I think she is trying to reach voters in Pennsylvania who read this paper, and there are many of them.
You are really over-reacting. Do you see her hugging him?
What will you say when, not if, when, Barak Obama does the same interview?
Oh, and by the way, why is it very OK for Obama to Suck Up to Republicans and there values, but if Hillary talks to even one of them she is a SFB?
Understand what Scaife is.
He's not just some random, faceless newspaper publisher.
He is the renowned money-man behind much of the evil we've fought for the last 15 years.
He tried to destroy Mrs. Clinton when she was First Lady.
He tried to drive her husband out of office.
He called her a murderer.
A crook.
And a thief.
He then continued to work to destroy progressives causes and progressives themselves. In 2000. In 2004. And in 2006.
And immediately after the Senator's meeting with him commenced to trashing Al Gore again.
Of ALL Dems in the fucking country one would think that Senator Clinton would have a particular feeling about dealing with this devil. But instead of even addressing what he has done and continues to do, he gets a pass—as if she doesn't know that he more than anyone else will turn on her in a millisecond, not to mention gleefully do whatever he can to wreck the Democratic party.
Uh-uh. No pass on this. Not after how he turned on a dime and spat on Al Gore a day later.
“You know...just 'cause the devil puts down his pitchfork every once in a while—that doesn't make his ass an angel.”
I stand by it.
Scaife served the purpose of smearing Gore, and was likely paid for it.
Why?
1) Ensure Al don't decide to run (long shot but still Shill had to put him down).
2) Ensure Al don't influence Shil's superdelegates.
3) Buy influence with PA voters.
Life is simple, follow the money. Follow the power.
This is a simple story.
LM, all you say is true, but it's a given. This is a simple story.
Lectric Lady:
If she was just trying to reach the readers of that paper, she could have at least insisted that Lucifer Moneybags himself not be in the room.
The awful shit he helped foment in the 1990's did not just happen to Bill and Hillary Clinton. It happened to this country as a whole. Strike that. It was perpetrated upon this country as a whole.
While half our political class was chasing leads to indict the President and First Lady for murder/drug dealing/fraud/extramarital oral sodomy, and the other half was busily defending and shielding the good the administration had accomplished from that imbecilic shitstorm, real problems were ignored and allowed to fester.
Scaife is more than emblematic of what's wrong with this country: He's the nitrous in the Right Wing Loony Racer's tank. When he kicked into action, the stupidest, meanest, most destructive elements of what we now call political life in this country were elevated to positions of prominence. Ann Coulter is Scaifenstein's monster. And not the only one.
If Senator Clinton's experience in the Clinton White House should give her anything, it should be the authority to tell Scaife, of all people, to take his shit show and cram it up his urethra. Publicly.
Lectric; you got photos of Obama schmoozing with Scaife?
Or a link to his attending (as Hillary did) that FauxNews birthday bash back in 2006, where, presumably, she sang happy birthday to Bill O'Reilly and thanked him and the rest of TeamFox, for gangbanging her entire family (and the democratic party) for the whole ten years she was helping them celebrate?
I know he's appeared on Fox a time or two, but, it was an interview; he didn't go there to celebrate with them.
She's a political chameleon, and my 2c, since she thinks that she AND McCain make the cut for Commander in Chief, and NOT Obama, the people supporting her have lost their right to piss and moan about the progressives having a moral obligation to vote for her in the general, IF the democrats are politically suicidal enough to nominate her.
As always, you done good, LM. :o)
Ready to lead on Day One!
Three A. M. Phone Call!
Kissing ass on your erstwhile archenemy!
What a schtick.
Is there anything that she could do which her sycophants would not excuse?
No.
Obama is a loser. All your huffin and puffin is not going to change that.
Exactly LM. Exactly.
John Mccain, as an American military man, lost whatever respect I had for him at that moment. Ew. Last night when I saw her sitting there with him in that editorial board meeting, I was instantly horrified. How desperate can one be to make nice with someone so vile and so inconsequential as this "man". It was more than WTF! Fuck him and his readers..... and I agree.... say it publically.
But the evidence of his "not changing", was disclosed in his editorial about the meeting with hillary itself. It was as if he was just using the meeting with her to bait Obama into meeting with his board predicating his "endorsement" on that meetup. And then I had to wonder if that's why SHE met with him.... just to go after Obama. Or..... to get him to go after Obama the way he had the clintons. There's something more here behind her motivations than just some insane premise that his readers might in another fantasy land moment, vote for her.
Will Obama meet with him? Dunno. Doubt it given his shunning fox and all. Why SHOULD he meet with that newspaper? Wasted energy. He doesn't need this papers permission where Hillary for some reason does. Why is that?
No pass for hill and I agree with Mr. Stoopid too, in that is was not just done to her, but to the country.
This man IS NOT a friend to anyone with a “D” in front of his or her name, no matter how he portrays himself or what one may opportunistically think of him.
And, really THAT'S the bottom line here. Hillary is not a Democrat.
LM,
Another good one.
MHJ, you may well be right, though to anyone else the action smell of desperation. I wonder if Penn put HRC up to this and also if he has ever had any dealings with Scaife.
A lot of people defended the Clintons through all of the crap. It was shovelful after shovelful after shovelful. No more.
Oh sure its still a big pile of shit, but no more defending people who gladly take our help and shove it back in our faces as soon as they get some cool new friends.
I've been hanging around the pro-Hillary sites recently cause it is a more interesting form of group masochism, and I must say with all the linking to extreme rightwing sources and other tawdry comments, I am fully done thinking about her in this primary process.
This is more than a shrewd political move, it is a weird attraction to accept the one that abuses you. Obama has hung out with some people I don't agree with(and I'm not talking about Rev. Wright, he seems like and interesting guy at least), but it wasn't like McCain-Bush, or Clinton submitting to questioning from Scaife.
This country doesn't need a Tony Blair. It needs a leader.
It is said that "politics makes strange bedfellows," but this takes the damned biscuit.
First, McCain. It was an awful, nausea-inducing moment for me when I saw the photo and read the article in which he decided to shit his integrity out all over the floor and pledge fealty to his destroyer. Had it been me, I would have publicly sworn unrelenting war on Bush and everyone who had a hand in those shabby lies.
Now, Clinton. The Senator is just proving to me time and time again that she's fully capable of taking power in the White House - she's just as viciuos as any man, and just as willing to sacrifice her integrity to satisfy her Potomac jones. I swear, what is it with running for President that makes people start acting like people hopped up on China White?
Well, the saddest thing of the entire campaign so far has been that, until recently, we could defend the Clintons and consider that most GOP accusations during the 90s were just baseless crap, and I don't mean the Vince Foster lunacy but the ad hominem attacks on integrity, morality, honesty and the like.
With this campaign, she has ruined it all and has shown to everyone who can see that the right-wing moral criticism of the Clintons was absolutely spot on and was absolutely right.
Keep campaigning like she did was the most foolish thing to do; without this, she could still be seen as a more or less decent human being that can rightfully be defended against silly attacks...
I'm done with Senator Clinton. SC made me crazy, the Scaife embrace is the final straw.
Just like McCain--she'll do ANYTHING to win, include kiss the feet of her enemy.
How is that leadership?
Just askin'
Did Scaife endose her?
I don't think he did.
Hillary is delusional.
"Did Scaife endorse her?
I don't think he did.
Hillary is delusional."
There...that's better.
She might forgive and forget, but we won't.
Maybe there was a secret agreement that Scaife would try to do to Obama what he once did to her. After all, she knows better than anyone how well it worked. If it successds in shutting him down before Denver, fantastic. Otherwise, she can cynically argue to the superdelegates that Scaife's dirt has damaged Obama too much for him to be a viable candidate.
"I will do this thing you ask. In return, one day I will call upon you to do me a favor."
If someone asks Obama whether he'd ever meet with Scaife and why not, I hope Obama will say "of course not. He's poison."
I've said it before: Political Stockholm Syndrome, where overwhelming ambition drives one to embrace their worst tormentor. McSame is still the poster child, but with this photo op Hillary's giving him a run for his money
And Lectric Lady, when you see Obama sucking up to people like Rush Limbaugh, or making nice to the readers of Free Republic (or moronic bigots like jimbo, who after long deliberation decided that they fear a black President slightly more than a female one), we can talk about his flaws.
That's the kind of desperate decision we're talking about here: pandering to people who, for decades, have made no bones about detesting her in particular and liberals in general. As with McCain (whom she's said she prefers to Obama, I'll remind you), this incident tells us something very disturbing about her character, her political judgment, and her priorities.
Most of us can tell the qualitative difference between attending an editorial board meeting at a generic regional newspaper that happens to be conservative (many, if not most, are), and doing so at one owned and operated by one of your most prominent and long-standing slanderers (and sitting next to him at the meeting and allowing yourself to be photographed with him). Until you can do that yourself, Lectric Lady, it might be best to stop making excuses and whining about unfair treatment.
I think she is trying to reach voters in Pennsylvania who read this paper, and there are many of them.
lectric lady
Uh, no. The real newspaper in Pittsburgh, the Post-Gazette has a daily circulation of a little over 213,000. Sciafe's rag has a circulation of 150,000.
"I'm done with Senator Clinton. SC made me crazy, the Scaife embrace is the final straw."
-...and to the nitpickers, brat is correct.
Hillary did embrace Scaife.
Guess she didn't feel like rejecting and denouncing him.:-(
I am glad, glad, glad, to hear more and more progressive voices raised in utter scorn of Hillary Clinton.
And I am much enjoying the endorsements for Obama that keep coming in from influential democrats. :o)
It raises some questions about her CinC qualifications.
I mean, if she's happy to sit down and talk at length with one of her worst personal enemies, whose efforts have caused she and her family no end of grief and embarrassment, how do we know she won't sit down for tea with Osama bin Forgotten - er, Ladin.
It's just bad judgment.
It's not just McCain and Clinton. They're all three doing it.
This Political Stockholm Syndrome is exactly the reason I feel that cold fear each time Obama mentions reaching across the aisle to shake hands: I know he'll draw back a stump.
Stories about hiring Republicans for his cabinet? Terrifying. Joe Leiberman's his old pal? I'm gonna lose sleep over that. What's so hard to get when people TELL YOU they're going to fuck you over, then do it?
hiollary isn't a progressive, she is a "third way" dem...a republican that is a little less racist. its easy for her to embrace the far right as they have so much in common.
remember she has deeper ties to the theocrats then McCain dose...her may be even deeper then bushes.
Had it been me, I would have publicly sworn unrelenting war on Bush and everyone who had a hand in those shabby lies.
Then you likely have never experienced the kind of ambition that drives McStain, HRC and/or BHO. Neither have I. But someone in the throes of it will do ANYTHINg--you must understand, ANYTHING AT ALL--to achieve it.
Hillary is now cozy with Scaife and Fox news.
Did anyone see Rendel talking about how fair they are to the campaign?
Don't forget how much money the Scaife/Starr investigations cost ALL OF US!!
Good riddance Hillary. Take Bill and Chelsea with you.
Tanbark,
Check this out.
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.t...rys-
pennsy.html
"This Political Stockholm Syndrome is exactly the reason I feel that cold fear each time Obama mentions reaching across the aisle to shake hands: I know he'll draw back a stump."
"Stories about hiring Republicans for his cabinet? Terrifying. Joe Leiberman's his old pal? I'm gonna lose sleep over that. What's so hard to get when people TELL YOU they're going to fuck you over, then do it?"
tata
-Bill Clinton had a Republican in his cabinet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wil...i/
William_Cohen
"It raises some questions about her CinC qualifications.
I mean, if she's happy to sit down and talk at length with one of her worst personal enemies, whose efforts have caused she and her family no end of grief and embarrassment, how do we know she won't sit down for tea with Osama bin Forgotten - er, Ladin.
It's just bad judgment."
kenga
-C'mon Kenga!
Maybe Scaife met Hillary's preconditions
"This Political Stockholm Syndrome is exactly the reason I feel that cold fear each time Obama mentions reaching across the aisle to shake hands: I know he'll draw back a stump."
It's true they all have to do it, but I wouldn't put Obama into the Stockholm Syndrom category, any more than I would Bill Clinton for bringing in William Cohen.
At first I didn't like Obama's talk about unity and mending fences. I also thought it was wishy washy and naive. But after seeing his tightly run campaign in action, I'm getting a better idea of what he's up to. Obama's talking about bringing on competent Republicans and independents for one's cabinet to show his independence and ability to transcend party hackery and Boomer-era adversarialism for adversarialism's sake (although involving Lieberman would be a deal breaker). That's a message a lot of moderate and independent voters have been waiting to hear.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been actively embracing and tacitly endorsing her right-wing opponents and their policies, in a desperate scramble for votes. She's not associating with Murdoch and Scaife because of "unity" or "comity." She's doing it in order to fulfill her personal ambition. And more often than not, they backfire. There's a substantive difference between her misguided efforts and Obama's calculated ones.
(And yes, Obama does his milder and more competent version because of ambition, but that's not the sole reason. If it was, he'd be embracing the same sort of right-wing scum that Hillary and McCain have. And if it wasn't for Hillary, she'd tell them to take a flying leap)
I allow these candidates one, and only one, free pass on a big gaffe in the primary and again in the general. Edwards (my original choice) got it reluctantly when he chose to placate the thug Bill Donohue over Amanda Marcotte. Obama got it when he associated himself with the self-hating closet case Donnie McClurkin. But Hillary has exceeded her limit again and again and again.
Yes dear, and we should have learned from the last eight years that when the Republicans say "bipartisan" they mean "my way or the highway."
If we have not learned that, they will teach it to us again and again until we accept that they never, never mean to share power.
Yes dear, and we should have learned from the last eight years that when the Republicans say "bipartisan" they mean "my way or the highway."
Change that to the last 25 years, and you'll be closer to the mark. Obama knows that and Hillary knows that. But only one of them is successfully playing it to their own advantage.
Again, Obama isn't publicly kissing the asses of extreme right-wing partisans like Murdoch and Scaife. He isn't defending his disastrous vote for the neoconservative Iraq adventure, and following it up by voting for Kyl-Lieberman. He isn't endorsing McCain over a fellow Dem. And if he becomes President, I'm more and more confident that his definition of "bipartisan" will trump that of the Republicans, especially if the Dems get another Congressional majority.
Obama's far from my ideal candidate, but he knows where to draw the line and who his friends are. And even with that "handicap," he knows how to win.
"And if he becomes President, I'm more and more confident that his definition of "bipartisan" will trump that of the Republicans, especially if the Dems get another Congressional majority."
I also feel that Obama's stated willingness to put a relatively moderate Repub like Lugar or Hagel on his cabinet is a well-calculated strategy. I believe there is a significant swath of voters who are "sick of partisan squabbling" from both sides. They may not be all that well informed or have much of an interest in the issues -- they're just tired of all the ugliness and hatred.
These voters (there are many in my own family) are kind of like the neighbors in an apartment building where a couple downstairs has constant, shrieking fights. They don't really know why the fights are happening, whether it's domestic abuse, who's right or who's wrong... they're just tired of all the noise. They want to be able to get on with their lives in peace.
If Obama came out with some sort of hard line of "No Republicans can be trusted" or "We'll get them back for 8 years of abuse," that might please some progressives, but it would alienate even more of the "tired of bickering" voters. These are people whose brains have been pummeled insensate by the Fox noise machine, Limbaugh, Coulter, and so forth... and, in their view, Moore, Franken, Rhodes, etc. are just as bad.
Politics does make strange bedfellows. And progressives have to see how the deck is stacked at this point in time, given the behavior of the media. Still, there is a line, and Hillary seems determined to cross it at every opening.
My Republican colleagues refuse to accept the McSame embrace picture and toss it off to "Photoshopped."
Does anyone have the original photograph source that I can cite?
And if he becomes President, I'm more and more confident that his definition of "bipartisan" will trump that of the Republicans, especially if the Dems get another Congressional majority.
This is expecting the pitchfork-free devil to become an angel, to go back to the post. You are expecting the Republicans to behave differently than they have, than do, and than they will. They are not going to cooperate because you're tired of fighting. In fact, that is when they win.
You must, must, must stop thinking real bipartisanship is possible anymore.
"This is expecting the pitchfork-free devil to become an angel"
No, it's expecting the angel to take the devil's pitchfork out of his hands and, for once, ram it up the red devil's butt. If you'll look over what I've written above, I haven't said anything about expecting the Republicans to behave differently (mainly because, understanding the nature of that particular scorpion, I don't). But I do expect Obama's definition of "bipartisanship," which is more subtle but just as aggressive, to beat the GOP's if he wins.
Look at how Obama turned around the Wright controversy: the guy understands how to make lemonade from what seems to be a sour lemon. GOP legislators will go after President Obama at every opportunity, whether they're in majority or not, but Republican cabinet appointees who try to undermine President Obama will find themselves out of a job very quickly.
As for "real bipartisanship," the last time we saw that was 1941-1945. In the 35 years after that, there were some scattered good faith attempts at bipartisanship, but nothing that could really survive the absence of an existential national crisis. Starting with Reagan, the GOP gave up even trying. At that point, in a two party system, the Dems should have either given up as well, or redefined the term to their advantage. Bill Clinton made an arguably successful attempt to do the latter with Cohen after he was elected, but Obama's turning it to his advantage now.
Meanwhile, Hillary talks tough, but walks alongside Scaife and Murdoch.
Cee; thanks. A zinger!
And, can we say: Norman Hsu?
Because the republicans can. :o)
Yes dear, and we should have learned from the last eight years that when the Republicans say "bipartisan" they mean "my way or the highway."
No, they've said what they mean.
Date rape.
They didn't come out and say they intend to be the perps, on every occasion, but I'm comfortable assuming that as a subtext.
Tata - how the fuck do you explain Senators Obama and Lugar working together on non-proliferation issues such as securing loose radiological materials in former Soviet Republics?
It's unusual these days, but you know what? It happens.
Let me ask you this ... do you think it will happen more often, or less, if we insist on treating such instances as if they were zombies, to be shot in the head or decapitated by flung LPs on every single occasion?
“ if we insist on treating such instances as if they were zombies, to be shot in the head or decapitated by flung LPs on every single occasion?”
Kenga...anytime you can ease a “Shaun Of The Dead” reference into a comment you get a cap tip from me!
The point isn't to silence Repub pols, the point is to erode their base, to draw away even more moderate voters by having a or two moderate Republicans, the kind of guy who wouldn't pass for GOP in some states, on the staff. Of course it may be just as much marketing than anything else, and the question remains if anyone in the GOP would play a kind of "token bipartisan".
We excoriated McCain for that awful backtracking and sucking up to Bush after those intensely personal attacks on him in South Carolina in 2000...
I think McCain was not so distressed by the Bush attacks in 2000. He understood that the GOP-oppo-shit-slinging he received back then was not personal. It was business. That's just how the GOP dirty-tricksters game is played and he happened to be the one in position to receive it.
Also, McCain is a loyal GOP foot-soldier and he took one for the team because, ultimately, it resulted in a Republican president. Yes, McCain wanted to win. But the consolation prize, a republican president, was in keeping with some of his goals.
Tanbark,
Yes. They will also say Ng Lap Sen, Huang, Riady, yada yada. No thanks.
"Tata - how the fuck do you explain Senators Obama and Lugar working together on non-proliferation issues such as securing loose radiological materials in former Soviet Republics?"
Or McCain-Feingold, for that matter. Of course, that was before St. John fully drank the neoconservative's Hate Flavored Kool-Aid ("Now with More Personal Destruction!").
Good-faith bipartisan initiatives can still work on very specific issues which most non-politicians can agree on (reigning in loose nukes and campaign sleaze, yes; abortion not so much). It's good marketing and, if the politician puts the country before party and special interests, good governance. But it's become more and more of a rarity, and the initiatives shorter-term and narrower, since the GOP as a whole gave up on cooperating with the Dems unless it served their agenda.
"Does anyone have the original photograph source that I can cite?"
Not sure of the exact credit, but it's an original from the 2004 GOP Convention love-fest (here's another from the same series)
Some of Bush McCain photos have been altered by Photoshopping in things like sex toys, buttons, his hand on Bush's butt or other places. That's probably what your co-workers are referencing, but the one posted by LM is the real, pathetic thing.
And Rosali, I know what you're saying about McCain's understanding it was business and not personal, but I don't get all huggy and sell out my values to someone who's screwed me over in business, either.
When people fuck with your family, screw with your livelihood, work to get you tossed into jail, actually jail your friends and try to frame you for murder you don't break bread with them...
...you break a chair over their fucking heads.
tata actions and words, actions and words.
you focus on the canadtaes words (obama reachign across the isle, hillary retoric). I focus on their ACTIONS (obamas only bipartisan acts doen to give political cover for real progressive actions. hillary openly embracing the actions and ideas of soem of the worst of the far right).
go ahead and focus on adn belive in their words, but expect to get disapointed....i will only pay attention to their actions and get a much clearer picture.
Hillary would be a republican if she had the balls for it.
moonglum, all words and actions suggest that chairs should be broken over the heads of people both Democratic candidates collude with. It's not Hillary or Obama. It's both.
Obama til Denver,
Thanks for getting me on the right track to 2004. I found the original publication.
The picture is credited to Doug Mills of the NYTimes. It appeared in a story on August 21, 2004:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...xprod=permalink
Not that it will do much good with my colleagues. Denial is a powerful thing.
It's not just our country that Scaife enjoys ratfucking, he is also one of the shadowy figures trying to break up the Episcopal Church:
http://www.edow.org/follow/
No matter how you slice it, the man is evil.
"...you break a chair over their fucking heads.""
I'm more of the "shiv them while you're smiling and saying 'howdy-do'" school. As opposed to Hillary's "brandish the chair menacingly til they enter the room, at which point you put it down, hold it out for them to be seated, and have a nice chat" school. Or McCain's "let the other guy steal your chair and break it over your head while you ask for more" school."
"Hillary would be a republican if she had the balls for it."
Oh oh... so much for this thread. The only question now is which member of the Patriarchy Victimization Response Squad will arrive first to scold moonglum.
"moonglum, all words and actions suggest that chairs should be broken over the heads of people both Democratic candidates collude with. It's not Hillary or Obama. It's both."
I actually agree with this, Tata, but we're talking here about "Lesser-Evilism", and let's face it: Hillary has so far outpaced Obama in violating this particular catagory, it's not even remotely a race anymore. I wish I liked or trusted Obama a lot more than I did, and I'm fully setting myself up to be disappointed by him, but there's simply no contest. Comparing the Clintons' recent betrayals with his is like comparing mass murder to jaywalking. And I say that as one who's been genuinely offended by some of Obama's less-than noble choices over the past 6 months, not least of them the afore-mentioned Donnie McClurkin.
"I think McCain was not so distressed by the Bush attacks in 2000. He understood that the GOP-oppo-shit-slinging he received back then was not personal. It was business."
Ok, I've long since forgotten the sources, but I distinctly recall reading at the time that McCain was indeed more than a little resentful of Bush's ratfucking and even confronted the little shit about it, who contemptously dismissed it all as "just business". But McCain certainly did not see it that way. (Given his temper, Ego and sense of entitlement, does this really seem unlikely?) Does this ring a bell with anyone else?
No, John, you're talking about lesser evilism.
Well, this whole election is essentially about the lesser evil, isn't it? The Democratic Party "leadership" as it currently stands has to rank as almost the most worthless collection of crooks, charlatans, toads and self-serving filth in practically the entire history of politics. And here we are, trying to get the useless pieces of shit elected once again because the alternative is worse. Let's not pretend otherwise, for Chirst's sakes.
"which member of the PVRS will arrive first to scold moonglum"--OtD
ha ha ha LOL...oh, right you are, boyz.
It's not like teh wimminz are PEOPLE or anything.
Please, both of you, go spout that shit over on Shakesville. The resident Furies will eat your livers. With some fava beans. And a nice Chianti. And I'll applaud them for it.
You both sound like a pair of overprivileged pseudo-progressive frat rats smirk-yakking about how "We iz just too full of Teh Kewl for you old bitches." Thanks for demonstrating why I like Obama better than I like his supporters.
Who are you planning to throw under the bus next? Wage-earning working stiffs like me, maybe?
I'll vote for your candidate in November if the Democrats nominate him, but your smirky mannerisms do NOT make good advertising for him.
John D--I agree, except the Dems are not THE most worthless bunch; don't forget the Elephascists.
Bill: Well, I did say "almost the most worthless. Heh, heh. And indeed they'd get the top spot for that particular, er, "honor"...were it not for the Rethuglicans. I do agree there.
Looks like IBW is first on the spot.
Now being a feminist myself (though not the humorless v1.0 Boomer type), I would have chosen "guts" instead of "balls." However, I understand that both terms are being used as metaphors, and really don't have a lot to do with actual intestines or testicles (respectively). Similarly (in reference to an earlier thread), I understand that being able to throw a baseball pitch isn't a serious qualifier to be President, MSM contentions to the contrary.
But there is a pro-Hillary (sorry, pro-Clinton ... pro-Mrs. Clin ... Sorry! pro-Ms. Clint ... SORRY! pro-Senator Clinton) contingent here that assumes the liberal readers here aretoo stupid to make such obvious distinctions.
So when I saw moonglum's unfortunate choice of words, I had to laugh. Not because I agree with moonglum's phraseology, but because I knew it would bring someone along in short order shortly to call all Obama supporters misogynists.
It's funny, I have yet to see Hillary's supporters on GNB being branded as racist victimizers for criticizing Obama. To be sure, Obama has provided a lot fewer opportunities for them to criticize him, but I don't think it would occur to most Obama supporters I've seen on GNB to respond that way.
Anyway, thanks for demonstrating my point, IBW. Now I'll sit back and watch as thread deteriorates into yet another "pie fight" between moonglum and Hillary's identity politics apologists (or not. I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised).
Bring it down, people...and lay off the sexist shit. This is about Scaife, ugly opportunism and the VRWC—not nads.
I'm not a fella you wanna get on the bad side of about this.
That said, Fuck Richard Mellon Scaife and the horse he shtupped on the road that led us here.
I DON'T think Obama or the majority of his supporters are misogynists.
However, the ones who are either misogynistic, or just don't understand how to avoid giving that impression, or just don't care because they are just too full of Teh Kewl to worry about what all those unkewl wimminz and their not-macho-like-us-Kewl-Doodz male supporters think or feel, seem to find their way onto these blogs.
Reading these blogs has taught me many disturbing things about people I mistook for kind, decent folks.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Democratic nominee (probably Obama at this point) needs to put that Bush-McCain hug everywhere, all the time.
As for the Clinton-Scaife thing, given the many millions if not billions of dollars he put into defaming and ruining her husband and herself in the '90s, I am just gobsmacked. It reeks of desperation and opportunism. And one of the ways it can backfire on her is by reminding everyone that she won't stand up to those Pig People (h/t Drifty) who really need to be stopped.
The only reason now that I would vote for Clinton is that she's still better than McSame. Even then, the thought of her handlers getting big roles in her administration gives me pause.
I just haven't seen a lot of true misogyny here from the non-trolls, IBW. Not from moonglum, who's "guilty" of nothing more than using a casual for courage. Not from Wengler, whose crime was pointing out that Bush isn't the only candidate who meets the ridiculous MSM criteria of tossing a baseball. Not from amuseinc, who has the temerity to point out the demographics of the Hillary supporters he sees in his Dem party office. And not from tanbark, at least not since the comments that provided a pretext for his ban (I didn't see those).
What I have seen here, every time Hillary is criticized for yet another gender-neutral political gaffe like the Scaife meeting, is her supporters claiming that she's being targeted mainly because she's a woman. Even in obvious cases like this one, they jump on terms like the one moonglum used to distract from the real issue: that their candidate is constantly messing up and betraying what's supposed to be her core liberal constituency. I understand her supporters' reluctance to face such facts, but jumping on any pretext for a pie fight is not the way to handle it.
As I've said before, we in the liberal blogosphere can do much better in discussing the primary than harping on the idiotic MSM theme of identity politics. The Obama supporters here have done a good job not playing the "race card" against the Hillary supporters here. I'd just like to see a lot less of the lazy "gender card" played as well, and a lot more focus on the substantive issues that the pundits and trolls try desperately to avoid.
(LM, my comment at 1:07PM was an attempt to defuse moonglum's "balls" statement before it turned into the usual much ado about nothing. Hope this helps stop the pie fight before it starts. I wouldn't want to get hit in the head with a chair or anything )
Now let's follow Captain C back to the issue at hand.
When people fuck with your family, screw with your livelihood, work to get you tossed into jail, actually jail your friends and try to frame you for murder you don't break bread with them...
...you break a chair over their fucking heads.
that's how it goes down on my rez LM. but we're like tribal and shit. maybe if we were more civilized we might learn how to lick the hands that slapped us.
For all the Hillaryites chanting the "they're the same!" mantra, here's one difference:
Obama has doubled Clinton's fundraising in March; $40 million to $20 million, with most of it coming from small donors. In fact, he has 1.3 million donors so far in the campaign; as one dem strategist puts it: "That is a ground force unlike anything we've ever seen."
Pretty good "hinting". :o)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/.../
D8VQL5500.html
captain c:
Not to worry: Obama is going to hang the war, and "Bush III", around McCain's neck like a turd-lei.
Something that Clinton, with her track record, cannot do. :o)
"...That said, Fuck Richard Mellon Scaife and the horse he shtupped on the road that led us here."
So THAT explains why the horses in Pittsburgh are fast and always nervous.
Well hellfire and damnation!
I just saw the above the fold shout-out.
Thanks, LM!
nahh, it was a doubble entranda. much like leberman..if he where christian he would be a republicna...if hillary where male, and had more guts she would eb a republican. (she woudl require both...bill didn't have the balls to call himslef a repbulican either..jsut this fucking DLC style republican lite) I honestly respect McCain far morht then hillary...don't get me wrong, he is an insane warmongering moron who is wrong about ever major issue we face....but at least hes open with it, he lets the world see that he is an insane warrmongering moron. hillary pretends to be a progresive, pretends to want to help move us forward, al;l the while beign an insane warmongering moron....its sad really that so many people fall for her Schtick
Captain C at least McSame is honest about the evil eh will do..hillary will do the same acts...get it blamed on dems and send the house and senete to teh republicans in two years....
I'm thinking of an ad, maybe from a 527, goes something like this:
VISUAL:
Piggy pic of Karl Rove morphing into smug Shrubby, either in black and white or unflattering color. Perhaps with various 2000-vintage headlines from the SC primary floating by.
VOICE-OVER:
In the 2000 South Carolina Primary, Karl Rove and George Bush, desperate for a win, attacked John McCain's family. They even spread vicious rumors about his 9-year old daughter.
How does John McCain feel about this?
cut to VISUAL:
The Hug, in full shining color.
VOICE OVER:
If John McCain won't stand up for his own daughter, do you really think he'll stand up for you?
C; I likes it.
Let's do it. :o)
Captain C and tanbark,
Great idea. It should be worth at least a few seconds of St. McCain rage during the general election.
Refined it a bit to fit in 30 seconds. I put in the better Dem candidate, but it could work with Hillary, too (except for the "standing up for you" part ).
VIS: various 2000-vintage headlines from the SC primary ... unflattering BW pic of smug Shrubby morphing to Piggy pic of Karl Rove
VO: In the 2000 GOP primary, a desperate George Bush had Karl Rove attack John McCain.
VIS: Cute pic of McCain's daughter on a mounted family album BG. Animation smears of muddy brown paint
VO: They even spread vicious rumors about his 9-year-old daughter. How does John McCain feel about this?
VIS: The Hug, in full shining color (HOLD for 2 beats, with slightly off key "Hail to the Chief" over, fading under VO)
VO: If John McCain won't stand up for his own child, do you really think he'll stand up for YOU?
VIS: Pan across happy Obama family photo, full screen
VO: This time, choose someone who WILL.
VIS: "GNB for Obama" logo board, with URL and Creative Commons logo
(Oh, and who needs 527 money when there's YouTube and talented professionals like LM who'll slap this together just for the epic LULZ?)
OTD: :o) :o) :o)
We'll run it up the flagpole at Faux and see if it gets a salute! :o)
all we need is McCain to lose his temper on TV once...we need a dead zone moment with him and teh gop is compleatly sunk.
We'll be seeing a lot of high quality amateur ads hitting YouTube this year, and the lazy MSM will showcase the best of them on-air to fill the news hole (their love of cost-free content exceeds their hatred of the blogosphere).
As important as the primaries are, there's no time like the present for supporters of both Hillary and Obama to put together ads in anticipation of their candidate going up against McCain.
And on second thought, this ad wouldn't work with Hillary in the general, because she's essentially done the same bowing and scraping to ultra-conservatives that McCain has. Which is kind of her problem to begin with.
"all we need is McCain to lose his temper on TV once...we need a dead zone moment with him and teh gop is compleatly sunk."
It'll happen sooner or later. McCain is used to a world where he only has to hold down his rage and smile when TV cameras and standard camcorders are around. He saves the tantrums for situations he controls. But what with all the video phones out there, that control is severely cut down. His staff can have regular cameras confiscated at events, but they're not going to get the phones.
It'll be another contrast we can highlight: cool as a cucumber Obama vs. bad tempered McCain. If the Dems choose the right nominee, the general election could be a whole lot of fun.
Nice strategy, except--weren't some people saying the Chimp would lose HIS infamous temper in 2000 and deliver the election to Gore gift-wrapped?
And then it turned out the Chimp had JUST enough self-control to keep his focus on winning? 
The only way John McCain becomes relevant in this campaign is if we're brickdumb enough to nominate Hillary.
She's the only politician in america who can rescue the republican party.
She'll turn a potential tsunami into a coin-flip.
What's she going to go after McCain for: his tie selection?
Indeed, Bill. We have yet to see a major public tantrum from Bush, astonishingly enough, and if he has been able to force his rage down in public, I don't doubt that McStain can as well. Not that it couldn't happen, but I don't think it's wise to count on it.
I don't doubt that McCain wanted to kill Bush with his bare hands during the nasty little shit's ratfucking of him in 2000, and if he was able to keep a tight rain on his (justifiable) fury then...
Tanbark is half right. Clinton would have a tough time beating McSame.
But so would Obama. Never underestimate the demonic skill of the GOP ratfuckers and their love slaves in the Corporate Holodeck Media, or the gullibility of the USAmerican public.
Remember 1988?
Remember Dukakis? Cool, calm, collected, relatively young?
Remember Bush Senior? Volatile fumblemouthed old fart ex-flyboy?
Remember Willie Horton? [Reverend "Jerekhan" Wright's remarks could be twisted to fill that role here.]
Remember who won?
One of the great things about Obama is that, not only does he see the elephant in the room, he is not afraid to talk about it. In this case, the elephant in the room is the broken military and the continuing war (s).
In the first debate he can say, "Senator, you have talked about being in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary. How will you achieve that? Will you institute a draft or send back these fine young people on their nineth, tenth, eleventh tours of duty? Which is it Senator? A draft or ten or fifteen tours of duty? Which one Senator? I'm sorry, Senator, that does not sound like straight talk to me."
Believe me, if the "D" word is mentioned, people will start to sit up and take notice--and that is not good for McCain.
joe frantic
Scaife is horrible -- and so are lots of world leaders. We will expect our new president to interact with them and to get the best deal possible with them.
If you don't like Hillary Clinton's policies, then disagree with them.
But please don't dismiss her based on who she gets to support her candidacy.
MS can i dissmis her beacuse she is part of the same controlling cult as Scaife.
Commenting by HaloScan
