Monday, May 26
Sunday, May 25
It had to be this way...
This is how it had to end.
No one was going to push Hillary out of this race, except Hillary. No one was going to invent some genius argument, that was going to convince her or her supporters that her candidacy had to end - she had to do it herself.
Of course, it's not going to end. It's going to limp on for a few more weeks, it might even get worse for her as she attempts, as she has so many times before, to lash out at the invisible enemies who have so spitefully held her back, and blocked her inevitable coronation.
It had to finally be revealed that Hillary's greatest foe, her greatest downfall, is Hillary.
The truly sad thing is that I think many of us are fully aware that Hillary probably didn't mean to deliberately build the construction that she needed to stay in the race purely because Barack Might Get Shot.
She's been saying over and over again how she's the "better candidate", and that's the reason she's continued to fight on. Frankly, looking at the Electoral Vote Map, she has a point.
Even as of today the state-by-state polls indicate she has a lead over McCain of 312 to 202 Electoral votes with 270 being needed to win the Presidency. That's practically a blow-out.
The thing is that winning isn't everything.
There's also the question of "Who would make the Better President?"
What Hillary has shown us again and again, long before this latest rhetorical blunder, is that it wouldn't be her.
She was against seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida before she was for seating them. She and her campaign gleefully exploited the Secret-Muslim smears, the links to a "Slum Lord", to an ex-Hippie Radical whose never been charged or indicted with anything, and his links to the outrageous black preacher - look he's black and angry and stuff - with the verbal diarrhea problem. (Not that any of them have ever spoken for Barack, but who cares?) She claimed we shouldn't just count the votes from 48 States, we should count all the votes - except for the caucus states she didn't win. We've heard her claim that the "little states" don't count when she doesn't win them, but that they show that "Barack can't close the deal" when she does. We've heard Geraldine give us the "Barack wouldn't be where he was if he was white" upper-cut, while Hillary herself delivers the round-house that his problem is that "He can't get the poor dumb white voters", and she can.
And all the while, the real reason she hasn't already won the nomination is because of all the sexism!?
Yeah, right.
If this was about just the one RFK statment, it woudn't be so bad. But we've already heard her claim that MLK wasn't as important as LBJ right on top of the 40 anniversary of Martin's murder. Why should we be surprised when she didn't know that she should have stopped with the insensitive crazy talk back then, and has now basically did the exact same thing to RFK and his memory?
I know some of her supporters feel that all she's done is fight hard and I agree we do need Democrats to fight hard for what they believe in. But what is it that she's shown she believes in here? That MLK doesn't matter? That she's Hubert Humphrey waiting in the wings for Kennedy's fall only to lose in November to Nixon? That truth is only viable when it's expedient? That some white people are irredeemably racist, and she doesn't care? That instead she's willing to exploit fear and paranoia of a black man, who couldn't possibly love America as much as she does or they do, while claiming she's the victim of gender prejudice? What, just cuz Chris Matthews is a condescending prick? Grow up. Have these all just been political arguments that have nothing to do with how she really thinks or how she would really govern?
Which version of Hillary are you guys supporting? Do you think you get to pick your personal favorite and go with that?
This is not how we need a potentially leader of the free world to be thinking, speaking or acting. They're supposed to be fighting for us, not just for themselves. If the RFK comment was her response to a 3 A.M. wake-up call, she just flubbed it and started World War III with most of America. Nobody makes you take the Low-Road, it's not a mandate, it's not a requirement - it's a choice. There's always a better option. She has simply made the wrong call - repeatedly - because she thought she could get away with it. She thought "it's just politics", instead of it being a complete lack of character. It's not just politics, it's clearly a part of who she is, and she's not getting away with it. Not anymore.
It's time for Hillary's supporters, to realize they made an honest mistake. Yes, she does seem like a great candidate on paper. Electorally it makes sense. It's true that she would probably win the Presidency more easily than Barack and that feeling that way can be easily understood, forgiven and forgotten. In the heat of a passionate campaign, we can all sometimes say things we don't literally mean, it can get away from us. But now it's time to face the facts.
Her campaign is in it's last throes. She's not going to be the nominee. She's not going to the be VP. She's out. She's probably going to continue to hang around, continue to get a few more charity/protest votes in Puerto Rico, but then - it's over.
This isn't a construction of the media. This isn't the boys club trying to squeeze her out. She's been dancing on the edge of the rhetorical cliff for months now. We all know it. Many of her supporters have happily cheered her on with each new dazzling kick and spin move. But you have to know she's been flirting with total disaster and devastation all along. It's been the kitchen-sink/scorched earth strategy for a long time. Now she's finally gone tumbling down the cliff and Nobody pushed her.
She fell off the cliff all by herself.
That's the way it had to go. It wouldn't have been tolerated if Barack had cut her off at the knees. He would've become the bad guy. The big black meany man who stole her Presidency from her. But that's not what happened. Nobody can claim that Barack knee-capped our first potential female President. She just lost.
She utterly failed the Commander-and-Chief test.
I'm not gleeful about this. I'm not joyful. I'm just relieved that it just might - just might - be nearly done with. I'm telling you this has not be fun to watch. Democrats clawing at Democrats. Friendships broken. Families going at each other. It's been H.E.L.L.
That is why people have wanted this to come to an end. We've needed to put her out of our misery. It's not about June. It's the fact that you don't count the length of campaign from the finish line backward, you count it from the beginning. This campaign has essentially been going on for a year and a half already. The only reason anyone might have wanted Hillary out of the race, beside the fact that she hasn't been able to statistically win for weeks, is that they're are just plain SICK AND TIRED OF IT ALL.
22 debates. 22 Friggin Debates. Enough already. We get it. We know who we want, we don't want Hillary. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
The one thing I have to thank Hillary for - in a sad, sick way - is making Barack a better candidate than he had been. McCain can't play the "He's a Negro" dog-whistle game on him, she's already done it and still lost. He can't argue that he's "too inexperienced", because with experience and judgment like her's - we obviously need more rookies. Obama is now innoculated on Reverend Wright, on William Aires and on Tony Rezzco. He's teflon. Unbreakable.
During all these challenges Obama has shown us a grace, class, dignity and clarity of vision that is rare and awe inspiring. His speech in Philadelphia was historic. That's how we need a someone to respond under pressure. These primaries have shown why we need a President like Barack Obama. This is the guy I want answering the crisis phone at 3 a.m. and at 2 p.m.
So, yes in a way, we owe Hillary our thanks.
It's also true that during her various attacks Barack suffered Electorally. Back on May 5th, Obama and McCain were in a dead-heat with 264 to 263 Electoral Votes respectively.
After Hillary hit him with Bitter-gate and "He's an Elitist who doesn't relate to hard-working blue collar (white) Americans" Barack lost ground not just in West Virginia, but in Texas, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan falling behind McCain 290 to 237 on May 11th.
But today - literally today,just a single day after Hillary's campaign has taken what may well be a mortal wound - Barack has flipped the map by gaining ground in New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. He now has regained the lead with 266 to 248.
He still has to break the tie in both Indiana and Virginia, as well as hold his leads in New Mexico, Ohio and Missouri to win. But it's possible he could do that and take back Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina. Sure, it could also go back the other way, there are quite a few states at play, including red ones, But today, for the first time, if just a few things go his way, it looks like Obama could win by an Electoral Land-Slide!
And we have Hillary to thank for that. Somebody had to air out of Barack's near-dirty laundry, better it was Hillary now than McCain in November.
It had to be this way.
By finally exiting the race, and not seeking to use her delegate votes to engineer some kind of Shotgun Wedding as VP, Hillary will be doing us all a great service.
She just might of saved this country, from both McCain and herself.
Vyan
Saturday, May 24
Thursday, May 22
On Olbermann, Cold-Blooded Killers and Bald-Faced Liars
That incredible font of Patriotism Laura Ingraham has apparently responded to Keith Olbermann's taunt - "Why do you hate our troops" with the following.
Her claim here, using the site "Olbermannwatch" as her source is that Keith is a liar, and that he really did mean to insult our U.S. troops when he mentioned "Cold=Blooded Killers" in the Iraq War and wasn't simply throwing Bush's ridiculous rhetoric at the Knesset right back at him in reference to BlackWater.
As it was delibered Keith's Special Comment said this starting from the relevant quoting from Bush's speech:
"The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.'
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes 'cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives'?
They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day... with war crimes.
Let's just reinterate that Olbermann was Quoting the President in that statement, and clearly was turning that comment around to point at people who may, very well may, have committed WAR CRIMES!
Who might those people be?
Who are the War Criminals?
Might they be the members of Bush's Cabinet who conducted meeting after meeting discussing torture methods in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act?
Might they be members of Blackwater USA who have been granted immunity and impunity to murder civilians in Iraq?
Ignoring the War Criminals, the wingnut fringe instead attacked him for daring to use the Presidents word against American Troops. In response to this Keith issued a Clarification
Television goes by quickly and the viewers are not provided a copy of the script. So it is possible that reasonable viewers might have been confused by exactly to whom I referred, especially considering that I edited the original line, which was: "Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives? They are called your cabinet and your Pentagon."
During the editing process, it seemed that was a little broad, that there appear to be men in both of those places, General Ricardo Sanchez, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, perhaps even the new Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates, who did not merit inclusion in that list. Obviously, my use of Mr. Bush’s phrase, cold-blooded killers, did not refer to U.S. troops. I have never had anything but the highest respect for them and their sacrifice.
The difference here? Once sentence, specifying the cabinet and pentagon as the "killers" was removed. Instead he said "They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day... with war crimes."
That's changing a single sentence, that's all. In neither version of this were our troops called out. In neither version were our troops insulted.
He changed it because he didn't think it was fair to make a statement that would have included current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (who openly and frequently objected to the use of torture) and General Ricardo Sanchez who has also vehemently criticized such crimes.
Sanchez was the former Commander of Forces in Iraq, so if he deliberately excluded Sanchez he was most certainly excluding all of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanitan who had NOT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES.
One might go so far as to assume that he was also alluding to War Crimes and cover-ups such as in Haditha. Or Moumadiya. Or Crimes such as the killing Pat Tillman and subsequent cover-up and destruction evidence in that case.
But only a completely assclown or moron would think Keith meant "All Of Our Troops Are War Criminals!"
Yet this is exacty what Olbermannwatch claims.
After he came under fire for his Special Comment on May 14 in which called U.S. Troops "cold blooded killers", Keith Olbermann delivered a "clarification" in which he claimed that he had edited out the part in which he called White House and Pentagon officials "cold blooded killers". One problem, the day the Special Comment aired Keith was on Daily Kos comparing himself to Mozart for having produced his "masterpiece" in "one write". In other words...WITHOUT EDITING.
This is what Olbermann actually said in a comment within his May 14th Diary.
Strunk & White (25+ / 0-)
Funny thing about these.When I first write 'em, they are half as long.
Then I'm reminded of other things this administration has done, and suddenly, they're twice as long.
Actually, this one was one straight write. Took about an hour, I moved one sentence, added the new info on the fraudulence of the golf claim, and altered about a half dozen adjectives, and that was it. Not exactly Mozart's unblemished composition sheets, but I'll take it.
"If you're going through hell - keep going!" -- Winston Churchill
by Keith Olbermann on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
This is the point where you have to wonder if these people are simply lazy or mendacious? Keith did exactly what he said he did, he meant exactly what he said he meant - and he has certainly every RIGHT to say it in a country that is supposed to still have free speech.
Yet again, we have a completely mischaracterzation of a reasonable statment into some kind of anti-American slur. We've seen this with Michelle Obama and her comments about how the American people were coming together with common cause "for the first time in her adult life". We've seen many of the comments of Rev Wright distorted (which admittedly wasn't hard to do). Or the comments of Rosie O'Donnell the half-million Iraqi casualties - so far - and just who the "terrorists" responsibile for this war?
(No, She did not mean our Troops, she clearly meant Our President is Responsible. He is "The Decider", Right?)
The very thought that Our Troops are Terrorists is just plain insane. It's a LIE to say that Rosie made that claim, Michelle has made that claim, or that Olbermann has made that claim.
Here, yet again, and again and again, socio-pathological liars like Ingraham, O'Reilly and Olbermannwatch throw fact and common sense out the window in a desperate and sad effort to smear the critic. To justify the unjustifiable. To excuse criminals by confusing them with our Heroes. Deliberately. Viciously.
Keith was at least honest enough himself to realize that some people may have taken his comments the wrong way if you weren't fully paying attention, or simply don't care about the truth... but I care.
We care.
And I'm sure the Troops, those who've fought, bled, died, been traumatize and continue to struggle financially and emotionally after their service Care too.
Does Laura?
Tuesday, May 20
Wherein the Appeasement-Gate Canard is Smashed
The argument that simply speaking with the leaders of countries we disagree with being "appeasment", some type of surrender or traitorous behavior is simply ridiculous on it's face. It's false bravado, bully diplomacy done at the barrel of a gun and the dull plodding thoughlessness of a charging Rhino.
Most High School students, those with a better knowledge of Presidential History than Dana Perino, understand that Kennedy talked to Kruschev. Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush (via Rumsfeld) talked to Saddam, Bill Clinton's people talked to Jerry Adams and Milosevic, and George W. Bush's Administration has talked to both Qaddafi, Lil Kim Jong Il and the leaders of the Sunni Awakening.
Yet somehow - Obama is the misguided one here?
It's just so wrong and inaccurate it's galling to the point of rage.
The definition of "Appeasment" via Dictionary.com
ap·pease – verb (used with object), - peased, - peas·ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
A discussion is not a concession to some belligerent demand. It's a discussion. It's communication. How can you make any progress in any direction at all unless you discuss the issues at hand?
Standing back while loudly bellowing "Give Up, Or I'll say GIVE UP again..." is not a ration foriegn policy.
Former G. H. W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker understands this fully - From Hannity and Colmes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg
Baker: My view is that you don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well and that Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies. You don't reward them. Talking is not appeasement. I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 ...at a time when they were listed as a terrorist state. On the 16 trip Syria changed 25 years of policy and sat with the table with Israel, effectively recognizing their right to exist.
Maybe that is what Barack Obama want to discuss with Iran, Mr. McCain?
Fortunately though, Barack Obama himself knows how to seperate fact from their distructive inane fiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc
In this speech Barack makes it clear that the failure to engage is not a sign of strength, it is a travesty of disastrous proportions. Since Bush and his ilk like to use a retroactive rewriting of history to suit their own rhetorical needs, lets suppose this had always been our policy and as a result we had have lost the Cold War?
If we hadn't negotiated with the Soviet Union...
There would still be Nuclear Missles in Cuba pointed right at Florida. East and West Germany would not have been reunited. There would still be a wall across the center of Berlin.
It's well past time we relearned something that we seemed to have always known before the reign of President George W. Bush.
Diplomacy Works.
Vyan
F.B.I. complained about Torture at Gitmo
DOJ Inspector General's Reporthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGd9P4sNnfo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)