Over the past weekend (but not of much interest to the MSM) another set of numbers came out:
George Bush's DISapproval rating now stands at 69%, with 63% of Americans believing that invading Iraq was a mistake.
3 months from now, if both of those are not at 75%, the beer is on me.
And that little projection is why John McCain, and John McCain-lite (aka; Hillary) are not going anywhere, fast.
Same old: she's the GOP last lifeboat, and N.C. and Indiana will sink her in two weeks.
Actually she is a fucking vampire and somebody has to find the wooden stake to put her out of her misery.
I read somewhere that to keep from really pissing off the older white women who ARE her base, things need to be handled deftly. This makes some sense to me at the same time I wish somebody outside the Obama campaign would go after her on a wide variety of issues... from victimhood as a rationale for her candidacy, her role as a scorned wife not being sufficient reason to credit her with experience, shady money deals since Bill left office, Walmart connections, Purdue Chicken connections and well every bit of dirt we would hear from the Republicans if she steals the nomination.
I have grown to really dislike that woman, to the point of changing the chanell if she shows up on TV, much like I do for George Bush.
George is just Hillary with a cock...
Sen, Clinton's whine about democrat activists was the last straw for me. Her inner Goldwater Girl and Iran war mongering confirm she is not our bright hope .Obama is getting another donation from this white wine,butter,fig newtown popping older woman.
How about this:
"Tarheels and Hoosiers combine to evict Hillary from the Final Two!"
:o)
this is fascinating, and really oh so important, this whole political circus.
but perhaps, per chance, the story of the Global Food Crisis, with billions affected, might rate a tad bit higher in importance?
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/...me-al-
gore.html
Sadly no, anonymous
"but perhaps, per chance, the story of the Global Food Crisis, with billions affected, might rate a tad bit higher in importance?"
In the larger scheme of things, americangoy(sorry, "anonymous"), it does. However, most of us have already came across the story on blogs that don't require off-topic self-linking to drive their traffic.
"I wish somebody outside the Obama campaign would go after her on a wide variety of issues"
Many Democrats and independent liberals have been doing just that in the blogosphere, and will continue. Of course, until recently if you called Hillary out on these issues you were "starting a pie fight" or "being a misogynist" or "doing damage to Democratic party unity."
Fortunately, there's been a lot less of that nonsense since Hillary complained about MoveOn and annoyed people like Jane Hamsher.
Apart from the blogs, I don't know who else outside the Obama campaign will go after her. We aren't going to hear the kind of criticism that's needed from inside the DNC. And of course the GOP and the MSM want nothing more than for Hillary to be the nominee. So I guess we're stuck watching the unusual spectacle of an increasingly desperate candidate squander what was once a surplus of goodwill.
Let's begin to call her Hillary "let's nuke the whole Middle East" Clinton, since it's basically the core of her foreign policy.
On second thoughts, this may well gain her some votes, so it's probably a bad idea.
But getting back to the point of Hubris's post, yes, this is pretty cool that my fellow PA dems came out in such high numbers. Either for Hill the Pill or the O-Man, at least they came out and voted. I voted for the O-Man myself, although I'm not crazy about either him or Hillary. But if Hill winds up taking the nom somehow, I'm voting for her in the general. I'd vote for Howdy Doody over McCain.
"Of course, until recently if you called Hillary out on these issues you were "starting a pie fight" or "being a misogynist" or "doing damage to Democratic party unity."
Several weeks ago, there was a post in the comments section of one of the blogs I follow regularly - I don't remember exactly where, but I'm pretty sure it was either here or at Digby's place - which sought to lay out and prove in no uncertain terms the "misogyny" of Hillary's Democratic critics. And how did the poster attempt to do this? By contributing a very lengthy post made up of quotes (all of which were taken from Daily Kos) attacking Hillary Clinton. I do remember all the quotes were attributed to the Kos regulars who made them. And there were a lot. It was a long list of "sexist" and "misogynistic" comments, or so claimed the poster making this particular contribution to the general blog chitchat.
There was only one problem with it: Not a single one of the quotes was in any way sexist or misogynist, not even remotely. Many of the criticisms of the Clintons the quotes detailed were stated harshly and in less than polite terms...but none of them were at all sexist in any way. They were all serious criticisms about the demonstrably bad behavior of the Clintons. And the harsher slams had to do with things that were real and actually deserved criticism, not made-up dittohead bullshit or manufactured "controversy" made up entirely out of whole cloth.
It's bizarre to watch these sort of Rush Limbaugh tactics waged by Democratic activists on behalf of a "feminist" like Hillary Clinton, no?
tanbark... 3 mons? does that mean you are buying a round at netroots nation?
speaking of which... who is going to NN?
>>>George is just Hillary with a cock...
Amuseinc
HARDLY!
look, we all know who I support... but Clinton if she wins through some hijinks or supernatural intervention WOULD BE BETTER THAN MCCAIN
there is no doubt in my mind.
I know this will get be flamed, But we need to get a grip. No matter what happens we must get the GOP out of the white house- the reasons have become too many to count.
At the end of the day, I really think she is fighting so hard because she thinks she can do the job better.
I don't agree. BUT she can certainly do the job better than McSame! AND none of our dems (accept maybe former-dem-imposter-Lieberman) is LIKE BUSH!!!! that is just a dumb thing to say.
blush...
should have been get ME flamed
I HATE david brooks. I really do. he sucks. big time.
time to give more to my candidate.
Clinton is the GOP's LAST lifeboat?
Uh, how about voter suppression?
How about vote fraud?
How about the tongue-baths for John "Commodore Decker" McSame from the Corporate Holodeck Media?
How about Rev. Wright and "Bittergate", which may turn out not to be so dead and buried once the Mighty Wurlitzer KNOWS it will be facing Obama and does not need to put any money into Clinton-bashing?
What if the Elephascists DO succeed in keeping the economy and the wars staggering along one step ahead of total, unspinnable collapse until Election Day?
I have three words for all the people who think that if Obama beats Clinton, he'll then sail serenely into the White House:
"Dewey Defeats Truman".
amended... I hate Maureen Dowd too.
actually- the whole freaking grey lady.
except the restaurant, movie, theater and book reviews.
the rest of the op-eddies and ediths can BITE ME
IvoryBill; unless Hillary can pull off a miracle, or it turns out Obama is a serial child molester, he's is going to be the nominee.
And WHEN he is, if you think that the political landscape 3-6 months from now is going to look like it does today, and if you think that John McCain and the people responsible for the unending, $3 billion dollar a week clusterfuck, and for our economy tanking, and for gas at or near $4 a gallon, etc, etc, can keep the general close enough to steal, or to feed to the Supremes, for them to kick McCain into the Oval Office, then you haven't been paying attention.
Feature this: A debate between Clinton and McCain. What's she going to go after him for; bad breath?
And then, one between Obama and McCain. Don't forget; our guy can think on his feet.
And best of all, he does NOT have blood dripping off his hands, up to his armpits. No authorizing vote to apologize for; no support for the surge, as of bush's last SOTU, a few short months ago. That means he can go after St. John the Coursestayer, fullbore.
If he wins both N.C. and Indiana, which states are both doable, then the pressure on her to get out will be unbearable, and when she goes down, so goes down the GOP'S last chance to salvage something out of this election. Obama's coattails will be a mile long. Figuratively speaking, there won't be enough republican senators left for a good round-pound with the Senate pages.
Conversely, if, by hook or crook, Hillary becomes the nominee, every time she opens her mouth about Iraq, the repubs will just dig up that 2002 vote; all of her pre-midterm statements; the clip of her applauding enthusiastically last January while bush peddled his last official batch of koolaid, and of course, her words of praise for McCain as (unlike Obama) good commander-in-chief material.
She is behaving as a republican. Moving to the right, to try to find the price-point where her supporters can still keep their denial-queen tiaras on, and fantasize that she's anti-war and progressive, while shreiking "misogyinist!" at those of us who INSIST on pointing to her unspinnable track record.
In her tactics and her positions, she has moved so close to the republicans, that, speaking as a lifelong democrat, AND as a former admirer of hers, I'm not sure I could hit the touch-screen for her without it turning my stomach.
Gator; not sure about NN. Where's it happening? But if I go and your and Hub show up, whatever happens three months from now, I'll "shout" you guys until you're too cross-eyed to drive. :o)
"Uh, how about voter suppression?
How about vote fraud?
How about the tongue-baths for John "Commodore Decker" McSame from the Corporate Holodeck Media?"
All par for the course for the GOP, no matter who gets the Dem nomination. So you're right, they have plenty of leaking lifeboats left.
"How about Rev. Wright and "Bittergate", which may turn out not to be so dead and buried once the Mighty Wurlitzer KNOWS it will be facing Obama and does not need to put any money into Clinton-bashing?"
I'd argue that Obama pretty well defused the wright controversy over the week it was a national story, and then turned it into an opportunity to discuss constructively how race and class intersect in America. Similarly, as many people as there were who were upset by Obama's comments on "bitterness," a lot acknowledged it for what it is: the truth about the intersection between class and wingnuttery.
So if the GOP and their MSM shills are stupid enough to give Obama more openings to bring up the subject of social and economic class, I'll be looking forward to it. 
"What if the Elephascists DO succeed in keeping the economy and the wars staggering along one step ahead of total, unspinnable collapse until Election Day?"
They'll definitely keep the wars going. They might even try to start a new one. And guess which NY Senator will vote to authorize it if they do?
The economy is a trickier issue for them. It's ugly now, but come autumn it's gong to be even worse. And even with the help of the MSM, the GOP will have a hard time pinning it on the Dems to those living outside Wingnutville.
"I have three words for all the people who think that if Obama beats Clinton, he'll then sail serenely into the White House:
"Dewey Defeats Truman"."
I don't see any Obama supporter saying that it'll be a cake-walk. That's Republican thinking. The two questions I'd ask liberals and progressives about Obama and Clinton are these:
1. Judging by how they've conducted their campaigns so far (finance, gaffes, handling smears, making their own attacks, etc.), who has the better shot at beating McCain in the general election?
2. One the two major issues where they substantially differ (i.e. the Middle East and domestic security), which of the two potential Dem nominees is closer (not an exact match) to your views on the topics?
Generally, I'd expect liberals and progressives to give the same answer to both questions.
Conservative concern trolls like Brooks and Bennett and our own representative, Peasant Sean, would give different answers to each question, and their answers would be the same for all of them. Although I'm sure they're always pleased to see liberals and progressives answer by whining: "what does it matter? We can't beat McCain no matter what."
Ah, true believers. They're so touching. *sniff*
"Ah, true believers. They're so touching. *sniff*"
Well, from the point of view of someone who's given up months before the general election, I suppose even the most cynical and realistic of us look like "true believers." Not providing any substantive rebuttal obviously makes that easier for you.
Since you don't seem to support any of the three remaining Presidential contenders, might you at least enlighten us as to who is the candidate of despair and hopelessness at this point? Nader is the obvious choice, but maybe you have someone else in mind.
(BTW, before you start complaining, once again, about how unfair I'm being here because you're so uniquely tired and downtrodden and sick of the system, you might first consider your own snarky and content-free response to two commenters that took the time to address your original post)
Perhaps this would be a good time to reiterate that I will vote, in November, for whichever of the two bland moderate Democrats that their party nominates.
I suspect that if Obama does win the nomination and the general election, I will be more content with his performance by 2012 than many of his true believers, because I won't have been expecting so much from him.
"Perhaps this would be a good time to reiterate that I will vote, in November, for whichever of the two bland moderate Democrats that their party nominates."
I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general, unless the margin between her and McCain looks like it'll be under 3%. This isn't because I'm an Obama "true believer", as you continue to claim (he's impressive, but he's still a politician). It isn't because I'm a misogynist, as Hillary's supporters would frame it. And it isn't because I plan on voting for McCain, because that's not happening either way.
It's mainly because of the arrogant disdain she shows for her liberal and progressive constituents, a characteristic I've been aware of since she became my Senator. I haven't heard similarly negative things from his Illinois constituents, so even without his ability to run a better campaign and his willingness to acknowledge that our Iraq and domestic security policies has been disasters, he'd still be ahead with me on that basis alone.
That doesn't mean I think Obama supporters shouldn't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, or vice-versa, or that people shouldn't vote for the Dem candidate against McCain. It just means that I don't see them as totally interchangeable. It doesn't take a "true believer" to see the differences between Hillary and Obama, but it does take a certain degree of romantic fatalism to ignore those differences.
A certain sort of USAmerican, distributed throughout all political persuasions, sees cynicism, or "romantic fatalism", or whatever label one wishes to use, as reprehensible. It seems that OtD belongs to that group.
"A certain sort of USAmerican, distributed throughout all political persuasions, sees cynicism, or "romantic fatalism", or whatever label one wishes to use, as reprehensible. It seems that OtD belongs to that group."
Back to the snarky false characterizations. Okay then...
First, before you make that kind of statement, you should really check your definitions. The terms "cynic" and "fatalist" cover two separate concepts (definitions here and here). So, one can be a cynic but not a fatalist, or a fatalist and not a cynic. One can also be neither (these are your starry-eyed idealists) or both (these are your bitterly frustrated idealists). I'll leave it to the readers to guess which you seem to be from your comments.
Far from finding cynicism reprehensible, I consider it healthy in a citizen. However, I do find fatalism pitiable. It's the philosophy of the serf, and whatever the level of establishment power arrayed against "USAians" (power I acknowledge as a cynic), most of us generally don't aspire to or accept that status as willingly (that's the "romantic" part) as you present yourself.
So yeah, I'll side with gator, who joined the DNC to try and reform it from within. And I'll side with amuseinc, who works for his local Dem organization to do the same thing. Both of them proven cynics on this site, but for from surrendering to fatalism.
I'm sure there'll be more superiority-tinged gloom and doom quips from you in other threads, IBW. I'm done with this one.
Let's begin to call her Hillary "let's nuke the whole Middle East" Clinton,
CluelessJoe,
I've already been doing it on talk radio. Get busy.
Start asking what favors Bill has promised the donors to his foundation.
What Cee said.
There is ONE MO-FO'ing bottomline to the question of who is most electable, Hillary or Obama.
It is this:
The goopers sure don't like Obama,
but does anyone think that republicans and independents would rather see Bill Clinton back in the white house?
In the general, to stop THAT, they would turn out at the polls like John McCain was Ronald Reagan.
honestly, for the good of the nation adn the democratic party we are better off if Mcain beat hillary...both of them will continue the worst of bushes policies, if hillary dose it, dems will get blamed and we will lose the house and senate durign the midterms. at least teh publics anger will be apropriatly amied if Mcain is president.
what mooglehums enitre lkast post said...who the fuck is sick of "this" conversation? obamarama is the last best hope for "saving" the world & our own country, QE mf'n D, some unforseen factor notwithstanding, imabe dustin off my oh'12 prosophecary predictions anyways...& kid charlemaign, aka, it's "true hopers", not believers, (simple right)
Commenting by HaloScan
