May 24, 2008
OMG TeH BUTTSECKS!!!1!!1!!!
Shit, someone be up and leaking actual hard copies of the homosexual agenda again.
May 23, 2008
Dianne Feinstein is a political genius
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a Clinton booster, told The Post, "I am one that believes that if it works out that Senator Obama is the nominee, the strongest ticket would be Senator Clinton as vice president. No question in my mind....
"The weight of the states he carried versus the states she carried. It's different. And, therefore, if you combine them both, you've got the best electoral path."
The states Clinton carried plus the states Obama carried add up to... all of them.
You heard it hear first, folks. Obama/Clinton: 538 electoral votes in November.
Okay, listen. I don't care if pundits and Clinton surrogates want to talk about placing Clinton on the ticket as Obama's running mate. But for the love of god and all that is holy, will they please stop calling it the "dream ticket?"
It's not the damn dream ticket. The dream ticket is two dynamic, powerful candidates who clearly work well together and would present an amazing compliment of skills, ability, and rhetoric. They would be two people who clearly get along, have open admiration for each other, and would have inarguably wanted to participate in the amazing process of democracy together.
When two people love each other and have built a loving foundation of companionship together, they talk about the perfect day they promised their eternal love to each other. That is called a dream wedding. When someone knocks up their girlfriend and their father explains to them that their very life depends on their little girl's baby having a daddy, that's called a shotgun wedding.
See, sorry to bust out the Scholastic My First Dictionary here, but dreams are usually defined as a thing someone wants. Most people do not "dream" of being forced to do something they don't want to do. Everyone with more than a single brain cell knows the two of them don't want to be running together, and anyone with even half a brain cell knows they would never be compatible partners in the White House. Clinton has flat-out said she doesn't think Obama's qualified to be president. Obama is vehemently opposed to the methods of almost every person on Clinton's top staff.
Obama/Clinton is not the fucking "dream ticket." It's not the "unity ticket." It's the shotgun ticket.
Speaking of being committed
If you were completely nuts, or perhaps reduntantly a blogger on TalkLeft, you might suggest that because Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, he should receive zero votes in the popular vote count, as well as zero delegates for Michigan.
Uh-huh, yeah. That's great. So anyway, here's the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, who... yes, I believe has slightly more authority than Jeralyn Merritt or Harold Ickes vis-a-vis the rules of the Democratic Party, explaining, directly to the voters of Michigan, that they should vote for "uncommitted" if they want to vote for Obama, Biden, Richardson, or Edwards.
So, via the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, votes for "uncommitted" were votes for one of four candidates... two of whom have now endorsed another; the last of the four receiving a single-digit percentage of the vote in every ballot he appeared on.
But no, clearly none of these delegates are meant for Obama. That would be, you know, not fucking insane.
Lots of numbers in my mind
I'm really torn between which allegedly-backed-by-numbers argument is sillier at this point: that six months before the election and with the Democratic primary not yet decided, it's clear that Hillary Clinton would be "more electable" than Barack Obama, or that six months before the election and with the Democratic primary not yet decided, the only way Obama can win the general is if Clinton is his running mate. MyDD, as you can imagine, is more than happy to provide both. It's funny to see the "Hillary will still be the nominee" and "Hillary has to be VP" arguments on the exact same damn page. Sorry, did I say funny? I meant Jesus Christ please stop the stupid now.
What's bizarre is that Jerome Armstrong points out in his own post why these numbers are ridiculous: because, angered over their candidate of choice losing, Clinton supporters are by a vastly wider margin less willing to say they'd vote for Obama in the general than Obama supporters, who already know it's a meaningless question, are willing to say they'd vote for Clinton. Even the most casual idiot would recognize that, six months out and emotions running high-to-psychotic, such polls are inaccurate.
The irony is that I think these numbers are completely inverse to reality: when Obama becomes the nominee a large chunk of Clinton supporters are going to have to accept reality and choose a progressive agenda over spite, while Clinton usurping the nomination from Obama at this point would probably fracture the Democratic Party for a decade.
May 20, 2008
Oh thank you sweet Jeebus
The downside of this is that this means Russ Davies will likely leave on the most grand note he can fabricate, almost guaranteed to be in the form of a three-episode "oh my god I am speaking directly through Rose Tyler who I will resurrect because god damn you all she is actually a good character because I say so oh god Doctor why can't you love MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" arc.
But then the guy who wrote "Blink" takes over and we can have a good television show again.
Bill Kristol has still never heard of Google
You know, I keep saying this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears. Members of my family work at the New York Times. I know they have fact-checkers. I have met them personally.
The best I can imagine here is that Kristol literally turns in his pieces at the exact moment the fact-checkers all have to go to the bathroom. If I get any direct response to this theory from my contacts on the inside I'll be sure to let you all know.
Seriously... just... just shoot me now.
There's going to be five more months of this. I hope you all understand that.
May 19, 2008
Wow, they actually made it a whole three days
Oh look, John Edwards is gay again, tee hee.
Clinton Superiority Watch, part infinity+
Posts like are simply infuriating, and ironically are exactly why this so-called "unity ticket" would fail miserably.
During Obama's 11-state streak, the Clinton campaign shifted to a subtle proposal that everyone should vote for Clinton, because of course she'll make Obama her VP and then everyone will be happy. Now that Obama has effectively won the primary, the same campaign and many of the same supporters are demanding that Obama has to pick Clinton, or even more offensively, insisting that Obama running with Hillary is the only way Obama will win and/or satisfy the "will of the voters."
In other words, we've gone from the argument that Obama is a less important person than Hillary and should concede to what her and her supporters want.... to... Obama is a less important person than Hillary and should concede to what her and her supporters want.
Shakesville has done an amazing job covering the odious, and depressingly frequent amount of sexism levied in the primary. But this that has nothing to do with sexism; it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with a staggering aura of superiority that the Clinton side of the primary has shown no intention of admitting, or rejecting. There is no unity ticket because there is still no supporting of Obama here. "Of course I'll support whoever the nominee is" doesn't cut it- even though this particular post doesn't even agree to that. There is no accepting that (no matter what Jerome Armostrong says) more people voted for him. There is, quite frankly, no acknowledgement that Obama actually earned the position he's in. And if there ever is, it's with an asterisk.
And until that happens- until it's universally accepted that this is about Obama now, and how best he can be elected president- not what's best for Hillary Clinton- there is no "unity" to be had.
Nearly everything said against Obama in the nomination fight against Clinton has been in the context of Obama not "deserving" to defeat Clinton. He's won every metric imaginable against her, and yet his winning has been labeled a "coronation" by prominent Clinton pushers. Because of the Florida and Michigan issue and some clever math with the vote counts, Obama's victory against Clinton is "not legitimate" or at the very least "not decisive." I found myself in a fight this weekend with a family member who said that Obama was "unfair" to "take" the nomination from Clinton when he was so much younger and could have easily waited to run- see, it's Hillary's turn!
Oh, and let's not forget what's so obvious now... Obama needs Clinton. Huh. However did he wipe his ass before Clinton came along, don't you know.
Regardless of who you think is the "better" person, or candidate, or politician- regardless of the venemous rhetoric spewed by both camps in this fight- regardless of your feeling on each candidates' positions on various issues- the condescension toward Obama's achievements after all of this is insulting. Until Clinton supporters can start legitimately discussing what would benefit the Obama campaign outside the context of how it benefits the Clinton campaign, then claims of wanting "unity-" something that suggests an actual equality among the candidates- are a fraud.