I hate to thump Andrew over this, as if he’s been consistent about one thing over the years, it’s been that the Clintons are ethically pernicious. So, when Mrs. Clinton demagogues the vote in Florida, stating that it would be tragic if once again, after the way they were robbed by Bush in 2000, their votes (in the primary) weren’t counted. It makes Andrew’s gob tingle painfully, in a way that he thought could never happen again because of Mrs. Clinton, and he avers that this behavior “should cause even veteran Clinton-hating jaws to drop some more.”
Now I agree with Andrew’s characterization of Mrs. Clinton when he states that she shouldn’t be anywhere near the presidency:
I think she has now made it very important that Obama not ask her to be the veep. The way she is losing is so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
But it makes my gob tingle painfully some that Andrew either fails to see or doesn’t care to mention that Mrs. Clinton is given this opportunity by virtue of eight years of leftist lying about the 2000 election in order to cultivate the victimology that is a central tenet of their core dogma. It is terrible that Mrs. Clinton would deploy this canard, to be sure, but the only thing, presumably, that makes it more terrible than the way it has been chanted like a leftist mantra for the last eight years is that it is now being utilized against Mr. Obama. In fact, without recognizing the potential, apparently, Andrea Mitchell trotted this legend out in expressing anxiety over Mr. Obama’s fortunes in the upcoming General Election just this week.
So, you know, suck it up, Andrew. I have no sympathy for you.
(PS: sorry, Karl: lost the first draft of this; we must have been in there at the same time)
How do you respond to a sociopath like this? She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.
But Obama’s actual motives are explored in Karl’s post below, Lisa. And as far as playing by the rules goes, what about the public funding pledge? Was that a bit like waving for a fair catch and then trying to run the ball, or what?
She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.
He got gored by his own petard in MI, and never had a shot at Florida.
Was that a bit like waving for a fair catch and then trying to run the ball, or what?
Just ask UConn – It works !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gored by a petard? That sounds excruciating.
#2. Yeah Karl “explores his motives” alright. Karl knows nothing about Obama’s motives. He is totally talking out of the crack of his ass on this one. Obama did exactly as he was asked to do – no sinister motives can be read from that. Hell, I can say that your motivation for waking up today was to oppress Himalayan Gerbils. But that doesn’t make it so.
Sullivan is spot on.
You’re interested, aren’t you? You savage.
Oops, Lisa. Put my response in Karl’s thread.
Lisa – We are homophobes around here. We tend to avoid talking about gerbil caves.
Dan – Just ask Louisville how it feels to be gore by a petard. Fair catch my ass.
Obama isn’t being punished for playing by the rules. He is being criticized for trying to use bad, undemocratic rules to his advantage. It is his history to disqualify the competition and I don’t see why anyone would be surprised. I’m certain he took his name off the ballot in Michigan because he suspected (given the high-level Hillary supporters in the state) that he wouldn’t win Michigan.
She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party.
Florida and Michigan, the governing bodies, were punished by making Florida and Michigan, the citizens, pay for and participate in a vote that was then ignored. This sanction was of no benefit to the people of those two states. For the DNC or Obama supporters to act as if there were some higher principle involved is outrageous.
MayBee – This disenfranchisement is all about protecting Iowa and New Hampshire. They moved their primaries up, but the DNC gave their blessing to them doing so, therefore no penalty. Justice is arbitrary at the DNC.
I’m certain he took his name off the ballot in Michigan because he suspected (given the high-level Hillary supporters in the state) that he wouldn’t win Michigan.
Very likely.
Obama isn’t being punished for playing by the rules.
DNC rules exist in a Living Rule Book adaptable to the immutably shifting penumbra of Justice as illuminated by Social Evolution.
That and the soft, hard power of Obama’s face.
I would almost be willing to bet that the DNC “solution” to this winds up giving Baracky more votes than he would have received had they actually contested the primaries.
That and the soft, hard power of Obama’s face.
Flaccid and Rigid at the same time. Quite an accomplishment. Is that like having salt peter in your Cialis ?
Acme Batman Costume!!
But what about the children? Must they also suffer?
“so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency.”
This I agree with. For me it also applies to Obama.
“DNC rules exist in a Living Rule Book adaptable to the immutably shifting penumbra of Justice as illuminated by Social Evolution.”
Unlike the Republicans, where pledged delegates are required to vote as pledged on the first round, all delegates, pledged and super, to the Democrat’s convention can vote however they wish with only their conscience and peer pressure to guide them. Usually those would be enough to keep everyone in line but with two graduates of the Alinsky school of politics going at each other who knows what skulduggery is happening behind the curtain. That is what makes the convention “must see TV”.
The Democrats are getting what they deserve. First, it was the Republicans suppressing the vote, and now that there are no Republicans to blame because it is a Democratic primary, they point the finger at each other. Blame it on racism, sexism or the media. Whatever it takes to win! I left the Democratic party(now I’m a Libertarian) in 2002 because of Nancy Pelosi becoming the Minority Leader. I wanted Harold Ford, Jr. At least he was a moderate, and wasn’t prone to demagagory. Any of you still happy about a Democratic Congress? You must be one the the 20%!
This is the inevitable result of radical identity politics. Blame your opponents while acting just like them, especially when it benefits your cause. If Senator Clinton doesn’t win, expect her to implement a “scorched earth” policy. Like a scorned lover, if I can’t have him/her, then no one can. If she can’t be president, then no Democrat can, because it would hinder her 2012 run, maybe.
I will rephrase what I said in the other thread: those of you reading a pro-Hillary! bias into Karl’s and Dan’s posts need to chill out. You are seeing something that isn’t there.
From where I sit it looks like neither one of them has a dog in that fight. They are simply noting which is missing an ear and measuring the amount of blood slung in the furball. Karl, in particular, is a techwonk whose interest is the mechanics of the system and how each of them tries to take advantage of those facets most favorable to their own fortunes. Dan is a little more eclectic, but he’s mainly having fun watching the Press recycle Limbaugh diatribes from the mid and late Nineties, changing the “B” to “H”. Perhaps Rush should sue for plagiarism?
Regards,
Ric
Thanks, Ric. I’d say that if I had to define my approach, I’d say I’m trying to get as much enjoyment out of the entertainment as I can before I have to eat that big shit sandwich.
#19: Again – I don’t see pro-Hillary. I don’t bother myself with that terrible Hillhate/Obamahate shit. One of the reasons that I have started hanging out here so much is that I see how unfortunately batshit crazy the left blogosphere has gotten as they have settled into O and H camps and each camp has become a strange echo chamber where the most outrageous bits of wankery get bounced around by likeminded wankers and never gets challenged. If it does it is dismissed as “Obamabottery” “Hilltrollery” depending on what echo chamber you are in. (I am sure that everyone will get back to normal after the primary. There were some hard feelings about Nader in 2000 too, but people got over that.)
My point is that this some fuckery foisted upon the party by the DNC. And Sen. Clinton’s “solution” proposal (give them all to me!) is bullshit. Karl’s analysis that Obama somehow made a power move that screwed him – and the voters – by adhering to the rules is just silly.
You mean no one has been accused of having an O!gasm?
#22: Oh yea, Arianna Huffington has those all the time. The font size of the Obama-related headlines on her blog grow in proportion to the intensity of her O!gasms.
No, Lisa, it’s spot on.
Obama’s strategy from the beginning was to concentrate on small states, especially those using the caucus system, in order to build up a lead made up of lots and lots of small gains. Cynics (like myself) might point out that a caucus more closely resembles the smoke-filled-room and log-rolling politics of a machine system than an election does, and was thus more familiar and comfortable for him than babykissing stump-campaigning. He was happy to go along with eliminating FL and MI because campaigning there didn’t fit with his strategy for delegate collection, coupled with the fact that he is (or was) aware that he has neither the organization nor the ability to best Clinton at flagwaving, rabble-rousing, get-out-the-vote electioneering. The fact that it was handed to him by the DNC Rules Committee doesn’t make it any less a “power move”.
Regards,
Ric
Ah, the sweet, gentle flapping sound of the identity politics chickens coming home to roost.
[ok, so I’m lazy]
Schadenfreude is a dish best served microwaved, and covered with Hershey’s syrup and whipped cream.
#26: Mmmmm. Tasty.
Beleive me, if the situation were reversed, I would be all over it like Whitney on a crackpipe. Enjoy, you fuckers.
“…the soft, hard power of Obama’s face.”
Is that like having salt peter in your Cialis?
Andy coined that phrase, so I dunno, but it may be something like a gerbil wearing a crash helmet.
#14: That is excellent. Been chuckling all morning all morning.
I meant to just type “all morning” once. But I was too busy chuckling.
So he’s like Dukakis?
#31: Oh you bastard.
That was good though.