The fucking balls on this woman!
Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement
She is absolutely without shame.
Another hilarious thing about that Hillary for 44 page is that they tout themselves as evidence of the netroots support for Clinton. Under the date “Wednesday, May 21, 6:40 pm”, there’s the title “Hillary Poll Leads”. It hasn’t been updated since April 15. And it includes a poll showing Obama with a 20-point lead in North Carolina.
Um, yeah, guys. Way to show netroots support for Clinton!
Daniel
Agreed. She’s acting like she was getting sprayed with fire hoses in Michigan to earn those votes when at the time she said the election in Michigan did not matter. And even if she prevails and gets these delegations seated, it doesn’t make a bit of difference she will still lose! She has had so many chances to get out with dignity. Now all I want for her is to get out and never come back.
You beat me to it as well. I was going to steer clear of this thread, despite my antipathy for the woman, but this is truly remarkable. But a couple people said it better. TNR:
Yuck.
Yes, I would. If Omarosa were a candidate, I’d call her a bitch too. The only reason I call Hillary “bitch” is the same reason I call her “she”. Is it sexist to use the feminine pronoun to reference her? If not, then it’s not sexist to use feminine epithets. I use masculine ones on Bush, because he’s a dick.
Wow.
Just, wow.
How does this woman have any remaining supporters at all?
Does she (and by extension they) have truly no shame?
Way overstated.
It’s being willing to accept the idea of another Republican as president in 2009 that makes one an inconsequential piece of SHIT.
And just by the way…“goosestep”?..I mean, ah…“goosestep”?!
I quoted you calling Clinton a whore, not a bitch. I agree that “bitch” is the equivalent of “dick,” more or less (actually, “cunt” is the equivalent, for which reason I don’t think calling women “cunt” is any more sexist than calling guys “dick” is). Would it occur to you to call Obama a gigolo? Or is there something about Hillary that specifically makes referring to her sexuality more relevant?
In any case, you know as well as I do that calling Omarosa a bitch isn’t the equivalency I was talking about. Pretending to ignorance doesn’t actually advance any position.
Daniel
Plenty of people (myself included) call Jesse Jackson a fame whore.
And yet, he’s also a pussy.
I wouldn’t call Obama any such name, because he’s a gracious gentleman. But Al Sharpton, for example: I’d call him a pimp.
How am I supposed to know what you mean when you say “cunt” isn’t sexist but “whore” is just because you can’t think of a masculine equivalent? Anyway, your main point seems to be about “referring to her sexuality”. HER sexuality. If you don’t want me calling her names, just say so. But if you want me to be gender-neutral in referencing her, then do the same yourself and stop calling her “her”. And frankly, if the writer has to blame the reader for every fucking misunderstanding between them, then I think the writer should just stop writing.
And a monkey. Also a crouton.
Crouton? As in fried bread for salad?
That’s right.
Color me whooshed. I had no idea salad ingredients were insulting.
My main problem with Hillary is how she has gone about trying to get the nomination.
First, she used her reputation for showing kindness to loyalty (and showing sharp knives to perceived defectors) to scare off other candidates. In the fall of 2007, the word was that she had issued subtle threats to big-money fundraisers that they would be “out of the loop” if they hedged their bets. Fundraisers were actually afraid to jump ship to Obama, lest her wrath be felt. This helped write the “inevitable” script – what could be more disenfranchising than that? It sounds like something a dispirited third-world voter might say: “Well, the General always wins, so why would I vote against him?”
It was her supporters on the DNC who wrote the new proportional allocation rules, because they expected that she would be the one with the near-insurmountable lead. Her supporters also approved the rule to punish states that jumped the queue, guaranteeing a Mega Super Tuesday where only a national organization could win. National organizations take money, and she believed that she had monopolized the money supply. These two factors combined to subtly re-write the victory conditions: a blowout victory on Super Tuesday would create the kind of momentum that would be truly insurmountable.
Michigan and Florida screwed it up a little, but she had her ace in the hole there, too: by leaving her name on the ballot she turned the Michigan votes into a nasty trap for anyone who would dare to build up a delegate lead on her.
Those strategems safely employed, her national organization focused on winning the four pre-Super-Tuesday contests… and failed to do so. By Super Tuesday, their national organization was relying on name recognition to do most of their work for them. A few early stunners from Obama was all it took to wreck her plan – she had not bothered to set up a real national organization (because she did not expect to count every vote).
Her presumptuousness and sense of entitlement to the office blinded her to the obvious truth. “Ready on day one” my ass – she’s ready to have power again, but has never once demonstrated to me that she understands how to effectively wield it. If there’s anything we don’t need after eight years of Bush, it’s a politician who wears shorts and flip-flops in a blizzard while assuring everyone that the sun is just about to come out again. Hillary, your victory speeches are each their own ‘Mission Accomplished’ embarrassment. It’s over; get out.
So she really is psychotic.
What do Hillary, Dubya, and croutons have in common? They’re all toast.