Corrente

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

"Why Won't That Stupid Bitch Quit" Watch: Hillary speaks

Hillary writes an Op-Ed in the NY Daily News (the exclusive is a nice touch. As is the choice of newspaper itself).

First, she deals with the latest smear from Obama and his lying liars*:

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

As anybody with any sense of justice or simple human decency would be. If anybody has any links from Obama supporters calling bullshit** on this latest smear, would they please leave them in comments? I'd like to have my waning faith in sanity restored. Readers?

So, that's sorted. Now for the real message the lying liars are trying to obscure:

Why I continue to run

Of the many reasons, I will single out two; we know Hillary's Presidential timber, after all:

Justice:

I am running for all those women in their 90s who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

Electability:

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I'm standing up for them. I'm standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.

Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated - but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote - and we've been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.

WWTSBQ?

Because there's no "quit" in her.

That's one quality I want in a President. Don't you feel the same?

OFB PROPHYLACTIC Sure, it's a campaign speech. Sure, Hillary's -- gasp! -- running for office. And?

NOTE * Yes, when (many of) Obama’s supporters and our famously free press yammer -- the link is but one from the full-throated wankfest linked to over at memeorandum -- that Clinton hopes Obama is shot (like RFK) so she can win the nomination, that's the lie direct.

They are lying liars.

1. Watch the video. It’s in the sidebar. You’ll see. It’s not Rashomon at all. 2. Read this statement from RFK Jr. RFK Jr. 3. Read this statement from the Argus editorial board, who were actually in the room.

Worse, even worse than the lying, is that one faction of the Democratic Party has become what we used to oppose. Just as Obama smearing the Clintons as racist was "cold-blooded, calculated, manipulated and a revolting strategy," so too is this latest smear.

You know who used to pull that shit?

The Republicans, back in the day when they were perpetrating the coup against the Clintons that started with the impeachment saga and climaxed with the theft of the Presidency in Florida 2000. Ill means, ill ends. Back then, we had Drudge -> Free Republic -> FOX (as in the serifs wankfest, remember?). And today, we've got Drudge -> the blogosphere -> MSNBC. Only the faces have changed. Except some of the faces are new: Faces of people we thought we once knew and may even have trusted. Well done, all.

NOTE ** And not some kind of namby-pamby "I can understand how some Clinton supporters may feel yadda yadda yadda" post, either. That shit's way too soft. Some recognition, please, of the reality that the same tactics used by Republicans to assault the Clintons in the 90s are now being taken advantage of by Democrats. My fellow Unity Pony-supporting Democrats don't get to lift their noses in the air over this latest steaming load: They need to get down, right close, take a deep, deep whiff, and tell us all what they smell. Roses? Hey, fine. YMMV. On the other hand, they could start walking this back. (Clue stick: Obama's passive aggressive snark 24 hours after the damage is done does not make it. No fucking way. Do you think we are that stupid? Do you think we don't pay attention?) Walking this back would be one really good way to unite the Party. If the Obama faction really wants that, which I have come to doubt every since Donna Brazile and the "creative class" [cough] threw me under the bus.

0
No votes yet

Comments

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... about Hillary's choice of the Daily News, 'cause you know, the NYT figured out that she's a vile racist, and she's really a Republican anyway, etc., etc.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the News has always been the paper of choice for the workers of NYC--from the white ethnics like my family to the newer Hispanics and others. It's Dem, historically pro-union and pro-workers, and always covers practical stuff better. The News is, and was, the paper of choice for working families here--and the Sunday News was our Sunday Times. And tons of famous columnists too-- esp Jimmy Breslin & Pete Hamill.

the Post has always been the more sensational and lurid and less informational and more slanted--and rightwing one--GOP columnists, owners, and their spin on everything.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

-- http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008...

"... Clinton erred in that her words, taken super-literally, can be stretched to mean that she is hedging against the possibility that Barack Obama will be killed. That is preposterous. And to claim that she was deliberately fostering a poisonous atmosphere is to contribute to the bitter political climate that so many Americans decry. ..."

(esp. Obama himself-the hypocrite)

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... and I just don't hear a gaffe.

Her intention is completely clear, and there's nothing nefarious about it.

Submitted by lambert on

I thought of it as a gaffe because I could see what the press and the Obama campaign would do with it. But, as you point out, the same game can be played with anything Hillary says. So these guys got into my head, at least part way. Thank The God(ess)(e)(s) Of Your Choice, If Any that I don't have a teebee!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by gob on

Amazingly, I found this at MyDD:

Let me say this in the most direct way possible and as straight as i can: this is the most dishonest faked outrage i have seen since i got involved in politics in mid-1980s. It is just plain disgusting that we behaved like that. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We brought nothing but shame to the campaign of Senator Obama today.

Read it all, it's refreshing.

Submitted by lambert on

As usual, the sane voices are shouted down and the hate gets smoothly back on track. And, unfortunately, our tribunes of the people in the blogosphere have already helped conventional wisdom to congeal.

But it's great that we've got a single random diarist! Journey of 1000 miles....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Many of us are, quite seriously, deep in the pits of our stomach, afraid that Barack Obama might well be assassinated. He, as Bill Clinton did, as Hillary Clinton does, as John McCain does, as all prominent politicians do, has had to face the prospect of assassination and decide that it is a risk worth taking. But more than any of the others, he has to take the prospect seriously. He is, as a Black man in a nation composed in substantial part of people who don't like Blacks to get too "big," striking exactly the nerve that one might expect would trigger some racist nut (or some contemptible rational actor) to kill him.

[...]

For by far most of us: we were not seeking political advantage. We were not being cynical. We were not being childish.

We are deeply scared that Obama will be taken violently taken away. Do you get it?

I don't get it.

It doesn't pass the laugh test.

I said so in the comments, to which the auther replied:

I don't even understand your comment.

What she should not have conveyed is the notion that she is sticking around the campaign like a circling vulture waiting to see if the mammal it has its eyes on dies. I don't believe that she intended to convey this. It's how it was received, and not through anything other than honest reactions.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/25/4264...

Submitted by lambert on

Maybe we could get a list of this person's fears, and the trigger words associated with them, so we don't trigger their projection syndrome.

NOTE Piling on.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

When did half our country, including the entire media, turn into the kind of idiots who think a movie with an unhappy ending is "a bad movie"?

She mentioned "assassins," so she must be one!

And she turned me into a newt!

Submitted by cg.eye on

I wake the fuck up, and deal with what's actually there.

If he only barked that loudly about net neutrality, warrantless wiretapping and the degeneration of media cross-ownership.

Oh. Did I say that out loud?

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

and a lot of respect for the thoughtful, empathic individual i would like to believe he is.*

i would like to re-print here more of the quote from president clinton ["Obama smearing the Clintons as racist was “cold-blooded, calculated, manipulated and a revolting strategy,” "] that lambert cited above.

i had read it earlier this morning and was reminded again of what an astute political observer clinton is

and

-what a tolerant person he is by nature

here's the whole cite:

["I was really hurt about it at first. I am way over being hurt. This was cold-blooded, calculated, manipulated and a revolting strategy," Clinton said, in reference to the accusation that the Clinton camp stoked racial fears during his wife's bid.

When asked the seemingly open-ended question, "Is there anything you want voters to know?", Clinton replied, "When I was so tired, I either was not as precise as I should have been or I seemed angrier than I would have been. That's always my mistake. If I am to have any blame, that's it."

Clinton also said he didn't know Obama very well but called his wife's Democratic nomination rival "an immensely talented man" before adding, "I think I understand him. There are enough similarities in our childhoods and things that I think I get what he is doing. But I do think it's better to have made a lot of decisions before you get to be president."]

i want to focus on this one comment:

[... (clinton said) he didn't know Obama very well but called his wife's Democratic nomination rival "an immensely talented man" before adding, "I think I understand him. There are enough similarities in our childhoods and things that I think I get what he is doing.]

that quote, my friends, is an operational definition of presidential class in a public speech.

senator obama needs to model that behavior.

*edited later in the day to more accurately focus my words of approbation on that which i consider praise worthy.

Submitted by gob on

but LZ's remarks are so sane I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn't snark or satire or something.

Now I don't feel so dirty for ever having been an Obama supporter.

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

We are deeply scared that Obama will be taken violently taken away. Do you get it?

No. No I don't. I don't remember anyone ever saying anything remotely like this until it flared up as The Thing On All Of Our Minds, like, this week.

Submitted by gob on

(I am absolutely not attacking what Hillary said. I'm just supplying evidence of the existence of a different set of assumptions.)

Before the campaign even started, I was discussing Obama's possible candidacy with a black friend of mine (I said I thought it would be great, what an ass I was). Her immediate reaction was something like "oh no - he'd be shot for sure." And she's no fool, she's highly educated, and she wasn't kidding.

Nevertheless, the uproar over this is simply foul dishonesty.

Submitted by lambert on

Hillary supporters, too, for real reasons that, like, actually happened.*

There's a real story. No wankfest.

A fake story. Total wankfest. All you need to know.

NOTE * And if you think it hasn't occurred to us that some lunatic is going to take all the hate that the Obama campaign has stirred up as an excuse to shoot Hillary, think again.

NOTE Yes, I take your point on "absolutely not attacking." For reasons that I assume are obvious, the lying liars have me a little ticked off. We need to clear away the bullshit here. This is not a Rashomon-like situation. This is a situation where some people are projecting animals into clouds, and others are not.

Submitted by lambert on

I won't link to it, but the headline is: "Shameless Hillary blames all of us for her sick "assassination" remarks on Friday, which have redefined the Macaca moment"

'Til the lost dog dies. 'Til the last dog dies.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

John Cole has descended to Malkinesque levels of derangement:

Like I said the other day- “PS- In pure Clintonian fashion, expect her to play the victim tomorrow. Why, she just made an innocuous statement about the election timeline and all these Obama supporters are trying to push the little woman out.”

She is Hillary, she is the victim, and that really is all she has left. She has now turned her stupid and insensitive remarks into a speech why you SHOULD vote for her. Pathetic.

The scary part is he is teaching young and impressionable minds.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

... in this primary season. In NH. At a campaign office. Hillary's, in fact.

But please! Don't allow me to prevent the wankfest from reaching its pathetic and inevitable conclusion!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

OMG, Lambert, you said "trigger"! You must want someone to be assassinated. Typical Hillary supporter.

Unless you meant Roy Rogers's horse. How dare you associate Obama supporters with animals! Racist.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

This is beyond normal political combat and as you say, any sense of justice and common decency. Obama participated in this with his initial response and did not come out strongly in her defense--as a true leader would. A vote for Obama, IMO, is a vote to endorse all of this vile behavior.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

another concept the VRWC co-opted and then corrupted, as per usual. For them, "little' people need to take responsibility for themselves, but the "elite" do not.

A perverted notion also on the Left, where for way too many years the perfectly decent goal of providing help for the unfortunate and the immoderate and the ill has been conflated and confused with a bastardized psychobabble misconception that nobody is ever actually responsible for their own actions or emotions.

The hardest single step in rehab for addicts and the chronically abused is helping them to see that they have to be the one to own their behavior and emotions. Until they take that step, they go nowhere. Blaming society and parents and The Man or anyone else, waste of time; all it does is feed the same old behavior, the same old emotions.

We all have a bad habit of offering lame excuses for our behavior, I'll raise my hand first and plead guilty to that one, but with rare exception we do the bad things we do because something dark within in ourselves overrides our better nature. Unless we take responsibility for that, own our behaviors and words and emotions and learn to moderate them, we will never get control over our selves or any aspect of our lives.

The notion that someone else is responsible for our emotions is one of the hardest reflexes to break; starts in early childhood, and unless guided otherwise gets so imbedded in our world-view that we cannot think in any other way. Apparently no one ever taught Averosis, or that poster myiq encountered on myDD.

"I don’t believe that she intended to convey this. It’s how it was received...."

Exactly.

And yes, now that you mention it, this is what happened with the voters (collective) in MI and FL. All Somebody else's fault, no way is it even remotely mine, therefore I am entitled to my anger and hurt feelings and I am absolved from any responsibility for doing anything constructive towards making it right. Damn DNC. Damn Howard Dean. Damn legislators. Damn Obama. Damn Clinton. Damn everybody else.

It is a tough one, this failure to take individual responsibility, and it is everywhere. (Slowly raises own hand, again.)

ggggchapelhill's picture
Submitted by ggggchapelhill on

For by far most of us: we were not seeking political advantage. We were not being cynical. We were not being childish.

We are deeply scared that Obama will be taken violently taken away. Do you get it?

We only lash out at you because we are really super sensitive, and that's what you love about us. don't you get it? < /snark >

if you are so worried about him, vote for hillary and he'll live a perfectly safe life in obscurity. problem solved.

Submitted by lambert on

Now, "filled with raw fear" -- that's adult, no question, especially these days. But skeered? Come on.

And then there's "taken away"... I mean, I can't think of when I've worried that a political figure might be "taken away" in my whole life, including my adult life. Now, a mother- or father-figure, or somebody I love, being taken away, sure. But a politician?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

"taken away."

When Reagan was shot.

Actually shot, in the hospital, undergoing emergency surgery.

That was scary.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

It seems to me that worrying about something awful happening to Obama is a way of getting a vicarious thrill, like it was 1968 all over again and a hard rain's a-gonna fall, without all the pesky "work" and "threat."

Obama's appeal -- and he's been quite conscientious about this -- is deliberately to eschew the context of the 1960s; he's _not_ a product of that era, he's said. This assassination brouhaha ends up being a way to affiliate his very middle-of-the-road, non-boat-rocking ethos with the tragic-heroic actuality of the tumultuous '60s. He's not a troublemaker or a rabble-rouser. And that's precisely his point.

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

A perverted notion also on the Left

See, here's the thing. Obama doesn't strike me as "left" at all. He's all platitudinous megachurch-y appealing to some higher purpose and our better selves... to remind us that we have, um, higher purposes and better selves, and to be, like, joyful about that. Not to _do_ anything. Just to make us feel special.

Submitted by hipparchia on

yep. second that.

i still disagree with a lot of her proposals for running the country if she's elected, and with all those senate votes of hers that have been discussed ad nauseum, but i love her for this:

I am running for all those women in their 90s who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, “See, you can be anything you want to be.” As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

thanks for posting that. made my day.

Submitted by lambert on

I wasn't all that unhappy with it either ;-)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

on feb 25, 2008 the new york times published an article by jeff zeleny entitled "In Painful Past, Hushed Words About Obama".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/pol...

the article discussed the sense of worry that some obama supporters felt about his safety.

what surprised me about the article, and i was VERY surprised to see it in the paper at all,

was

- that it directly raised the issue of an obama assassination

and

- that there seemed to me to be no news context whatsoever for doing so. i wondered at the time, why this?

in any event,

here are the last paragraphs in that article. they tell a little story of senator obama passing the texas book depository in dallas on the way to a stadium appearance:

from the new york times, feb 25, 2008

[... Here in Dallas, those memories were raised in conversation after conversation with several of the 17,000 people who came to see Mr. Obama at a rally last week.

“Right around the corner is the John Kennedy Memorial; everyone all around me was talking about it,” said Imogene Covin, a Democratic activist from Dallas. “In the back of my mind, it’s a possibility that something might happen because he’s something to gawk at right now. But you know why I think he will be safe? He has a broad range of people behind him.”

That afternoon, Mr. Obama’s motorcade passed Dealey Plaza and the Texas Book Depository building, where the fatal shot was fired at President Kennedy in 1963. Several campaign aides looked out their windows, silently absorbing the scene.

Not so for Mr. Obama, who later said he had not realized he was passing the site. And no one in his car pointed it out.

“I’ve got to admit, that’s not what I was thinking about,” he said. “I was thinking about how I was starting to get a head cold and needed to make sure that I cleared up my nose before I got to the arena.” ]

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Widdle baby objects when her completely innocent remark is contorted in every major media outlet and blog site into claims that she's a racist assassin.

That's why we can't have chicks in the White House. So sensitive!

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

the obama campaign would of course seize an opportunity like this.

But why now and not in March, when she said more or less the same thing to Time Magazine? They just put it in their collective back pockets in case they needed to whip up a frenzy later? Frankly, I think that makes it look much worse for them.

Submitted by lambert on

... It's a lot easier for the video to get distorted and go viral.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

yes, i thinks it's entirely possible that both campaigns [all campaigns, probably] save up stuff in their back pockets just in case.

lambert's answer makes a lot of sense. videos go viral at an incredibly fast rate. the revolution will be youtubed.