-time co-author Gene Lyons now offers a terrific piece in which he interviews anti-Obama Democrats. The following excerpts feature words from these interviewees, not Lyons:
I‘ve voted for every Democrat from President to dog-catcher since 1952. That will end with Obama...
Just four years out of the state senate. If he were white or female, his candidacy would be a joke... The Democratic left’s need to swoon after eight years of a moron, coupled with unbridled Clinton-hatred, will produce a disaster for the party and country.
He is making his way to Denver by dividing our party over race, which is maybe the most idiotic campaign tactic ever... This time the witch hunt is coming from our side. It’s heartbreaking. Obama supporters want you to think Bill and Hillary Clinton are lifelong members of the KKK. The audacity of hope campaign has had to audacity to go there... This fall, they’ll try to make nice and talk unity, but the people they alienated in the most hateful way won’t be there. They deserve to lose for being so callous and childish.
Are you listening, Moulitsas?
He has no perceptible position on the economy other than: ‘We can do better. Yes we can. Say it with me.’ I foresee broken campaign promises followed by belt-tightening austerity measures in a one-term Presidency. In short, Jimmy Carter in a better-tailored sweater.
I partially disagree. If you look at his aides and associates (ignore his vacuous words), Obama does have an economic position: Libertarianism/Friedmanism. That phrase may lack euphony, but you know what it means. And you should also know that at the intersection of Ayn Avenue and Milton Boulevard, you'll find a massive monument to corruption, patronage, and bribery.
Permalink
very nice work. you put all the pieces together in a neat little package.
going from memory only, i seem to recall a time when both moulitsas and josh marshall were not especially strong obama supporters. then something seem to happen to each of these guys, as if each had experienced a sudden conversion on the road to ......
i have asked myself what happened? what convinced them so suddenly?
i do not have an answer.
i suspect that in a year or so, we will have a book or a murray waas-like report that will reveal what was really going on in obama's effort to win the democratic nomination.
and, as with iraq, we'll all shake our heads and ask,
My sentiments exactly, orion. What happened in blog-land in February-March was just TOO weird. I've never seen anything quite like it before.
I can't help feeling that those of us on the outside will one day learn of a factor at play here, something we can only guess at right now.
Well, in terms of guessing --
The real disappointment of this season has been Josh Marshall. DU has been a madhouse for some time. Kos -- well, frankly, that site had been kind of turning me off since late 2006. Americablog? Pheh. I didn't visit that often. But Josh Marshall was the king of bloggers.
And his own columns have usually been more or less fair throughout this campaign season. (Although he hasn't done much writing for a while, has he?) What disappointed me was that he allowed all sort of Kos-style commentary to infest his sites. Some of the craziest, most over-the-top reader "contributions" appeared there.
Now, I've always allowed some wacky comments here too, just to stir up interest. When the shit starts to take over, when the comments section turns into a sewer, I start using the "delete" button.
You know damned well that Josh would have done a lot of deleting if dozens of people had shown up to tout the "Protocols of Zion" or the wit and wisdom and Louis Beam. But he allowed ANYTHING to get through if it was anit-Clinton. His site became indistinguishable from right-wing radio, circa 1994.
So what happened to Josh?
For years, I've suspected that Josh Marshall really wants to BE Josh Liman of "The West Wing."
Maybe he saw 2008 as his chance.
You don't get a job like that unless you work FOR someone during the primaries.
Alas, this report tries to marginalize the movement as a feminist snit-fit. In fact, the reaction against Obama has many reasons.
This video never mentions the false racism accusations which turned so many against the Savior from Illinois. Neither do we hear about the insane vindictiveness displayed by Daily Kos and other blogs, which have demonized our best post-war president and presented the 1990s as The Nightmare Years. (Of course, Internet arguments don't provide good TV visuals.) This segment makes no reference to the corruption charges against Obi, and it does not mention the revolting Messianic fanaticism of Obama's supporters.
Take special note of Obama spokesperson toward the end. Idiotically, she says that being female gives Hillary "an advantage." Isn't that the exact term which got Geraldine Ferraro in trouble? The parallel is undeniable. And yet no Air America personality will denigrate this spokesperson as a "fucking whore."
Permalink
"This video never mentions the false racism accusations which turned so many against the Savior from Illinois."
Apart from you and some other anti-Obama radicals (or good friends of the Clintons like Sean Wilentz who wrote the article you're referring to as "evidence" of this), I don't know a lot of people who believe these false racism accusations. And I don't think this has been great motivation for a lot of voters. Do you really think a lot people in Kentucky were saying "that darn Obama tried to play the race card, I have to vote for Hillary ?!?"
And don't you think the Hillary campaign would be pushing this more if it had substance ? They prefer to play the "We're the poor victim of sexism" card.
Your requirements to believe something against Obama are really different than what you need to believe something against Hillary. You believe anything without much evidence if it targets Obama or one of it's supporter. But you need rock solid proof to believe anything negative about Hillary (always bringing it back to Vince Foster). There's dozens of sites like "Rezko Watch" targeting Hillary and her association with crooks that has the same level of "substance". But you decide to believe only the one targeting Obama.
"And yet no Air America personality will denigrate this spokesperson as a "fucking whore.""
It would be difficult, Randi left AAR for Nova M Radio and she's still in love with herself. She's been impossible to listen to in the last weeks (and in my case, not because she's going postal against Hillary), but she's in a very annoying manic narcissistic stage where she has to tell how great she is every hours.
Btw, do you know one liberal radio show host who doesn't support Obama over Hillary ? (and Kevin James is not a liberal :)
But then again, you know that I draw a distinction between liberals (such as myself) and progs (whom I despise). Liberals want a return to the 1945-1980 economic paradigm; progs are Libertarians in disguise.
There is a HUGE anti-O movement out there. And if you don't think my reasons for it are valid, then I can only presume that you belong in the Anyone-Who-Won't-Vote-4-Barry-Must-Be-KKK camp.
The Wilenz piece is absolutely damning, but it is hardly the only one of its kind.
Look, people are wising up. What Obama is trying to do is what Eddie Murphy did in "The Distinguished Gentleman." Remember the scene where he pretended to be the head of the NAACP? Doing a perfect imitation of Dr. King, he guilt-tripped the head of an important congressional committee.
Everyone -- white, black, Asian, Hispanic, everyone -- can now recognise that trick. We can spot it a mile away. We aren't buying it anymore. Doesn't mean we're racist. We're just not going to be manipulated.
Well, hyperman, I'm one person who DOES believe that the Obama campaign smeared the Clintons as racists. They even got caught with their own memo and it got mentioned in one of the early debates.
Quite frankly, this is one of the most damning charges against Obama, and one of the most reprehensible smears you could make against another Democrat. I will never vote for anyone who does something like this to get votes, and I don't care if they're the Messiah themselves (which Obama doesn't even come close to being). I've followed this campaign very closely and paid very close attention to each incident as it happened.
Here is just one ludicrous incident: Jesse Jackson Jr. actually telling the press that Hillary's tears had to be examined. Why was she crying about her appearance rather than about Katrina victims? I have never before heard such a ludicrous statement made by a so-called public official about another. What a stupid, stupid comment!
How in bloody hell would he know why Clinton had tears in her eyes? How in bloody hell would he know whether she cried about Katrina or not? Who the hell is he to tell someone else how they should feel about something, or even IF they felt a certain way about something? Was he with her every minute of the day when that whole thing unfolded? But, no, the media just ran with this laughable comment and smeared it all over every network ad nauseum. I watched this stuff happen over and over and over and over again. The Clintons couldn't say anything without it being made into a racist statement. Obama couldn't be criticized about anything without it being racist. Quite frankly, I won't vote for someone who thinks they are above criticism and will simply smear anyone who levels it. No public official is above criticism. I really can't see living through 4-8 years of hearing every dissenter called a racist just because they don't agree with His Perfectness.
It's really unbelievable to me that Obamabots have to believe that their candidate is some kind of perfect creature who is above criticism, who doesn't have to tell anyone what his plans are, who doesn't have to explain his sleazy associates, but can claim anything - no matter how sleazy and unbelievable - about his opponent. No thanks! If push comes to shove, even a McCain presidency would be more restful than that.
It is a FACT the Obama campaign smeared the Clintons as racists. The race card was the only thing the Obama campaign EVER had. Get your head out of your rear. They have run the filthiest, most vile primary campaign since the GOP did in 2000 with McCain. Obama will be lucky if he gets D.C. in the fall, should he get the nomination.
"The Wilenz piece is absolutely damning, but it is hardly the only one of its kind."
Do you have others ? I have a lot of difficulty believing the accusations against Obama coming from a longtime friend of the Clintons. How can Sean Wilentz be objective ? Would you accept as evidence the content of an anti-Hillary article written by Rev Wright ? I know I wouldn't. I would like some objective analysis of these accusations, not a well written smear job by a Princeton professor who is a good friend of the Clintons. - "Why do you think you would be a good jury Prof. Wilentz ?". - "Because I'm a long time friend of the victim your honor and I know with certainty that the accused is guilty !"
"Well, hyperman, I'm one person who DOES believe that the Obama campaign smeared the Clintons as racists. They even got caught with their own memo and it got mentioned in one of the early debates." Like I said, I know the anti-Obama radicals (the antiobamabot) seem to believe this for now. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm writing a comment on the blog of one of them :) But apart from some blogs, I don't believe you're a big movement (maybe in the Appalachian, a very strategic place for Democrats). Oh yeah, and the memo, big big piece of evidence. I wonder why it's not used more by the Hillary campaign if it was such a damming evidence of systematic foul play. (And I wonder how it was published on Huffington Post ?)
"It's really unbelievable to me that Obamabots have to believe that their candidate is some kind of perfect creature who is above criticism" I thought that this was the Hillary supporters attitude ! that their Hillary is perfect and beyond criticism. I'm sorry, but by being an "antiobamabot" you're not better than the "obamabot", you're still just a mindless "bot" yourself. I know Obama is not the messiah as I know Hillary is not the messiah (but I know both are better than McCain), but I don't need to cling on tiny speculative evidence to justify a radical hate for one of them and the belief that the other one is a saint (there's people guilty of this in both camps, and both sides will claim the other camp has more and that they are worse). The only thing about the candidates I know for sure is that they are sadly both from the same race of individual called politicians. And with your current system of election finance where they need to raise hundreds of millions to get elected, it corrupts them all. You're not choosing between a saint and el Diablo, you're choosing between the lesser of 2 (d)evils or a Republican demon (or moron).
And are the false accusations of Ken Starr in the past a guarantee that Hillary is pure, perfect and flawless for infinity... and beyond ? Since when being falsely accused in the past become a guarantee that you're a saint ? I don't give Sean Wilentz more credibility than Ken Starr. When your goal is to prove an accusation and not to found the truth, your success rate is sadly higher. That's the main flaw of most "9/11 truther", they are not looking for the truth, but to prove THEIR theory.
"even a McCain presidency would be more restful than that." I'm sure Hillary, your beloved messiah, and MOST of her followers would not even agree with you on this. I would be surprised a high percentage of Hillary supporters are voting for her because they hate Obama like you do. But it's human to project your feeling to others. It's like the gay community who like to think everyone is gay.
in 2000 and 2004, I remember that some anti-Gore and anti-Kerry radicals in the Democrat party also thought that George W Bush would be a better president than Gore or Kerry !?! Can you imagine how stupid they feel today ? They also had great article showing how Kerry was the devil because he was a member of Skull & Bones, so why not elect Bush anyway, it's the same thing ! As Joseph said before, fighting the anti-Kerry radicals were one of the main motivation for starting this blog... que c'est ironique mes amis.
I'm Canadian (to be more precise, Québécois) and Hillary or Obama, I don't care. But you can say I'm a radical anti-McCain. The only person you're going to punish by directly or indirectly electing McCain is yourself (and the rest of the world who can't vote in the US but has to live with the consequences).
I don't remember Starr engaging in false accusations as to HRC. He got the job of finding out whether various accusations had adequate evidence on which to bring indictments, when Janet Reno was forced to cashier the first 'special prosecutor' in favor of the renewed Independent Counsel position, and then the 3-judge panel headed by David Sentelle selected Starr as IC. Reno later acquiesced to Starr taking the various metasticizing scandal charges because Starr hid his conflicts of interest.
But logically, absence of sufficient evidence to have a likely conviction, or at least a plausible probable cause basis for bringing an indictment, doesn't necessarily clear anyone of the underlying charge.
Rather, as Joe said, it shows that there is no solid case extant in the evidence. But people can commit crimes for which there is insufficient evidence to indict, let alone have a reasonable chance of conviction.
Word at the time, from chief Starr deputies' leaks to the press, was that they were about to indict HRC (probably on perjury charges). This was improper, and possibly a violation of grand jury secrecy laws. However, it remains unclear to this day, IMO, whether they had some probable cause sufficient to indict (and just not enough to make conviction likely, therefore braking any such action), or whether even the claim that the threshhold had nearly been met was false.
That is similar to where BHO stands in the Rezko matter at this point.
Sof, they had nothing on Hillary. Not a thing. Everyone in the media and the judicial system went gunning for her. And they found NOTHING.
Look, with Rezko and Obama, what do you have? I mean, look at the stuff that is on the record and non-controversial, or at least non-controvertible.
You have Obi lying his ASS off during a debate about knowing Rezko. You have an FBI mole proving that the two were involved every day.
You hve Obi recruited by Tony right out of law school to work for his dodgy law firm, which is steeped in Chicago corruption.
You have Obi doing everything he could to make sure Tony could get that corrupt tenement contract, which led to Tony making millions while poor blacks suffered.
You had Tony using dodgy money from overseas to make sure that Obi got a house you could not afford. As part of the deal, Tony's wife (who officially earns about $34,000 a year, as I recall) bought the adjacent property for $615,000.
In the earlier piece, we noted that his story has certain difficulties, chronological and otherwise. Moulitsas, in a recorded interview, says that he decided to become a clandestine officer in 2001. He went all the way through a six-month interview process.
Just before signing the final papers, though, he decided that he didn't want to go through with it -- ostensibly because he would have been required to serve in a dull "desk job" position in DC for six years before being sent out into the field for all those James Bond-ian thrills and chills. So he decided to join Howard Dean's presidential campaign instead.
Problem 1: The Dean campaign did not begin until 2003. This leaves roughly a year unaccounted for. (Training...?)
Problem 2: Would Moulitsas really have had to spend six years behind a desk in the DC area? Doubtful. Remember all those post-9/11 stories about a CIA manpower shortage?
I asked Larry Johnson about this matter. His reply:
The claim about a six month period to get hired sounds right. In my case, I started the process in March of 1985 and entered on duty on September 1985. However, there is no way that the CIA was going to keep Markos in DC for 6 years, especially in 2001. Remember Johnny Michael Spann, who died in Afghanistan? He was pulled out of training and sent direct to the field because they needed people. Sounds to me like Markos did not get a credible job offer.
I suspect that, if the CIA had doubts about Moulitsas' abilities, the plug would have been pulled before six months had passed. Besides, why wouldn't Moulitsas have been considered a good "catch"?
Moulitsas' claim that he was anxious to get into the field strikes me as odd for another reason. On other occasions, he has said that he was relieved when he learned that he did not have to serve in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd hear from a guy who was rarin' to go where Spann went. Which is it, Markos -- are you Mr. Adventure, or Mr. Play-It-Safe?
In my earlier piece, I wrote:
The CIA is prohibited from operating domestically. Anyone offered a stateside psyop assignment would naturally go through the training course, and then, at the last moment, refrain from signing official employment papers. This is exactly what Moulitsas did.
If you read enough books about American spies, you get the impression that the real problems are caused by the fellows who remain technically non-employed by the Agency.
Just say it: Daily Kos is one huge psy-op. I've been saying it for a while now.
It's a COINTELPRO-like operation, co-opting and diverting leftists and quasi leftists from making any real trouble. There is no other explanation for it's very quick and seemingly easy rise to prominence.
Question--Why would Kos even mention that he trained for the CIA? If you were going to operate Stateside in the US, I would think you would want to keep that tidbit quiet. Why advertise? If he was rejected, could it have something to do with his blog--which he said he showed to some officers there and that they were--well--"hip to".
I remember reading that tidbit from an interview at that time and being floored that he would say anything about his training even if he hadn't completed his contract--and wouldn't there be a contract? It seems to me it would be like the military--you don't go through a year of training and then opt out of the service because you don't like where you will be stationed.
According to the progressive blogs, Obama's win in Oregon counts, and Hillary's far more impressive victory in Kentucky does not, because Kentuckian Democrats are all racists. Implicit in this argument is the belief that racism matters and sexism does not.
Here's a transcribed portion of an audio interview between Hillary and a Washington Post reporter:
Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.
Q. Isn't that how it's always been though.
A. Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice.
I think this is the point Geraldine "fucking whore" Ferraro tried to make in her should-not-have-been-infamous comments. Being a black male in this race is an advantage -- compared to being a woman of any heritage.
On a few occasions, I've pointed out that Colin Powell could have won the presidency in 2000 just by pointing at the White House and saying "I'll take it." Not one reader has disagreed with that assessment, even though people love to disagree with everything else I say. Can you name a single woman in the history of this country who could have strolled into the oval office that easily?
Permalink
Dude, I just read this article in the London Times. Check out the comments section. It is the best illustration of what the problem is with Obama's campaign. Some of them actually described it as "Obama-style racism". 86 comments and 95% from the US!
Just for the record, I thought Spikes comments were valid, although historically inept. And the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the US is a racist country. But thats very much by the by. Its pretty obvious that Americans are still not in the mood to confront these issues. Americans resent being reminded, of the sins of some of their fathers.
I'm reading a book called "Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male population" which is about the most radical form of sexism of all: killing girls at birth, or aborting them before. Scary stuff.
BTW, Larry Johnson now says "There are recordings of Barack Obama when he was overseas. These recordings–I don’t know if they are video or audio–also will create problems for Barack. "
I find this entirely believable. If Obie is caught criticizing the US on foreign soil, it's curtains. I think it already is curtains, but this would really sink him.
Don't get me wrong. The comments were definitely inane. And just because I agree with Spike Lees wider point - i assumed it was that black Americans are under represented in American war movies - doesn't mean his comments aren't inappropriate and silly as well.
But I am just amazed at the amount of heat and irritation. I would never guess that people would be so pissed off by these comments. Can you explain why these commentators are so angry? I just don't get it.
I think the anger stems from the fact that Obama let us down. The entire progressive movement has let us down. I once believed in that man -- cautiously, reservedly, not fanatically, but I DID vote for him. Alas, a Democrat running against a fellow Democrat has waged the kind of campaign previously associated only with Republicans.
And many of us were forced to re-think everything.
I'm really angry at the Obama campaign's use of race-baiting and falsely accusing people of racists for one reason: it has trivialized what is still a very real problem in our country. But when you make one false accusation after another, people begin to stop taking you seriously. In fact they get angry, and then they stop seeing or caring about the very real occurences of racism.
Another problem. His campaign only seems to focus on racism, but not on other groups who are equally discriminated against: women are a big example. But seniors as well. Some of the comments of his supporters have been way over the top. And Obama has been all too happy to say nothing, or to even enable it. That also makes the real problems of racism worse, because you really can't fight bigotry by being selective. If you aren't against it PERIOD, you really aren't against it.
McCain will probably win Kentucky even if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, but she could force him to fight hard for that state, and there's some chance that she could prevail. Obama cannot win there. He cannot even compete.
Only 33 percent of Kentucky's Clinton supporters say that they will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.
Of course, progressives insist that this reticence stems from the fact that Hillary supporters are all big fat racists. The progs are so lacking in self-awareness that they cannot comprehend that accusations of that sort are precisely what made Clinton supporters repulsed by Obama.
In 2000, "racist" Kentucky would have gone for Colin Powell in a landslide, had he run.
Besides (I may have to repeat this fact another dozen or so times, because it sill hasn't sunk in) Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe insisted that racism would not be a factor in the general, because (sayeth he) nearly all white racists migrated to the Republican party long ago. (Don't believe me? Here.)
The commentary appended to the afore-linked CNN article shows that most Obots didn't get the "make nice" memo -- or, more likely, that most of them are so addicted to Clinton-hate that they simply cannot help themselves:
HILLARY HAS WIDENED THE RIFT AS FAR AS SHE HAS.
SHE & BILL IN THE LAST TWO DAYS HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR PREFERENCE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
As usual, Obots "recall" seeing things that never happened. When did Bill and Hillary ever indicate that they would not support the Democratic nominee?
Kentucky and West Virginia, we know your extreme views, you ll never change...
Just goes to show how this country hasnt changed at all! Still just as Racist as ever.
Because people in that part of the country are racist.
They would rather suffer four more years of economic hardship under the McCain regime than vote for a black man.
Yep. New definition of racism: Anyone who doesn't like Obama. Someone should tell Plouffe.
I don't want the economy placed in the hands of Obama's crew -- Goolsbee, Liebman and Cutler. Does that fact make me anti-white? I don't want foreign policy placed in the hands of Brzenzinski or one of his creatures. Does that fact make me anti-Polish?
This is all part of Clinton's scorched earth strategy. Shame on her and her self-serving campaign.
What "scorched earth" strategy? How do these wacky memes get started in Obot-land? Do these nutcases actually expect the rest of the nation to share their hallucinations?
(By the way, can anyone name a political campaign that wasn't "self-serving" -- ever, in history? Okay, maybe that contest where the dead guy beat John Ashcroft...)
All she has done is divide our party by staying so long and playing the race card.
This can be attributed to the Clinton's Rovian tactics
Racist morons. Isn't being married to your sister or first cousin illegal.
My fave:
You have to be a divisive person to support hillary. There is no other way to define her supporters.
Well, you get the gist. It goes on and on like that.
Again, I must ask -- how can these cultists be so lacking in the ability to question themselves that they cannot see that they are reason why life-long Dems such as myself won't vote for Obama in November?
I remain stunned by Obama's obnoxious zealots. They honestly can't see that they caused the problem, they cannot understand how repellent they are when they treat a political candidate as if he were a religious figure, they refuse to look at Obama's connections to Chicago's corruption, they have a downright psychotic attitude toward the only successful President of the past 45 years, and they continue to spew the very Kossack talking points that have turned Barack Obama into Mr. 33.
Barack Obama ran a smear campaign in a primary. His close supporters falsely accused innocent people of racism. With a few phone calls, Obama and Howard Dean could have created a much more civilized debate, online and off -- but they didn't.
These miscalculations were epic. These miscalculations -- not "racism" -- are the reason why Obama is Mr 33 in a state the Dems could have flipped.
Permalink
"Of course, progressives insist that this reticence stems from the fact that Hillary supporters are all big fat racists."
I'm not worried about his. Apart from the very sore loser, most people will wake up and get over their little bruised ego instead of helping McCain get elected. Keep in mind that most Hillary supporters don't have to endure the hate from Obama supporters on their blog. And it might surprise you that most people (even Hillary supporters) are NOT the emotional equivalent of a 9 years old after THEIR candidate is not chosen and THEY will be able to see the greater good instead of sticking to "but THEY (some Obots assholes ?) insulted me ! THEY will pay !".
