Home » Blogs » intranets's blog

Cheetos anyone?

Mon, 04/07/2008 - 6:05am — intranets

So I'm reading this Newsweek article I saw on digg, and after of jawdropping moment of WTF, I noticed the byline "By Marko5 Mou1itsas | NEWSWEEK"

Here's what I don't get, the article essentially pretends to spin the long drawn out Dem primary as a good thing, that has led to better organization, money, boots on the ground, and vetted Obama. But if that is true and if Obama has so clearly won, why all the attacks? Why are OFB so rabid on the WWTSBQ?

If Obama has won, why not focus on McCain or shut up and just let Clinton look more and more desperate? If Obama has enough votes why this long screed about Clinton's dastardly evil plans.

I think a certain douchebag doth protest too much.

"She's already lost."

"No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination."

"But by any metric imaginable, Obama has already won."

"Clinton's near-lone chance of victory..."

"...Clinton has staked her ephemeral chances."

"Yet a coup by elite Democrats... "

"But if Beltway bigwigs steal a hard-won victory..."

"Clinton's best-case scenario for victory requires sundering her own party."

"Apparently, the only states that matter are the ones she coincidentally happens to win."
The only consolation was at the end of the opinion piece:

Mou1itsas, a NEWSWEEK contributor, is the publisher of , a progressive Web site.
Even his own website's name is too dirty of a word to put into print. I wonder if they have a word filter or if Mr. CIA was too embarrassed or freudian to plug GOS.

For the record, many people had concerns about the 2004 election and the recount, and it was this same douchebag who greeted his readers with a similar call "to get over it". Why bother counting votes? It's much easier for the gatekeepers to tell people to shut up. Why should superdelegates be counted? Why wait until the convention and actually let someone count the delegates? The election is over, the media and blogs have decided.

[EDIT - upon further SEO discussions, I've decided to edit his name so as to screw up his vanity google alerts]

»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Nattering nabobs..."

By lambert on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 7:13am

"Beltway bigwigs..."

Just saying. We've got our own Safire! How nice for everyone...

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

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

»

I came here to get away from the OFB

By myiq2xu on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 9:42am

bull-haka.

It was making it hard for me to be able to keep my promise to vote for Obama is he wins the nomination.

This election is starting to remind me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

"Annoy the Boiz - Vote for the Girl"

—

x

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

»

Turkana Takes Down Markos

By BDBlue on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 12:43pm

Here.

Obama bloggers want to scare Clinton supporters and Clinton donors. They want to create an aura of inevitability for Obama such that any Clinton victory will be seen as a theft. This makes Clinton look petty and dishonest, and her supporters, at best, delusional. But facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that such a framing is simply inaccurate. And these same Obama bloggers then claim that it is Clinton and her supporters who are dividing the Party! And they wonder why Clinton supporters are so angry. They wonder why people who do not support Clinton but simply care about honesty are so angry!

Hillary Clinton can still legitimately earn the nomination. It will not be easy for her to do it. But it is not close to being impossible.

(Emphasis mine.)

Facts are stubborn things. Once the Blogger Boyz commended themselves for living in a reality-based world, now they seem to believe - that like a certain President - they make their own reality.

Sad.

The reason Clinton hasn't dropped out is because Obama has not clinched the nomination. One would think that the democratic party would want a nominee who could, you know, win the nomination. Not one dependent on his opponent to melt away.

BTW, the polls in Pennsylvania are tightening. Given that there will be no re-votes, it's Obama's last chance to prove he can win a big state primary other than his home state. He's outspending Hillary by vast amounts. All he has to do is close the deal in Pennsylvania - not lose merely by 5, but actually win - and he will probably clinch the nomination. He's failed at this test every time before. His SDs, the DNC establishment and the blogger boyz are doing their part to suppress Clinton's vote. Now he just needs to do his part. Can he?

—

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

»

i disagree

By intranets on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 4:57pm

"All he has to do is close the deal in Pennsylvania - not lose merely by 5, but actually win - and he will probably clinch the nomination. He’s failed at this test every time before."

I'm not so sure PA is as big of a test. I think if it is close and Obama still loses that is still a pretty big win for him. If he does outright win PA in delegates, I would be surprise if Clinton does not quit.

Also, NC and IN are big enough states in my mind.

Either way, all three of them have serious voting machine issues, so technically anything is possible, including the Bush 3% fudge is in play.

»