Twisted little people

The AP's Calvin Woodward declaring the era of the Big Clintons over:

There's been a Clinton running for the White House or living in it for approximately forever. Bill, it could be said, was born to run. Running became Hillary's destiny, too...

Soon, though, there will be no Clinton running for president or about to. Imagine that.

Yeah.  Imagine that.  It's so difficult to do, isn't it?  Like, what would it have been like in 2000 with no Clinton running for...oh wait.

Well, then...in 2004 when a Clinton just missed defeating George W...

Hmmmm.

At any rate, come January 2009, when our current President Clinton leaves the White House...

Son of a gun.

Kind of a revealing article, isn't it?

For the last seven and a half years, while George Bush and the Congressional Republicans ran the country into the ground, while the rest of us were distracted by 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, the attempt to kill Social Security, the relentless assault on our civil rights, the declarations that Presidents Not Named Clinton have the powers of kings and are not bound by law only by their whims, Dick Cheney's assumption of the role of Regent, the bankrupting of the Treasury, the poisoning of our national discourse by a relentless Right Wing propaganda machine, the drive towards yet another war in Iran, and more, Calvin Woodward and his colleagues in the National Press Corps were living in the era of the Big Clintons.

These twisted little soulless people have hated Bill Clinton forever.  They hate him more for having escaped impeachment than they feel anything for George W. Bush for having ruined, well, everything.  They hated Al Gore for having been his Vice-President.  They hate Hillary for being married to him.

There are a lot of reasons Barack Obama is going to be the nominee, but not least of them is that he didn't have to run against the National Press Corps the way Hillary has had to.

There are several problems Obama will have to solve in order to win in November, and not the least of them will be that he will no longer have the National Press Corps to do the dirty work of tearing down his opponent for him.

Our National Press Corps' long nightmare is coming to an end.  Pretty soon there will be no more Big Clintons "in our face."  The Insiders will no longer be trapped in 1998.  They will be free to start covering the news again.

Just in time to learn to hate Barack Obama.

Comments

[theperilouspea]

How can you be so negative ?
I still cling to the hope that our doughty scribbling clackety class will be able to continue employing magical thinking .
Imagine a perfect world shoe shine
a mozaic of our petty hatreds
All Smiles !
Gleaming back

[kateNC]

By the Fault has a great video up on the media's sexist coverage of Hillary. Who knew there were women in the media bothered by this?

http://www.bythefault.com/2008/05/27/cnn-on-misogyny-and-the-media/

[Bill Altreuter]

In fairness 2000 was about ol' Bill-- that's who W was running against, and that's who Gore was afraid to turn to. In 04 a lot of people thought HRC was going to make a run; she chose to defend her senate seat instead. (Some states let you run for the office you currently hold at the same time you are on the national ballot-- Kerry and Lieberman both did this. New York is not one of those states.)

Ron Rosenbaum's recent post on why HRC is staying on the ballot almost had me persuaded. Why shouldn't her historic campaign end at the convention? Why shouldn't she get that sort of recognition?

And then she comes out with the RFK remark, and it all comes rushing back. Goodness gracious, her capacity to be appalling is pretty boundless.

[Frenchdoc]

So, Bill, according to you, the very fact that the Clintons were not exiled on a desert island validates the stupid points made by that guy in the article (not Lance's of course)?

[Kevin Hayden]

Yeah, Woodward must be under 35, in age and IQ.

[Lance]

Bill,

Appalling is in the eye of the beholder, of course. Personally, I thought Clinton's reference to RFK's assassination was a stupid slip-up and frankly I was a bit appalled by it. But I know plenty of smart people who are appalled by Barack Obama's refering to Ronald Reagan as if he'd been a great president, his calling a reporter Sweetie, and his inability to get the names straight of the states and towns he's campaigning in.

[Michael Rebain]

kateNC: Hillary Clinton's Senate seat was not up for reelection in 2004. Neither was John Kerry's that year.

[Bill Altreuter]

My mistake on the Senate terms of HRC and Kerry. Shoulda looked it up.

I see difference between the "Nice candidate you have there. Be a shame if something happened to him," remark and the relatively minor verbal slips of Obama you cite, starting with the fact that this is the second time HRC has made a remark like that. The Reagan thing is weird-- I can't understand how anyone who was paying attention back then could have thought he was anything much as a president, but people do, and if Obama can swing some Reagan Democrats back into the fold by pandering to that notion, I don't have a problem with it.

HRC's problems as a candidate are various. One, She Voted For This Horrible War. Two, she ran without a clear notion of how she was going to win each race in each state. Three, speaking of race, she has run a race-baiting campaign, which has now lapsed into stuff that Nixon wouldn't have sunk to.

I have said before that I like the idea of Hillary Clinton, but that the reality has continually disappointed me, and this continues to be true. Even now I suppose I'd rather see her on the ticket than not-- inside the tent, pissing out, as LBJ might have said. This should be a triumphant moment for the Democratic Party, and it will still be, even with all of the negative freight HRC insists on dragging in.

[Squalo]

"I have said before that I like the idea of Hillary Clinton, but that the reality has continually disappointed me, and this continues to be true."

Does anybody believe this self-serving, faux-humanitarian drivel? Despite your facade of reasonableness, what both your posts demonstrate is the kind of Clinton-phobia that Kos and Huffington ladle out by the bucketful.

Not only is her comment about 1968 "appalling," but "she has run a race-baiting campaign, which has now lapsed into stuff that Nixon wouldn't have sunk to." Right, the Hillary Clinton Southern Strategy. You forgot to mention that she played the gender card and pimped her daughter.

But, no doubt, should anybody accuse you of hating Senator Clinton, you will indignantly and self-righteously and noisily explain that you don't hate her, not a bit, not even a little bit--though, you will acknowledge with a wry and sorrowful grin that you can certainly understand those who do.

Why not at least have the courage of your overflowing venom? You don't seem stupid enough to be a concern troll.

[Sabutai]

Lance, go easy on Obama. It's easy to mix up the towns and states in which you're campaigning if you're hitting all 57 of them...

[tony]

Thankfully, Clinton supporters will have the last laugh....

Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses and Other Scare Tactics

We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to "unify" with Clinton's supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here's my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).

First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama's supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.

Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal "issues" you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the "only racists vote for Clinton script." The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed "uneducated" voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out -- starting after Iowa -- in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean's bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined "racism" directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats -- the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim –- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do "anything to get elected." I refuse to join this madness.

In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as "Annie Oakley" gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama’s jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?

Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love "the horror": If you vote for McCain or don’t vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive "our children" from having a "great country." I feel a tear coming!

These are just Karl Rovian "red alerts." Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring "change." They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere "policy wonk," while Obama made people "feel good again." Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama’s success does not dictate the way I vote.

I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your "red scare" alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it "progressive." My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats’ misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past -- what they call "Clinton scandals," when every honest person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the "education" on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or “Clinton politics.” Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the “boys” will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is “hurting the party” and "kneecapping" the "first viable black presidential candidate" - as if Clinton should bear responsibility for remedying the country's history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don't tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn’t matter. Don't tell me sexism doesn't matter. Don't tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn't matter. Don’t tell me fake racial politics doesn’t matter. Don't tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a "real" Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not "endorse anything to get a Democrat elected," and neither should you.

– A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More.....

[tony]

Thankfully, Clinton supporters will have the last laugh....

Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses and Other Scare Tactics

We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to "unify" with Clinton's supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here's my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).

First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama's supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.

Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal "issues" you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the "only racists vote for Clinton script." The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed "uneducated" voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out -- starting after Iowa -- in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean's bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined "racism" directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats -- the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim –- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do "anything to get elected." I refuse to join this madness.

In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as "Annie Oakley" gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama’s jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?

Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love "the horror": If you vote for McCain or don’t vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive "our children" from having a "great country." I feel a tear coming!

These are just Karl Rovian "red alerts." Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring "change." They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere "policy wonk," while Obama made people "feel good again." Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama’s success does not dictate the way I vote.

I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your "red scare" alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it "progressive." My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats’ misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past -- what they call "Clinton scandals," when every honest person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the "education" on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or “Clinton politics.” Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the “boys” will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is “hurting the party” and "kneecapping" the "first viable black presidential candidate" - as if Clinton should bear responsibility for remedying the country's history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don't tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn’t matter. Don't tell me sexism doesn't matter. Don't tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn't matter. Don’t tell me fake racial politics doesn’t matter. Don't tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a "real" Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not "endorse anything to get a Democrat elected," and neither should you.

– A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More.....