Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Jeebus, they all just hate her, don't they?

I liked this little twist in the Times story on how the Dems have decided to allow the name of the candidate who actually got the most Democratic votes in nomination:

As a Tribute, Democrats Will Place Clinton’s Name in Nomination at the Convention

Her name will not be on the general election ballot this fall, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential candidacy will receive one final tribute when her name is formally placed into nomination at the Democratic convention.

The symbolic move...

WWTSBQ? Again, again, again, again, again.

I return the feeling, with interest. I hate the press.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Gidget Commando's picture
Submitted by Gidget Commando on

Of the Precious to allow her to exercise her RIGHT. Pardon me whilst I hurl again at the stench of excessive arrogance in this narrative.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

just like she was a real candidate and all.

Wasn't she just the cutest little thang?

Now we can excuse the ladies, break out the whiskey and cigars, and get on to the important business.

/snark

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

It's a courtesy granted by "progressive" men, the so-called good guys (think: "benevolent" dictators). And here you women and girls thought you were people! Ha!

Honestly, part of me feels Obama purposely fucked with Party tradition, denying the first woman to win a primary or a caucus (let alone the greatest number of votes) equal treatment, to boost himself via anti-HRC venom, the fuel of his fanbase. When you have a campaign rooted in batshit hate, what else are you going to do to encourage morale?

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

a win for the die hard "Hillary holdouts" and a ray of hope for the democratic process will morph into a mere footnote on the convention playbill.

I still can't get upset. Obama is in a dead heat w/ McCain in the polls, he's on vacation (big no no) and the Georgia/Russia fandango highlights his greatest weakness (at least in my mind) foreign policy. Obama's issued one statement re Georgia/Russia and went back to gathering seashells. Not good, not smart and certainly not presidential. If he can't answer the phone at 3:00 p.m., how the hell is he going to answer it at 3:00 a.m.?!

I love this job!

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

August vacation that didn't turn out real well.

This vacation, IMO, reinforces the opinion many have of him, that he's a lot like Bush. He is in the middle of a high stakes campaign, that will forever determine the future course of our nation(as BIO likes to remind us), shouldn't he be more worried about the campaign?

And not to turn this into a Obama/Clinton comparison, but do you honestly think she'd be on vacay right now? And don't forget, he just went on vacation during April, wasn't it, right before a string of big primary losses.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

David Shuster at the top of Hardball, filling in for Matthews:

"Hillary gets her way, and Democrats decide a little more blood on the floor won't hurt anybody. Oh, really? Well, who has the mop for this one?"

Never thought I'd wish Chris Matthews would come back from vacation to restore some semblance of fairness to his program.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"Never thought I’d wish Chris Matthews would come back from vacation to restore some semblance of fairness to his program."

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

We saw this same ginning up of HillaryHate before every primary.

They haven't done a haka for a while, but this one will be huge.

HUGE

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The prevailing wisdom might well be that the convention is a feelgood of Unity.

The media will be torn between its desire to paint the Democratic party as full of whining special interests and its desire not to talk about legitimate progressive concerns about Obama and its desire to create a Hallmark moment out of Obama's ascent to the White House.

My bet is that the prevailing narrative will be the passing of the torch from the tired, old, partisan, scandal-ridden politics of the Clintons to the young, hopeful, post-partisan, multi-culti politics of Obama. They will note undercurrents of dissent, but also how surprisingly classy (after her nasty kitchen-sink campaign, of course) the Clintons were (modulo one or two lines that might get twisted around to be portrayed as lukewarm support).

They may draw a contrast to the highlighting of Kerry as a war hero and Obama as a "peace hero" (that's for bonus vomit points), and will note that this time it's the Repubs who are putting up a war hero. Kill me now.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

A scorpion asks a frog to carry him across a river.

The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well.

The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them.

When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

They can't help it, it's their nature

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

There's a Confluence Park in Denver. Somebody thinking ahead?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

1980

With Bill Clinton's loss of the Governorship, we'll be through with the Clintons once and for all.

1992

The bimbo eruptions mean Clinton's campaign will die in NH, we'll be through with the Clintons once and for all.

1994

The rise of the Republican Congress, in 1996 we'll be through with the Clintons once and for all.

1998

If Bill Clinton would just resign, we'd be through with the Clintons once and for all.

2000

Bill will be leaving office next year and Rudy is going to save NY from Hillary, we'll be through with the Clintons once and for all.

2001

Hillary will be just another lowly Senator and will alienate her colleagues because everyone hates her, we'll soon be through with her once and for all.

March 2008

If that stupid bitch would just quit, we'd be rid of her once and for all.

June

The DNC has given the nomination to Obama and Clinton conceded, we'll be rid of her once and for all.

August

After the convention, we'll be through with her once and for all.

space's picture
Submitted by space on

It should go without saying that most Democrats don't hate Hillary Clinton (But feel free to flog that strawman).

What they do hate is the insistence of a (thankfully diminishing) minority of Hillary supporters who insist on elevating What Is Best And Fairest For Hillary above the interests of the party, the country, and indeed the planet.

I was an Edwards supporter. I voted for him. He won delegates. And recent revelations aside, I couldn't give a flying fuck if he was on the ballot at the convention.

Mind you, I am not objecting to Hillary being on the ballot. If it will help party enthusiasm, fantastic. But if it doesn't help the party, the rest of us shouldn't be held hostage by a bunch of whiners.

It is important to remember what the convention is for: preparing the party to win elections in November. Hillary is not up for election in November. Stroking the egos of the Clintons and their supporters (and in this case it appears that it is the supporters who are primarily driving this) should be subordinate to the primary goal of winning elections.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

"It should go without saying that most Democrats don’t hate Hillary Clinton (But feel free to flog that strawman)."

It's always great sport and satisfaction to defeat an argument no one ever made. What's been posted here, repeatedly, though, is the media and Dem establishment hatred of the Clintons. If the Dem voters / supporters hated them, WJC would not have been a 2-term president and HRC would not have gathered 18 million or so votes. Actually, I would argue that the more the media and the Dem establishment pile on them, the more people support them because if there is one thing Americans are sensitive to, it's fairness or lack thereof.

"What they do hate is the insistence of a (thankfully diminishing) minority of Hillary supporters who insist on elevating What Is Best And Fairest For Hillary above the interests of the party, the country, and indeed the planet."

Projecting much? Where is the evidence of said generalized hatred beyond David Shuster and his ilk and DK?

"I was an Edwards supporter. I voted for him. He won delegates. And recent revelations aside, I couldn’t give a flying fuck if he was on the ballot at the convention.

Mind you, I am not objecting to Hillary being on the ballot. If it will help party enthusiasm, fantastic. But if it doesn’t help the party, the rest of us shouldn’t be held hostage by a bunch of whiners."

Boy, talk about not getting it. It does not matter what you think or want or care about. What matters is fairness. Not having HRC on the ballot was a major departure from established practice without justification.

Having her on the ballot is not a courtesy or a special favor extended to her. It's standard practice. The fact that this should even be negotiated is what is extraordinary.

There is a difference between whining and pointing out that someone is singled out for derogatory treatment... a difference which escapes you, obviously.

"It is important to remember what the convention is for: preparing the party to win elections in November. Hillary is not up for election in November. Stroking the egos of the Clintons and their supporters (and in this case it appears that it is the supporters who are primarily driving this) should be subordinate to the primary goal of winning elections."

And winning elections tends to work best if you have people voting for you. IT does not work so well if you go out of your way to insult core constituencies of your own party by departing from established practice and other niceties.

Submitted by lambert on

Of course, with the straw man right there in the lead, it wasn't hard. But it was still fun to watch.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

space's picture
Submitted by space on

1. There is no question that certain elements in the media have had a bizarre and unhealthy obsession with the personal lives of the Clintons. That being said, the Clinton's relationship with the media is complex and they are really the only Democratic politicians, besides Obama, to get the star treatment since JFK and RFK. In many ways they have benefited immensely from the attention.

2. How the Clintons relate to the media is irrelevant to the convention issue.

3. The claim that the Dem establishment hates the Clintons is both wildly and comically delusional and par for the course at Correntewire. Newsflash, the Clintons and their backers ARE the Dem establishment, or at least had been for the past 15 years.

Who do you think has had more power within the party besides the Clintons, McAulliffe, Schumer, Emanuel, and Ickes? Not to mention the DLC and high profile members like Ford and Bayh? These people all LOVE the Clintons and either were firmly in her corner during the primaries or remained neutral with extremely good relations.

Even Obama supporters such as Ted Kennedy, Daschle, and Richardson have all worked closely with the Clintons in the past and supported Obama because they preferred Obama, not out of hatred for Hillary.

Clinton hatred within the Dem establishment? Please.

4. "There is a difference between whining and pointing out that someone is singled out for derogatory treatment… "

Yes there is. And this is whining.

I don't give a fuck about Obama. I don't give a fuck about Hillary. These people are wealthy, egomaniac politicians. All of them.

We have REAL problems in this country. REAL problems. Have you been paying attention to McCain in the past week? Keeping that fucker out of the White House is a REAL problem. Hillary getting insufficient credit for her "groundbreaking" campaign? Are you fucking shitting me? This is NOT a real problem.

Again, I'm not arguing against a roll call with Hillary on the ballot. I'm saying that it doesn't fucking matter. It is WHINING.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

"That being said, the Clinton’s relationship with the media is complex and they are really the only Democratic politicians, besides Obama, to get the star treatment since JFK and RFK. In many ways they have benefited immensely from the attention."

If by "star treatment", you mean 15 years or smearing where no rumor was absurd enough or carried by the least credible characters, then, you're probably right.

Do yourself a favor and go watch The Hunting of the President. That will tell you something about the relationship between the media and the Clintons, since you can't tell the difference between the treatment they get and the treatment Obama got.

"How the Clintons relate to the media is irrelevant to the convention issue."

Context is everything and media treatment does create said context.

"The claim that the Dem establishment hates the Clintons is both wildly and comically delusional and par for the course at Correntewire."

Lame attempt at substance-free insult... you're not helping your case here. I'd like to see examples with links and quotes of the wild and comical delusion... and BTW, no one's forcing you to endure our collective state of wild and comical delusion.

To your point: the Dem establishment loves ATMs and the Clintons were VERY good at doing that in the 1990s, with people like Vernon Jordan... boy did the Republicans hate it when corporate money would suddenly flow towards Democratic coffers instead of their because WJC ran a rather conservative economic platform of fiscal / financial stability which promoted investments... the Clintons took a lot of !@#$ for that from the Left, BTW, because these policies were centrist and not truly progressive... that was the initial accusation against HRC (She's too centrist and a corporate shill!!).

But then there is a slight problem... no one can control the Clintons and that has always been a source of gripe within the Dem establishment. So, faced with a choice between HRC and BO, the new ATM in town, the young guy that might (emphasis "might") be easier to control and the one to bring in all the shiny new voters, a choice was made. A lot of established Dems then became turncoats, including those who had benefited from the Clintons *cough* Richardson *cough*

As to your point 4, typing in all caps does not magically turn a vituperation into a solid argument. But, in my comical and wild delusion, I'll address it anyway:

"We have REAL problems in this country. REAL problems. Have you been paying attention to McCain in the past week? Keeping that fucker out of the White House is a REAL problem. Hillary getting insufficient credit for her “groundbreaking” campaign? Are you fucking shitting me? This is NOT a real problem."

I do not need to pay attention to McCain to know that he sucks... see how politically astute I am!

However, there is an unexplained assumption here:

1. President McCain = REAL (all caps mean they're really serious, right?) problems not solved

2. President Obama = REAL problems solved...

I know the evidence for 1 but I have not seen evidence for 2, and in our wild and comical delusion here, we've been keeping pretty close tabs on policies put forth by the Democratic nominee... after all, I did a nice post dissecting the Democratic platform. Where's your analysis of that document?

Where did I write "groundbreaking campaign"? I only made the case for following established standard procedure.

Please cite me correctly in between all-caps swearing.

So, you can type fuck and shit all you want, thanks to Lambert's liberal policies, but that makes only one person a whiner around here, and it ain't me.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

When will people like space realize that, at its heart, this isn't even about the Clintons or stroking their egos (a laughable charge as everything the Obama campaign does is to capture the praise of the masses), but about fairness?

I just can't get over the irony that someone would characterize this primary's disaffected Dems as cultist or whiners. Those characterizations fit the OFB to a "t". The Clintons just so happened to be the main recipients of some of the worst hit-and-run politics ever practiced by another Democrat against a Democrat.

To be sure, it's quite obvious that the OFB is more enamored with the Clintons than even the Clinton's biggest fans.