« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Notes to Dramatis Personae: When Your Part is Over, Please Leave the Stage
Nicholas Nickleby, by Charles Dickens, whether in its original, lengthy, sprawling book form or the torturous 10 hour play -- complete with a 90 minute dinner break -- offers up more characters, major, minor and incidental, than any other play or book you are ever likely to come across. As a stage play, actors play multiple roles, making a mad dash to the wings and to dressing rooms to change not just clothes, but characters. The critical task for the backstage crew (from the director, stage managers and production staff) is getting everyone to where they need to be on cue, and getting them offstage quickly. There is no place for the actor or actress who decides it's time to pull a Barrymore or Bernhardt and upstage his or her fellow actors. With so much story to tell, and even with 10 hours to tell it, there is no time for preening, or theater tricks like upstaging your cast members, or taking dramatic license to draw out the action -- or lengthen your part.
I have a friend who appeared in the early 80's revival in London's West End. One of his treasured bits of memorabilia from the production is a note to cast reminding them to get offstage and out of the backstage area (and for most of the actors/actresses, to get changed to their next character's costume).
I'm tempted to recreate that that note and send it off to our friends Bill and Hillary.
Over this last week, the Clintons have returned, if not to center stage, then certainly downstage left with enough stagecraft to pull your attention away from the main characters, Obama and McCain, to wonder what, exactly, the Clintons are doing.
Hillary, at a not so private meeting last Thursday of some of her supporters speculated on a "strategy" to affect some kind of "catharsis" before finally "unifying" behind the party's nominee. The strategy entails some manner of allowing her delegates to put her name in nomination. Of course this happens after she has a parade in her honor, gives a keynote address on Tuesday evening and all but a heroine's welcome when she arrives. I imagine it will be spectacle on par with Cleopatra hooking up with Caesar.
She and her supporters suggest that somehow her "18 millions votes" still need to be counted, that the "voices of her supporters" still need to be heard, that they need to be respected.
However, I thought that is what the primaries were for.
As Chuck Todd finally acknowledged today on Hardball, Team Clinton (and the media) were complicit in perpetuating the myth that this primary season was really, really close and Clinton only lost by a hair. The reality -- as stated by Todd -- was that this was over February 19, when she had no better than a 1 in 5 chance to win. Todd suggested that it was probably more like 1 in 10. But the Clinton team persisted in trying to keep the storyline going that victory was just another primary away.
Meanwhile, a few steps over from Hillary, under a blue funk spotlight, Bill is still fuming. He's mad at House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, SC, for telling Bill to rein in his instincts to use race to divide and conquer. He's mad at Obama, for winning, he's mad at Richardson and Kennedy and everyone else who endorsed Obama and not his wife (and by extension, did not re-endorse Bill). Asked whether Obama was qualified to be president, Bill took not only the long road home, but moved slower than a snail to arrive at a not-so-supportive answer. Asked if he regretted anything he said during the campaign, he replied "I am not a racist." Non sequitur notwithstanding, Bill's instant defense of himself as victim furrowed more brows: what was he thinking and where did that come from? It's as if I asked, "do you like macaroni and cheese?" and the reply was, "I didn't shoot my wife."
The Clintons, supporting players in this production Presidential Election '08, are demanding star treatment. They demand that everyone defer to them, that the script be rewritten for them, that the action revolve around them. The roles of president emeritus and first-runnerup are apparently just way too small. Their next roles of enthusiastic surrogates are just not special enough. She appears to be holding out for dramatic plot twist where "something happens (we can't say what!)" and he for the "I told you so" solo.
Notes to the actor and actress: your parts are over, please leave the stage. Quietly.
Comments (79)
I, we, and almost everyone else gets it; Hillary is finished.
Thanks for the update.
August 7, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost.
August 8, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superb post, Jade. Brava.(I'm getting off the stage, pronto.)
August 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm confused, were you snarking in your last post? If you were nice job you got me.
August 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops the above is a comment which i posted in the wrong place. Please ignore, trust me my family does it all the time.
Now as to this post. Well done. Once upon a life time I was a stage manager. Leads have a difficult time getting out of the way when their time is done :)
August 7, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sure I agree. I'm no lover of Hillary Clinton, Presidential Candidate. But she won a lot of delegates. And, I'm not an expert on the convention, but don't the delegates from the states that go to the runners-up get to declare their allegiance to the winner of their states?
I understand your suspicion. When I first heard the report, my Hillary sneak-o-scope started spinning like crazy. But then I thought about it. She's right.
Most Edwards supporters came over to Obama's side sooner than Hillary's supporters. But still, many months later, I hear them say over and over, "I was for Edwards first." They don't say it with any bitterness or regret. Just pride in their original choice of candidate.
They get to express their voice and then they get with the program. Hillary's delegates and supporters should have the same opportunity to express their voice and then the same obligation to get with the program. I think that is what will happen. If it turns into some kind of sneak attack, I'll admit I'm wrong and be very, very angry. But I don't think I am. I think Hillary is on Obama's side now. If you can't believe that it's for the right reasons, consider that she can't possibly raise enough money at this point to make a real run for the presidency and she knows it.
It's all about the feel good unity now. And with the wacko protesters outside, it's not a bad idea to have a great many delegates declare their support for Hillary on Tuesday and then go crazy for Obama on Thursday.
August 7, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the "then go crazy for Obama" part that scares me. Would Hillary and her supporters be in favor of that, or would they continue to push for Hillary on Thursday also?
August 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly you Clinton haters disgust me. Its not just the Clinton hatred though. Its the complete lack of historical knowledge as to how previous campaigns have dealt with each other after bruising primary battles. Its like you've lived in a box in previous years, or are too young to know any better and too lazy to take the time to educate yourselves. Hillary has bent over backwards in ways that no other losing candidate has in the past and still its not enough for you.
After the final primary of the Mondale/Hart battle Hart continued to threaten to challenge some 600 of Mondale's delegates.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950074,00.html?promoid=googlep
"His primary goal was to prevent a convention challenge to the validity of some 600 delegates whose elections, Hart charged, had been "tainted" by contributions from political action committees. For his part, Hart was mainly interested in gaining support for a "democracy package" of campaign reforms in 1988 and, in particular, revising rules that worked to his disadvantage this year."
Even after a truce had been worked out Hart not only did not release his delegates but continued his campaign.
"For Mondale, the truce with Hart was a welcome relief amid his anxiety over how to deal with Jesse Jackson. But the worries of the presumptive nominee are hardly over. Hart still plans to continue his own candidacy, a muted challenge that could force Mondale to offer him the second spot on the ticket."
This from candidate Hart who did come nearly as close as Hillary to winning the nomination nor have nearly the support. But that's not the whole story either. There was Jesse Jackson to deal with as well.
"Mondale's next summit in his quest for a peaceful convention will be in Kansas City on Tuesday, when he meets with Jesse Jackson."
And what did Jackson get out of the deal? Exactly what you're condemning Hillary for, his name placed for nomination from the floor. Jackson had to deal for it because he didn't win enough delegates to claim it. Hillary could simply claim it but she's not. She's trying to work out some compromise for the good of the democratic party because her supporters are pushing her forward.
Or would you prefer we discuss the Bradley/Gore battle. That was just 8 years ago, one might think some of you would remember that. With all the complaints about Nader costing Gore the election I think its more likely that Bradley's lack of an endorsement after the primaries were over and his being unwilling to work for Gore probably had a greater effect. Had Bradley offered up a rousing endorsement of Gore as Hillary did in her speech we would likely not have had these last 8 years of bush. Yet while Bradley has never been blamed for Gore's loss its likely you Clinton haters will blame Hillary if your candidate loses.
ROUSSAKOFF (3/10/00):Bradley withdrew from the campaign much as he entered it almost 15 months ago, invoking a "new politics," and making clear his dissatisfaction with Vice President Gore. He vowed to support Gore strongly against the Republicans, who he said represent "the opposite of where our country should be headed."
But when asked his feelings about Gore's campaign, Bradley was unforgiving. "I thought that there were distortions and negativity," he said. "I hope that he'll run a better campaign in the general election."
The former New Jersey senator said he would "support" Gore, and campaign for him, but pointedly did not use the word "endorse." Asked why, he told reporters, "It's your call.”
SEELYE (7/14/00): Bill Bradley emerged from months of political seclusion today to endorse Al Gore, his erstwhile primary foe, and to help the vice president appeal to independent voters here in the Midwest.
As for Hillary leaving the stage she has the right to claim as much of that stage as she has earned which is nearly half of it. But she's not claiming it, she's being pushed up there by those who support her. Get used to it Clinton haters. Hillary has emerged from this primary battle stronger than she entered it. She will be a force to be reckoned with in the democratic party for years to come.
August 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How well did those situations with sore losers in the past work out for the party's nominee? I am still pissed at Kenedy over the 1980 fiasco and I will not be forgiving this years crybaby if she pulls some of this crap either!
August 7, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be your problem since he's your candidate. The more venom you spew at the Clintons the less likely her supporters are to vote, contribute, or work for your candidate.
August 8, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at the polls you will note that those who voted for her have already come arround. It is only a small minoity of her supporters who are foolish enough to think that they would be better served by a President McCain.
Some of those who have not come arround never will and that is of no consequence for them because they have no political carreer to wory about. Sen Clinton does. If she acts like a brat she will damage it.
August 8, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good phrase, "act like a brat" and she is already doing doing it.
August 8, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we need to bow to her, the one that lost, in order for her supporters to get over it and vote in their own interests?
Do you realize how fucking twisted that is?
No offense, seriously - I actually don't hate Clinton at all. (Either of them.) But that kind of sanctimonious, kiss-the-ring crap is what makes many of us unable to stomach the mention of her name these days.
August 8, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its the kiss the ring crap that I'm objecting to. Hillary has done much more than any other losing candidate in the past to support the winning candidate and work for party unity. Yet still its not enough. Half of you seem to think she should disappear and the other half seem to think she should supplicate herself to The One. I'm sick of these dump on Hillary posts. Maybe you think that's the best way to unify this party.
Its not me who's writing blogs trashing Obama. I've kept my mouth shut though I sure have a lot I could say since I think he's an insignificant inexperienced blowhard without the integrity to take a firm stand on any issue. Truth is I don't even know what his stand is on any issue or what his stand will be tomorrow. So if you want to continue fighting the primary battle between Hillary and Obama for the next 3 months I'm happy to do that. Since I supported Hillary and I don't support Obama.
August 8, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not the only one with Obama fatigue, oceankat. Just think, people (including independents and Dems) are already sick of Obama, and he hasn't even been around as long as the Clintons. At this rate, by the time the election gets here, McCain ought to win in a landslide.
P.S. Bill Clinton's speaking at the convention. Heh.
August 8, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because no one is sick and tired of old lizard-face!
August 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not what she should do that is the problem it is what she should refrain from doing. We do not want her to disapear. We do not want her to kiss a ring. We want her to refrain from making demands. If she and her "supporters" cannont refrain from making their support conditional then they need to be shown the door because they are acting like sore losers who should not be coddled.
August 8, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want unconditional support. That's a peculiar notion. You may support the politicians you chose unconditionally but I have never given any politician unconditional support in my life and have no intention of starting now.
I have a different view. The first job of a politician is to get people to vote for him, more people than vote for the other candidate. Obama has yet to give me a reason to vote for him. So its kinda silly for you to be talking about showing me out when I haven't entered the door into the Obama show.
August 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Support should be conditioned upon policy, ethics and competence. If you are making your support condional based on wether the candidate kisses your ass then you should be shown the door. She has not claimed any policy dispute she just wants her ring kissed. No thank you.
August 8, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your scenario is that the nomination is not apportioned in fractions. It is winner takes all. Unfortunately for you, Hillary was not the winner, therefore she does not share the stage with the winner, Obama. She did not "earn" half of anything.
And she has not bent over backwards. She dilly-dallied with her concession of the election, refusing to concede. She gave the "what does she want" speech. When she spoke at the National Building Museum, although gracious, she barely acknowledged the person she still calls "her opponent" (see the latest video of her speaking to those supporters.) Her husband has still not come around to acknowledging the loss -- let alone Sen. Obama as the fully qualified Democratic nominee. He is bitter. It is August, she conceded in June, but aside from a few private fundraisers and the lone Unity event (not counting the event she is supposed to have tomorrow), Hillary has been absent -- not even as a TV based surrogate in the manner of Kerry or MacCaskill or Daschle or Bayh. And let's face it, we now see the Republicans using her attack lines; you'd think she would have been out there front and center to walk those back and neutralize them.
There is one thing all of the candidates you mention have in common their refusals to help unify the party led to Democratic losses in the fall. Is that really what Hillary wants? Based on your assessment that she is doing what these other guys did, the answer must be unequivocably "yes." I don't think that is what the Democrats want this year. Kow-towing to Clinton is not in the plan.
And finally, if Hillary is looking to truly be a force to be reck.... er, even that is too much for me to say with a straight face. If Hillary wants to protect and enhance her role in the Democratic party, perhaps it is time to be a member of the company and not hold out for the lead. If that's what she wants, perhaps a summer stock production of "All About Eve" is in order.
August 7, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even bother to read my post? My assessment, which I think I have posted ample evidence for from articles written at the time, is that she did not do what Hart, Bradley, or Jackson did. And most surely not what Kennedy did. The simple fact is that Hillary has done much more than most losing candidates in the past to support the democratic nominee.
If that's really your picture you're old enough to remember these elections. That is if you had bothered to pay attention or took a little time to read while the primaries were happening. I remember them well which is why I had no problem finding news articles to back up my memory. You clearly were oblivious at the time and don't care to read or study now to make up for that lack of serious attention in previous years.
Its rediculous to think that Hillary would come off a resounding win in South Dakota and concede the same night. Hart didn't do it, Jackson didn't do it, Bradley didn't do it. In fact I can't remember any losing presidential candidate that has ever done such a thing. Can you? Can you name a single losing primary candidate that won a contest and conceded the same night? But Clinton haters have always expected more from them than they expect from any other candidate, and then, its still not enough.
You know what? You Clinton haters don't get to decide what Hillary or Bill have to do to have political clout in the democratic party. Her supporters give her her clout and they get to decide. Hillary's supporters would have continued to support her if she had given a lackluster statement about "supporting" Obama and made a snide remark about endorsing him like Bradley did, but she didn't. She fully endorsed him in an inspiring speech. Many of Hillary's supporters would even have supported her if she decided to take the fight to the convention floor like Kennedy did, but she didn't. So really spare me your analysis of what Clinton should do based on your 16 months of finally and for the first time paying attention to the democratic primary nominating process.
August 8, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jade's job isn't to read, it's to spew. Think of her as a water cannon spraying across the aisle. C'mon, cross over now...
August 8, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Good Morning to you all.
8:15am and, apparently, not too early for incredibly intelligent, articulate people to prove that the researchist who says we vote on an emotional basis is right.
Fact: Obama is the Democratic candidate.
Fact: If we hope to win the GE, unity within the party is preferable to divisiveness.
Fact: whatever else, it is simply not appropriate for HRC to refer to Obama, at this point in our "unity," as "my opponent."
Fact: none of these facts are proof of "Hillary hate.
Fact: venom is, in Bertie Wooster's words, "tarsome" before at least a second cup of coffee. Why don't y'all take a break and have some?
August 8, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should have a chat with folks like hrebendorf below! ;^}
August 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh... and the "venom" and "emotion" you speak of? I'm sure that's directed at Jade and her cheerleaders, right?
August 8, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it, really, over the top to refer, catagorically, to everyone who preferred Obama to HRC as "you Hillary haters"? Granted, the term has a nice alliterative ring to it and, in that sense, I can see why it would catch on. (There isn't an "o" word that comes to mind that would express a similar alliterative sense of contempt; maybe that's why Obama supporters think they have been, in general, more circumspect.)
Opinion: if Hillary had won the nomination, and then Obama called her "his opponent" as recently as a few days ago, I think HRC supporters would have reason to criticize him, vehemently.
Fact: it's time to work together.
August 8, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
First... Really? Every Obama supporter? EVERY?
Second, way not to address my comment.
Unity is the best way to go. Absolutely. But suggesting that the venom and hatred and emotion is only coming from one side is not helping.
August 8, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have cheerleaders???!!! WOW!!! Way cool!
Do we have uniforms??? I better get us all some pom-poms and megaphones!!!
Ready, okay! GoBama! GoBama! GoBama! Yes, We Can! (clap clap point point) Yes We Can! (point point clap clap Herkie jump shake your pompoms Stag jump more pompom shaking high kick high kick high kick) Whoooo-hoooo! YAY!!!!!!
August 8, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
My comment about emotion -- and venom, as it pertains to individual responses -- was addressed to everyone, HRC and Obama fans alike.
August 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fooled me!
August 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading carefully for actual content, and not making assumptions about what the writer intends, is an important distinction.
August 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actual content, eh?
That statement itself is over the top. I think it helps torpedo the notion that you are talking to "all." That and the fact that you only commented to people in here who dared to criticize Jade, not slaver all over her like you and some others. There are plenty of people who think like Jade and have been more venomous and overly emotional but who did you respond to? Not them.
In other words, I don't believe you!
August 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, Des... you should know by now that reading is fundamental. And "spewing" is something best left to low-budget porn stars who can't quite manage a full "eruption" but with a bit concentration achieve something more than their normal trickle.
Those of us (see "cheerleaders" comment downstream) who look at this from a different perspective see Hillary and Bill drawing this out and making it far more painful for themselves than it needs to be.
It's like taking off Band-Aids when you were a kid. There were two schools of thought: You can peel it off really really really slowly... pausing every fraction of a fraction of an inch along the way, savoring the miniscule pain (far less than the original injury) crying or "ow-ow-ow-OW-OOOOWWWWing" for maximum sympathetic effect. Or you can steel your courage, take a deep breath, look the other way and quickly yank off the Band-Aid, with one big OOOOOWWWW!
With the first method, you're often called crybaby, a sissy, a whiner. With the second, you're called brave, strong and tough.
Bill and Hillary are peeling this Band-Aid off ever so very very very very very extra-specially s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w-l-y.
OOOOW OOOOWWWW OWOWOWOWOWOWOW OOOOWWW OW OWOWEEE YEOW YEOWCH !!!!
Yank it off, alright already.
August 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for introducing the "Yank it off" and "low-budget porn stars" and the "o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o" element into the conversation.
I used to think of "spew" as something you did with coffee when you laugh too hard or the spray from firehoses, but I'm not going to get away with those naïve interpretations now.
August 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she did not read your post. She has no need to. She "knows" in her heart how things really are. She don't need no smartypants giving her actual information that might challenge her preconceived notions! C'mon now.
August 8, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get your comment or where you are coming from. I'm not a Clinton hater. I do think the Clinton's judgement is hampered by some dillusional thinking that is understandable. What they can't seem to see is that any move on their at the convention would do harm to the Democratic brand during the race and even if Hillary somehow pulled off an upset, the victory would be pyric.
If she had won the primaries, she would have expected no less of a gracious capitulation from Obama and his people that we expect of her.
The longer this goes on, the only outcome can be damage to the Democratic and Clinton's brand. The Clinton's are dangerously close to that point of no return as it is, if they haven't passed it already.
August 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all of the examples you gave, ocean, the results were that the Democratic nominee *lost* the general election. That's precisely why we would like the Clintons to concede gracefully and back the nominee. Your argument suggest what many of us suspect: that the Clintons want Obama to lose so she can run in 2012. If that's the case, try peddling your wares to true believers. You'll probably have a better reception where they gather.
August 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat:
Winston Churchill once said: "this is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put."
He was, in context, referring to the English language construction problem of properly placing a preposition in relation to the verb to which it is bound.
I feel a similar impatience when I hear "you Hillary haters" as a catagorical, hyberbolic, inaccurate generalization. Such a characterization is, IMO, lazy construction. There is that which is accurate, and that which is inaccurate. When you suggest that everyone is a "hater" who either: a) preferred Obama over Hillary as a candidate; or, b) has a legitimate criticism of (and/or fear about) a current Cinton behavior, then I feel I despair -- over the imperfect practice of thought as well as the imperfect use of language.
August 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I just saw this.
What unmitigated pompous bullshit! This is an internet forum You are talking about "English construction" and "properly place prepositions" as if we're all writing a Victorian novel.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there is no way that oceankat believes that every Obama supporter is a Hillary Hater. I'm going out there even further saying I don't think you believe he thinks that way either. You are clearly smarter than that. Throwing things like that down is the nature of fast pace arguing/debating on the internet. I'm betting you are fully aware of this. Which of course leads me to understand you much better... you are a pathetically intellectually dishonest human being. Loathsome.
August 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you suggest that everyone is a "hater" who either: a) preferred Obama over Hillary as a candidate; or, b) has a legitimate criticism of (and/or fear about) a current Cinton behavior
--------------------------------------------------
Please cut and paste from my posts where I suggested either of those things. thanks
August 9, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As my kids used to say "gag me with a fork."
Great post Jade!
August 7, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/08/hillpatines-latest-maneuverings/#disqus_thread
August 8, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one! Link to a deeply ignorant, overly emotional, thoroughly unhinged, hate-filled blogger...yeah! That's the best way to make your point. Braaaavo! heh-heh-heh!
August 8, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would Karthryn Seelye at the New York Times be an impartial enough source?
What "plan" does she really need to execute? If she's "supporting" Senator Obama, why not simply say no to putting her name in nomination, why not say yes to being the speaker who nominates Obama or yes to being the speaker who introduces Obama at Invesco Field?
August 8, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean this Katherine Seelye?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032204.shtml
(scroll down once there.)
Also, while you're over there, do a search on her in Somerby's search engine and read a few of the other entries about "Kit." Should help put things in perspective.
August 8, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny, a Hillary hate site. I've been wondering for a while but now I know where you get your talking points from. I'd like to point out that I have never linked to or quoted from the Obama hate sites or even the crazy Hillary sites like hillaryis44. I prefer to get my information from and link to sources like Time magazine or the NY Times.
August 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share your hope that the Clintons get off the stage. But it looks like Obama is going to let Hil and Bill have their turn in the spotlight this coming week while he is on vacation and at the convention. I hope she stops calling him "my opponent".
I wonder if Obama insisted on the bigger venue for his speech because that was the only way to give the Clintons the opportunity to vent and build the dramatic tension...and then upstage them by demonstrating his broader vision and appeal.
August 8, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No shit, Sherlock! The Clintons are a distraction from the devastating ads pummeling Obama from Camp McCain, you dimwit. Do you think their sudden appearance out of nowhere is an accident? Do you think Obama's recent precipitous drop in the polls is something he wants the media to keep focusing on? Do you think Obama has so little control over his campaign that he'll allow rogue players to derail him? If so, he doesn't deserve to be president.
But I give Obama more credit than that. Obama dispatched the Clintons. And the media followed the chum like sharks.
Notice how nothing bad has actually happened to Obama? Obama's getting sympathetic media attention because of the Clintons. Do you think he didn't know that would happen?
Too bad you never do your candidate justice, Jade.
August 8, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any "precipitous drop in the polls" is a figment of your imagination. Their have been no major changes in the standing of the candidates. Look at the RCP average graph.
August 8, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Larry. After reviewing the RCP Average graph, I see Obama hasn't "dropped precipitously." Instead, McCain has performed better in recent polls and narrowed the gap between them. That's different. Since Obama and McCain have remained within roughly 5 points of each other, a closing of the gap by only a few points is noteworthy.
August 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between them varies but that is not noteworthy. What is note worthy is that Obama has had a stable 4 or 5 percent lead since the end of the primaries. Getting excited over statistical noise is for the weak minded (read MSM).
August 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, ReadytoBlow... the weakness of your argument is apparent because your resort to juvenile name-calling. Fine...
You do huff and puff as if you are ready to blow and all that steam makes you miss what's really happening.
If you think McCain ads are "devastating" I think you're mistaken. They are more comical than anything. (Don't vote for Obama cause he's way too popular.) The "precipitous" drop you mention is not. McCain has led in only one fluke poll from Gallup. If you study politics, you know that this is a timeframe when races traditionally tighten a bit before the highly touted "post-convention bounces" kick in, they often tighten again as the "undecided" voters start to make up their minds. And if you know anything about Obama, you know that he closes well.
Now, had you grasped the point of my post, you would have noticed that it was not about Obama, but about Bill and Hillary. It was not a defense of Obama, but a discussion of H and B. Nor was it Obama-bashing, so your over the top vitriol is not only misplaced, but downright foolish and childish.
But as your name tells us, you blow your gaskets first, and think later, if at all.
One thing I can say, you are good for a laugh.
August 8, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't vitriolic, Jade. Condescending, yes. I called you a dimwit because I think you are dim. That assessment comes from reading your posts over time. In fact, I think you are a Republican troll. You do nothing but stir up trouble on this site, so I don't feel I owe you any compliments. Too bad if you don't like getting called out on your stupidity and divisiveness. Ciao, baby. ;-)
August 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, you are right, you are right, you are right, you are right, and you are right.
The Clintons' self-obsessed spectacle is utterly disgraceful. I personally could not believe the outpouring of appreciation for Hillary's grudging, would-be concession speech that was forced upon her at the building museum. That the drama-queen egomaniac intends to use Obama's convention to take more bows and foment more division is deeply shameful. The party should not forgive her, ever.
Sure Obama can rise above the destructive and yes, malicious, spectacle. But that doesn't make the abuse less despicable by one iota.
Thank you for your excellent post, much-needed.
August 8, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S., do people realize these two intend to monopolize two of the four convention nights? Call it the Clinton Convention. Bill, who even now won't acknowledge that Obama is ready to lead (See WaPo) intends to take up one evening as a past President and ongoing troublemaker.
Hillary intends to misuse the convention to put her name in nomination, nominally as a symbolic gesture, but in reality to try to somehow actually get nominated: make no mistake. Plan B is to bully her way onto the ticket. Plan C is that if she can't be on the ticket, shit all over the convention and let the Dems go down in November so she can run in 4 years. Democrats should not forgive or forget.
August 8, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama was deciding on all this.
PS - conventions' primary purpose is to put names into nomination and choose. I'm not sure how we got to it being a symbolic rubberstamp of what the DNC already decided.
August 8, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since the early 70's when both parties took the advice that Teddy Roosevelt gave in the dawning years of the twenteith century and started chosing candidates by pimaries and cacuses instead of in back rooms conventions are no longer venues for chosing a candidate they are rubberstamps for the will of the voters.
The DNC did not chose Obama. We did.
August 8, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you gave Barack those extra 4 delegates from Michigan? And you chose all those superdelegates?
August 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He won without them. Do the math.
August 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I hate the Clintons. I'll be so glad when this election is over and people can start ignoring those two arrogant, self-aggrandizing a-holes. What a couple of creeps.
August 8, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting. Are you actually familiar at all with politicians? Do you actually think McCain, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Bush etc, etc, etc... are any different? Seriously. We're talking about people who think they deserve to be the Leader of The Free World! How is it, or better, why is it, that you've bought into the right-wing narrative that the Clintons are somehow unique in all this?
I mean how arrogant is it for a junior senator, barely months into his first term, to decide he should be President of the United States? And if you've read some recent bios on him you'd also discover he can be a bit of an asshole. No big deal, it is what it is.
But yeah, you know, the Clintons... they're different. Heh.
August 8, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is interesting to me is that when you respond to someone who actually ADMITS to hating Hillary, you write in an objective, persuasive way. When you respond to someone who simply criticizes them, you jump up and down like rumplestilskin putting them down.
Can you figure that out?
August 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way... hate is a wasted and wasting emotion. It is also infantile. You should grow up and shake it off.
August 8, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Mirror, mirror..." I refer, of course, to your responses on this thread, and not to you as a person.
August 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barry Hussein needs Bill and Hill, they don't need Barry. I hope they are discreetly helpful in having Barry and his leftist friends lose in November 2008 and the middle take back America for 4 years with McCain/Romney until Hillary wins in 2012.
Barry Hussein the empty Marxist suit will go down to defeat as the flip flops mount and the Drama Queen glass jaw breaks. Along with Mrs. O who recently became proud to be an American, let THE ONE fall back to earth.
August 8, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of "growing up." Goodness.
August 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must be particularly frustrating for people who hate the Clintons to come to terms with what the Obama campaign understands perfectly well, that the key to ensuring a victory for the Democratic nominee in November continues to rest with, guess who, the Clintons. That's why Bill Clinton will be speaking on Wednesday night, and is likely to overshadow the nominee for vice president on the same evening (and the Obama camp knows this and wants this to happen for rational and prudent political reasons because Senator Obama needs the Clintons' blessing on matters relating to, inter alia, the vice presidential nominee). That is also why an entire evening on Tuesday will be all about all things Hillary. The Obama campaign is doing the right thing, and it appears to be making certain people bonkers. But hatred for the Clintons should not stand in the way of the rational political judgments that the Obama campaign is now exercising.
Senator Obama only wins with the Clintons behind him. The Obama campaign is a class act and will do the right thing. Other folks will throw sand.
Whatever.
August 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds precisely right to my ears. My fellow Obama supporters (or at least a particularly unhinged subset of them) are making my head hurt. There is no percentage in a divided party. Why would we wish to cultivate divisions by continuing to antagonize Sen Clinton and her supporters. We won. We should be celebrating, not bitterly bemoaning the fact that the lady we beat has not been killed or sent into exile.
August 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bslev:
You are too intelligent, too educated, too nice as a person, too ....$$%#%^Q# mature, to lump everyone who supports Obama together into a "hater."
Because I respect you so, I have felt terrible, on other threads, when you have so harshly categorized Obama supporters as "haters."
But I challenge you, now. Some of the people on this thread may, by their own admission, be so categorized; others, on the other hand, may not. Where is your intellectual, as compared to emotional, ability to differentiate?
August 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not do that. And worse, you know he did not do that. Pathetic.
August 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, what are you talking about. There is nothing in Bruce's post that paints with so broad a brush as you make out. Indeed, his repeated references to the good sense of the Obama campaign make plain that he evidently distinguishes between Obama supporters simpliciter and that particular subset of Obama supporters who come totally unhinged when the subject of Sen Clinton is broached. If, in Bruce's mind, all Obama supporters were unhinged Clinton-haters there would be no one in the campaign to exercise the good sense which he evidently appreciates in the campaign.
August 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the difference between "can I have a kiss" and "but please don't tell anybody"
August 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was never a doubt in my mind. I would like to think that Sen Clinton will do the same. But... Every time I have publicly argued thaat she was going to do so she proved me wrong. Every time I have praised her for doing the right thing she has backtracked on it within 24 hours.
She is going to get another oportunity to prove the haters wrong this week and again at the convention. I fervently hope that she will but she is going to have to show me. I have been burned to many times to belive she will do the right thing even if it is in her own selfish best interest.
August 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I mean by Clinton hatred. The easily provable reality is Hillary has done more than any losing candidate has in the past to support Obama and promote party unity. I think I did a fairly decent beginning job of illustrating that in my first post in this thread.
Not a single line has been contested or addressed. Most likely because you haven't got a clue. Most likely because you weren't paying a bit of attention to what Bradley did after he lost to Gore or what Hart did after he lost to Mondale. But you're obsessed with the Clintons, you watch every little thing they do, parse every little statement they make to reinforce your hatred.
The reality is nothing Hillary does will ever satisfy the Clinton haters. If she rolled over like a dog and licked the hand of The One, which it seems you all want, you'd complain that she didn't lick it enough.
August 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You did not show that she has done a better job than other losing candidates. You showed that she has done marginaly better at best than the crybably losers who drug the winer down to defeat. Is that good enough? Only time will tell. This is such a good year for Democrats in general and Obama is such a good candidate that I belelive he will win even with he half hearted support but he should not kiss her ass to get it.
I have posted praises for her several times this election. Each and every time she made me look like an ass within 24 hours. All she would need to do to get me to thinking she is OK, is tell those who are running around spewing hate in her name like PUMA that they do not speak for her. She does not have to say one good thing about Sen Obama. She just has to speak out against those who are trying to undermine him.
August 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She got half the votes in this primary season. If you are able to win without those votes, then treat her with contempt. And if you care more about treating her with contempt than winning the election, then continue. I hope Obama understand better than that. If not, then it does not matter anyway: he won't win and if he does, he will do a terrible job.
August 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot withhold votes that the polls show he is already geting. He does not have to suck up to the candidate that someone voted for in the primary to get their vote in the general. Most people are not victims of a cult of personality. They are chosing from the available choices. He has to show that he is the best choice from their point of view out of the remaning candidates. He has done a prety good job so far and you ain't seen nothing yet.
August 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had already gotten over my disgust with Bill and Hillary and was seeing them as members of one big happy family again. But, then they had to go and breathe life back into it.
Bill Clinton is officially the biggest goddam baby in the Democratic Party. And, there's nothing cute or clever or even subtle about his passive-aggressive swipe at Obama by way of refusing to acknowledge the candidate's suitability for the office.
And, Hillary is not so much the problem as the supporters she coddles. But, she could stop coddling them. And she could stop basking in the glow of their adoration. And, she could tell them to grow up, take a gander at the big picture, ponder their hopes for making any headway under a McCain presidency, and do what the Bradley supporters did when Gore won the nomination and the Dean and Edwards supporters did after Kerry's nomination: work on kicking the fascists out of the White House.
These Hillary supporters who are demanding respect--which they've gotten and continue to get but it's never enough--are not the first ones ever who didn't get their wish for a Democratic candidate. But, everyone before them seems to have survived the letdown. Why can't they?
August 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, jade, but you already have read the responses from the Hillaryites, These people are beyond anyhting except blind spite. Anyone who missed the Sixities: the faces of Southern bigots is a visual representation of the venom coming from Hillary's legions.
August 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment