Righteous criticism of Barack Obama has been made by Hillary Clinton's supporters and others because of his association with people like William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He has also been justifiably criticized for the misogyny, sexism and CDS-fueled abuse that has been directed at Hillary and her supporters from the fauxgressive blogosphere.

Ever been in a bad relationship? This one has all the signs.

From the comments at Riverdaughter's place:

Jeff, on June 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm Said:

I guarantee come November–when you’ve all blown off a little steam at sites like this–the DNC and Obama supporters like myself will have talked you back to the true fold. And in any case– GREAT MEN LIKE SEN. OBAMA ONLY COME AROUND ONCE IN A GENERATION AND WE WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOW YOU TO DESTROY OUR DREAM!

There are sooo many issues I have with this statement.

1. What about our dream?

They sure don't act like winners.

From Reclusive Leftist:

This comment is showing up in moderation queues throughout the Hillary-supporting blogosphere:

When I watched her speech this morning, I felt something genuine in her voice. When she talked about dedicating her life to making America a better place, you could tell that was her deepest conviction.

She seemed a little hesitant endorsing Obama, but she also seemed very confident when she said we cannot afford to allow the Republicans to hold The White House for another 4 years or more.

In the end, I think Hillary’s decision to support Obama was what she feels is the best course for our country to follow. I’ve supported her so far, so there’s no reason for me to doubt her now.

Let’s take back The White House for the Democrats and make America a better place.

Har! The name attached to the comment is different depending on the blog; the pattern seems to be to choose the name of a regular commenter.

So I drop in at the Confluence and I see:

I got busy and a few weeks ago I forgot to put up a post in recognition of the Battle of Camerone. Since it is Memorial Day, I'll do it now.

The Battle of Camarone occurred on April 30, 1863, between the French Foreign Legion and the Mexican army. A small infantry patrol led by Captain Danjou, Lt Maudet and Lt Vilain, numbering 62 soldiers and 3 officers was attacked and besieged by a force of 2,000 infantry and cavalry, and made a stand at the Hacienda Camarone, in Camarón de Tejeda, Veracruz, Mexico.

By popular acclaim, we are offering for your amusement and edification the exciting new game "Obama Golf"!

The rules are simple, and any number can play: To win, change an innocuous Hillary statement into a wankfest-worthy statement in the fewest number of strokes:

Hillary says “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

0. "Assassinated"

1. Black leaders have been assassinated

2. Obama is a black leader

3. She was talking about assassinating Obama

Three strokes, total. (“Teeing up” the initial trigger word does not count as a stroke).

From Shakesville:

"Briefly, my opinion is that it was an ill-considered statement that warranted an apology, irrespective of intent. FWIW, I don't think she intended to suggest anything nefarious, but it was not a particularly sensitive example to use to make her point, and careless in its disregard of the history of violence against black leaders. It was inevitable, and of course not unreasonable, that people would consider her competitor Obama within the frame she built, to upsetting results, even if she didn't specifically mention him."

So the new rule is Hillary (and Bill, her surrogates, etc.) cannot mention anything that someone might possibly, in some bizarre fashion, connect in some offensive way to Barack Obama within six degrees of separation?

We have a new game for the media and OFB to play!

[Welcome, Confluence readers! Additional evidence for the prosecution may be found at Argus smear and Fucked In The Head Watch -- lambert]

From CBS:

This afternoon, Barack Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's comments yesterday when she referenced th assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason she's staying in the race this year. Obama said he believes that Clinton was not trying to be offensive.

This is why she's scary smart:

What is my point here? Namely, that the Left Blogosphere has always behaved like this, they have always swarmed and spewed at their favorite target of hate, the Clintons, and that their embrace of Obama is purely instrumental. They don't give a damn if he can win the general. They are obsessed with preventing the Clintons from returning to power. If he can do that, then they'll be back to bashing him since he will have served his useful purpose.

There is always hope, and we are never defeated, as long as truth survives.

My Congressman drinks the kool-aid:

Today, United States Congressman Jim Costa (CA-20) and United States Congressman Dennis Cardoza endorsed Barack Obama for president. Congressman Cardoza previously supported Senator Hillary Clinton.

[...]

Congressman Cardoza said, “This is the most important election of my lifetime. While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for President. He has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need.

Money laundering is the process of illegally transferring money without getting caught. It takes two forms:

1. Turning illegally obtained money into money that appears legally obtained.

This is your typical drug dealer with suitcases full of cash. As long as it is in cash, it can be stolen or seized by the authorities. It can't be deposited in the bank, and the IRS will be upset that they didn't get their cut. Just ask Al Capone.

If you stuff a million dollars in your mattress you probably won't sleep very well.

2. Legally possessed money transferred illegally to someone else.

There will be no unity for Democrats this year. That's the cold hard truth. It hit me while I was reading this piece of crap by John Judis:

Clinton's second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama's challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a "transformative politician"); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting "present" in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama's connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).

Ah, the NYT is the epitome of accuracy in journalism:

Then in March 2004, Mr. Obama's political and literary fortunes abruptly shifted. His victory in a tightly contested United States Senate primary in Illinois made him an overnight Democratic Party sensation.

"Tightly contested?" From Wikipedia:

In early media polls leading up to the March 16, 2004 primary election, [Blair] Hull enjoyed a substantial lead and widespread name recognition resulting from a well-financed advertisement effort. He contributed over $28 million of his personal wealth for the campaign.

When allegations that Hull had abused his ex-wife were made by the media, Hull's poll numbers dropped and he failed to win the nomination. Illinois State Senator Barack Obama later became the nominee.

Obama finished 29 points ahead of the second place primary finisher. Then he cake-walked in the general against Alan Keyes after Jack Ryan withdrew from the race following disclosure of divorce records containing politically embarrassing charges by his ex-wife.

Former journalist turned Obama shill Walter Shapiro gives us a top contender for the dumbest quote ever in a campaign filled with dumb quotes:

The Tuesday night story line never varies: Hillary Clinton wins a primary (Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky) and then, bizarrely enough, continues to behave as if she were a realistic candidate for president.

WTF?

Gee Walt, I could see your point if she kept losing, but she's WINNING!

Now maybe it's too little, too late, but Obama hasn't locked up the nomination yet.

BTW - Let's not forget Texas and Ohio, and all the states she won on Super Duper Tuesday.

*This message is not intended for humans

After nearly six straight months of this, I have had enough. Stop wasting my time.

First of all, I owe you NOTHING. I do not have to answer your questions, nor do I have to explain to you why I am supporting Hillary Clinton.

I tried constructive engagement, but that's really just a game of blogospheric whack-a-mole. It's like Groundhog Day, arguing the same arguments over and over.

I know everything I need to know (and then some) about Hillary Clinton. Nothing you can say will persuade me that she's evil. She is not the Antichrist, nor is she married to him.

"Madrugada Jones | xxxxxxx [at] yyyy [dot] com | spinachflame.wordpress.com | IP: foo.bar.foo

I respect Hillary a great deal and think she’d make a terrific president. But I’m for Obama and I think you have to ask yourself, if the roles were reversed and Hillary was out ahead in the delegate count (not to mention the superdelegate count) and Barack was trying to get the delegates from MI and FL seated, do you honestly think she’d let them be seated?? You’ve got to be kidding me. She’d do the same exact thing he’s doing, which is well within the rules the DNC established. To me, this proves Obama’s political savvy.

New cartoons here: http://spinachflame.wordpress.com/

Not Spam — May 16, 2:36 PM — [ View Post ]
#

spinachflame | llllllllll [at] zzzzz [dot] com | IP: Bar.foo.bar

I respect Hillary a great deal and think she’d make a terrific president. But I’m for Obama and I think you have to ask yourself, if the roles were reversed and Hillary was out ahead in the delegate count (not to mention the superdelegate count) and Barack was trying to get the delegates from MI and FL seated, do you honestly think she’d let them be seated?? You’ve got to be kidding me. She’d do the same exact thing he’s doing, which is well within the rules the DNC established. To me, this proves Obama’s political savvy."

Tommorrow's news today.

Tune in tonight for the latest episode of WWTSBQ! Hear Hillary's campaign obituary (again)

Watch pinheaded pundits pontificate pointlessly!

See Donna Brazile-nut toss Democrats under the bus.

Listen to Tweety misogynize shamelessly with the He-Man Woman Haters Club Chorus.

Find out how a landslide defeat in a swing state is a huge victory for Barack Obama!

Special bonus: a preview of tomorrow's "new and improved" wankfest!

(No-host bar, gratuity not included)

He's regaining his sanity, get this man more Kool-aid, Stat!:

While the Daily Kos diary in question is specifically arguing that the Cooper plan was great (although that is implied), it does take as its main point that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, weren't nice enough to conservatives. If only Hillary Clinton had been nicer to conservatives, then we could have had great health care plans like Jim Cooper's. Hell, Jim Cooper himself says so. And look, David Brooks agrees, so it much be right.

From "Hillbillies for Hillary" by Ron Chusid:

Education and intelligence are also important in distinguishing between Clinton and Obama supporters. There are several reasons why the educated voters overwhelmingly choose Obama over Clinton. One reason is that Clinton campaigns based upon flawed economic policies to pander to the lower income voters. She promotes policies such as the gas tax holiday and and her proposals for the mortgage crisis which require education and knowledge of the issues to see the serious errors. Clinton and her supporters try to circumvent criticism of her plans by the educated by writing them off as elites whose views do not matter. While Obama is developing a diverse group of supporters, Clinton is now leading an anti-intellectual movement which believes they can shout down those who criticize them as elitists.

This New York Times article about Barack Obama is a must read. It's so full of interesting topics I am breaking it into parts.

In tommorrow's NYT:

Hullabaloo is losing it's collective mind. Today we see tristero going gaga over D-Day's "The Obama Party" post from yesterday:

Win or lose, for good or otherwise, it really appears that Obama is in a position to renovate the Democratic party. As dday mentions, this does not necessarily mean that that reform will make the party more conducive to liberal and progressive ideas. As I see it, however, by displacing the sclerotic leaders who managed, incredibly, to make both the 2004 election and the 2000 race so close that a candidate as clearly awful as Bush could steal the presidency (once if not twice), there are potential opportunities for liberals.

[...]

Susan Faludi thinks men are warming to Hillary because she's mean and nasty.

Pundits have been quick to attribute the erosion in Barack Obama’s white male support to a newfound racism. What they have failed to consider is the degree to which white male voters witnessing Senator Clinton’s metamorphosis are being forced to rethink precepts they’ve long held about women in American politics.

Some Obama supporters have truly entered a state that is referred to in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) as "Bat-shit Crazy."

At the normally sane Hullabaloo we get this from D-Day:

Campaign reform.

Not just that, but it's high on my list. We need to fix a broken system.

Some required fixes:

1. End the caucuses. Secret ballot primaries only.

2. Regional primaries. Five of them, in rotation, beginning in February and ending in June. Iowa and New Hampshire can get in line with everyone else.

3. Closed primaries. Democrats should select our nominee.

4. Select the nominee by popular vote. Delegates should be used for other intra-party buisness at the convention, but let the voters select the nominee.

5. Campaign finance reform. The winner should not be selected based on who can raise the most obscene amount of money.