Department of Are You Freaking Kidding Me?

Obama gets his own nifty Great Seal

This guy reminds me more and more every day of GWB. Here's the article (emphasis mine)

Just before the president of the United States makes an appearance at a speech, a usually tall, muscular person with a machine gun hanging under his suit coat quietly walks on stage and hangs the presidential seal on the podium front.

It's an impressive looking thing that conveys a sense of the power of the top elected office in the land and, indeed, the free world.

But Barack Obama's crowd has decided not to wait for any of the formalities like a presidential election, an inauguration or even a nomination, which he still hasn't actually officially won yet. Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who was so sidely accused of thinking her nomination was inevitable?

Obama now has his own Great Seal already. And it is really, really big. It's big like the tires on those elevated pickups in the parking lot at NASCAR races where you look out the car window and see nothing but fist-sized lug nuts.

Obama's new seal looks really presidential, which is probably a coincidence, don't you think? Obama's seal has an eagle just like the president's seal and he or she is holding arrows to signify war, which Obama was against before it even started.

And it's got olive branches, which stand for peace, which we haven't really had since 9/11 but DailyKos promises will come as soon as we shoo out Bush and Cheney.

The seal's also got a terrifically impressive motto in Latin -- "Vero Possumus" -- which means "The possum speaks truthily."

No, just kidding. It actually means "Truly we're able," which translates as "Si se puede," which translates as "Yes, we can." Obama is clearly copying George W. Bush's Texas gubernatorial reelection motto from 1998.

Plus it's got Obama's website right up there too. Lord knows, he needs more donations because the poor White Sox fan from Chicago's impoverished South Side has only raised a little under $290 million so far.

As chronicled by our colleagues over at the Swamp, some folks figure he'll top a half-billion dollars before election day, now that he's scrapped his promise to take public funds, this year a measly $84 million to spend between Labor Day and Nov. 4. Public money was good enough for every other presidential candidate for the last three decades. But how could any serious candidate possibly get along on only $1.3 million a day?

During the Democratic primary voting, a lot of folks were fooled into thinking Obama agreed with public funds when he signed a pledge last fall to use them and told constitutents before that, "If we're still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, those with the most money are still going to have the most influence."

As Jill Zuckman notes in the Swamp, the John McCain camp is using Obama's own phrase -- "Don't tell me words don't matter" -- to skewer the Illinois senator on his finance reversal. But McCain doesn't have his own giant seal.

The Obama campaign is clearly counting on any stink over the broken pledge to blow over in the 136 days left before the election. And, of course, once Obama backers see the kind of first-class seal they're getting for $290-plus million, they may go along.

If Obama does raise $500 million, that'll mean he spent around two gallons of gas per vote. He raked in another $22 million in May, according to the Tribune's Mike Dorning, roughly the same as McCain.

Some people might be inclined to make fun of a grown candidate who's against an imperial presidency but needs a really Great Seal before he even gets the official nomination. Maybe they'd suggest that as good as things look now from the city of big winds, maybe he's counting his eagles before they hatch.

But even if he loses in November, for $500 million Obama and Michelle could build their own White House. And paint it any darned color they want.

For a video of Obama explaining his public funding reversal, along with subversive subtitles from the funny folks over at 23/6, click on the Read more line below.

--Andrew Malcolm

Voting? Who needs voting? Just claim victory and get on with it. Let the coronation begin!!

Here's the Deal

-I'm so over all of the sore winner attitudes of so many of the Obamaphiles.

-The DNC has succeeded in driving me from the party.

-I don't have a dog in this fight.

-I don't have any wish to endorse a candidate and it's too soon to "endorse" a candidate anyway. For all we know, either and/or neither "presumptive" nominee may or may not get the nomination in the end.

-My "endorsement" or my one vote won't make a damn bit of difference anyway. To me it's all become too much like mental masturbation. 

So I'm checking out for the duration. 

I'll miss my fellow "Hillary havens" but I'll check in on them from time to time. If something major happens that might have an impact on the general election I might check back in. Otherwise, best of luck to all of you who are willing to carry on!  

As for me...all I can say is, "Please wake me when it's over."

Yes, please spare us

Here's what Falstaff says. It's so good I have to reprint the whole thing here but please check out the blog as well.

Spare us your sympathy.

Spare us your understanding of “what we must be going through.”

Also spare us the less condescending form of that sentiment. If you feel inclined to express your understanding of what we are going through… spare us.

Spare us your calls for “unity.” Lines have been crossed that can’t be uncrossed. Hatred – vicious, vitriol-dripping misogyny, bullying derision and murderous rage – has been thrown around like confetti.

Spare us your apologies.

Spare us your appreciations for Hillary Clinton’s accomplishment in her “historic” campaign – with or without hedges about how “unfortunate” some aspects of her conduct were.

Spare us your “reflections” on the state of feminism – such as your “discovery” of a generational divide.

Spare us your lectures on how no “real feminist” could do anything but try to defeat John McCain.

Spare us your appeals to the institution of the Democratic Party – the institution whose base you have aggressively sought to throw out and whose values you have trashed, the institution that you have dragged into the sewer of disenfranchisement, whose principles and integrity you have soiled, in order to win.

Spare us your assurances that Hillary’s supporters will “come around.”

Spare us any mention of Kubler-Ross, or any stage of anything.

Oh, and Dr. Dean – spare us any future fund-raising appeals for the DNC. We do plan to work our asses off for Democrats running for the House, the Senate and in state and local races – but for the purposes of the presidential race, we’re Independents for now.

Clear enough?

Okay, now that you’re free from those feelings of responsibility, or guilt, or whatever gets you through the night, let us tell you some of the things we’d be happy to hear and see.

Please, don’t hold back on your most sincere frat-boy, triumphalist thoughts and feelings. Feel free to give them full-throated voice.

Feel free to drop your PC inhibitions on how fed up you are with all this feminist crap. In fact, feel free to use the following terms liberally: bitch, cunt, whore, slut, pussy, screech, witch, castrator, dyke, lesbo, frigid, and so on.

Feel free to spread your poetic and metaphoric wings. Feel free to surf the ocean of world literature, myth and pop culture for examples of monstrosity, soullessness, inhumanity and all manner of evil. (Suggestion: There are many cultures whose canons and myths remain unplumbed in this dialogue. I, for one, have hoped for imaginative analogies to such figures as Grendel's mother, Shiva, Medea, Hecate and Lady Macbeth, for starters.)

Feel free to blame Hillary and her dead-ender supporters for handing the election to McSame.

Feel free to chuckle over Hillary the Loser.

Feel free to shake your sober editorial head over her many jaw-dropping excesses.

Feel free to compose concerned or helpful lists of “what went wrong” with Hillary’s campaign.

Feel free to complain off-the-record to journalists about how Hillary is just going through the motions, and isn’t really supporting Obama’s candidacy.

Feel free to ask, all puzzled and hurt-like, “Can anyone explain to me how Obama’s campaign was sexist? I really want to know”

Feel free as the breeze to exult in the wonderfulness of The Movement.

And, oh yeah, feel free, once all this is over – once the damage done to the Democratic Party is clear, once we have lost an election that couldn’t be lost, once the tide of Beatlemania has ebbed, and the “passions of the moment” have cooled – feel free to grow up.

Then feel free to give us a call. We’ll be here.

Update: I'll continue to add links that demonstrate the points of this post.

Not gonna happen

Tom Watson, bless his Hillary-loving heart, has announced that he's joining the "Unity Party" in his post: Speaking Loudly With a Single Voice

He starts off by praising Hillary's campaign and then says (emphasis mine):

Yet, I have to say this clearly: Hillary lost, and she lost squarely on the playing field as it was laid out for all candidates. Moreover, Barack won. And he really did win in the fullest sense of the word. There can be no question that Obama also faced a stern test in terms of our national mores and prejudices, and that his primary campaign was a testament to his skill and talent - and yes, his vision for America.

After a number of Hillary-supporters comments Tom felt he needed to add an update:

UPDATE: As always, I appreciate comments here. And I've come a long way with bunch of ya. But I have to say I disagree strongly with Clinton supporters who say they'll never vote for Obama because they feel personally disrespected, because somehow the Democratic Party doesn't want their vote. Spare me. A little tough love, people: if Hillary Clinton can deal with it, I damned well hope you can. Her policy - his policy - is simply better. So lick your wounds and make your choice. And as it turns, Hillary and Barack are meeting at her home right now - Senator Obama giving an overt and very public signal of respect for Senator Clinton. Buck up!

Oh, really? "Lick your wounds" and "buck up". Please, tell us emotional Hillary supporters what else we're supposed to do to help screw ourselves over some more. 

One of my favorite comments came from CAE:

The DNC cannot have both a purge and unity. Ya gotta pick one. They picked the purge. The purged ain't coming back for the unity.

I couldn't agree more.

Here's my response to Tom's post (in it I refer to a Lance Mannion post that I carried in the previous post):

I've been a Democrat for my whole life. My mother idolized FDR and I campaigned at my school for Kennedy and then Humphrey. I've voted Democratic for 36 years. Well, it's over.

I've learned over the years that the GOP would do anything to win. Cheat, lie, steal votes and disenfranchise voters. But somehow I thought I was a member of a party who stood for the will of the people. What I found out from this primary was that my party was every bit as willing and able to do "whatever it took" to force their nominee on us. 'Will of the people' be damned.

I've been more and more disappointed in "my party" over the last eight years. When Gore gave up. When Kerry gave up. When Pelosi and Reid decided to take impeachment off the table. They haven't done a damn thing I hoped they would do. But, by gawd, this time they actually succeeded at something. They really pulled off quite an impressive coup. They've managed to alienate about half of their own party. Who'd of thought that was possible? Of course they don't get all the credit. A fawning media, who praised anything Obama and savaged anything Clinton, with their repeated calls for Clinton to bow out and their unconcealed, over-zealous support of an inexperienced, unvetted, "Elvis" candidate really helped clinch the deal.

Lance Mannion, in his post, "Booze, burgers, and broads: The art of managing the National Press Corps" sums it up really well. Read the whole thing: http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2008/06/booze-burgers-a.html (Oh, and to be fair, Lance is also hoping for an Obama win now that he's "won" the nomination.)

Several readers have objected to my fairly mundane and obvious observation in Saturday night's post that National Press Corps hates Hillary Clinton and really, really, really doesn't want her to be President and that this has helped Barack Obama shape the perception that the campaign was over before it was over because the only way Hillary could win was in a floor fight at the convention and that would tear the party apart. This led to the accusation that Clinton wanted to tear the party apart. She only cares about herself and her own ambition, the party and the nation be damned. The idea that Clinton is a monster of ego who will do anything to win has been pushed and pushed since before she announced that she would run.

The National Press Corps and the Village Insiders hate the Clintons and they cover them accordingly using the Clinton Rules of Journalism, Rule Number One of which is that anything a Clinton does is done from the basest and most suspect of motives and Rule Number Two of which is that the smallest ethical irregularity on their part or even the appearance of what can be interpreted as an ethical irregularity is proof of a serious crime that they're somehow magically covering up and Rule Number Three is that their ability to magically cover up this crime that the Press has divined is there despite the Clintons' ability to magically cover it up is further proof that the crime was committed.

This has been going on for over sixteen years now......

The Insider Media hates Clinton and that worked to Barack Obama's advantage.

I know there are lots of people who for whatever reason have to believe that Obama is going to win the nomination because he's a knight in shining armor and his strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure. I won't argue with you, for the same reason I could never bring myself to tell my kids there's no Santa Claus. They had to find it out for themselves because I'm an old softie.

But there are others who want to believe that he won through the sheer force of his brilliance.

And I can't deny it. He has been brilliant.

Not all the time. But enough of the time.

The difference is that I think a sign of his brilliance has been his ability to fight dirty while appearing not to be fighting dirty.

So Tom I don't feel "personally disrespected by the Democratic Party". I feel betrayed and outraged. I don't give a damn if they want my vote or not. They're not getting it.

Congratulations Democrats!!!

But just a word of warning.

Here's Lance Mannion in his post, "Booze, burgers, and broads: The art of managing the National Press Corps".

I know there are lots of people who for whatever reason have to believe that Obama is going to win the nomination because he's a knight in shining armor and his strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure. I won't argue with you, for the same reason I could never bring myself to tell my kids there's no Santa Claus. They had to find it out for themselves because I'm an old softie.

Ssssh....Lance, please don't let the Obamaphiles hear you blaspheming The Precious.

As for me, I'm so glad to be a registered Independent. It'll be fun to watch from the sidelines as the inept, clueless DNC thrashes their way to losing yet another election. Their circular firing squad business had already gotten way too old for me.

This time they've really pulled their biggest coup ever - they've managed to alienate 18 million Democrat voters! Wow! I used to think it took the GOP to screw people over that successfully.

So congratulations Democrats! You're on your own with your Elvis candidate and kool-aid drinking Obamabots. And seeing how well divining your way to the nomination worked it can't be too soon for you to start declaring "victory" in the General Election. Good luck with that. This time I won't be a party to any of it.

Not a racist, a "realist"

17 Million

And counting...

PUMA

The "Party Unity My Ass" un-party is born! And I'm signing up today as a member! Thank you Riverdaughter!

riverdaughter spells it out

She writes about John Judis' article in The New Republic, "The Autopsy Report". Judis actually admits to the press being in the bag for Obama, but he explains why in this snippet:

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).

John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other—and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain’s doing it to Romney—a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton’s former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. “I was just a fighter,” Patterson had said, “but he was history.” Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history—the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and ’60s. And if some voters didn’t appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama’s candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama’s fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

Her response is so fucking spot on...

Is this true? Did Clinton go unfairly negative on Obama? The answer to this is unfortunately yes. See, while we weren’t watching, standards were recalibrated to adjust for the African-American candidate. There is no need to do this for the female candidate because it is expected that if she wants to play in the big boyz game, she will have to demonstrate that she can be beaten to a bloody pulp and still remain standing. This is a universal truth. It’s like gravity. The African-American male got the right to vote before females did. We are only following precedent. Plus, we must acknowledge the collective guilt that we Democrats share regarding the status of African-Americans in America. If it weren’t for Republicans pushing through all that civil rights legislation back in the 60’s, we would still be living with segregation. We must atone for our sins, therefore, Hillary is absolutely forbidden from saying anything negative about Obama. This includes saying something about him that is true because that might make him look like just an average politician and that would be negative.

She must also not compare herself to him as this may reveal him to be wanting in some capacity and that would be mean and prejudicial. Some people would say that this gives Obama an advantage that Hillary doesn’t have, that he starts off with a handicap of sorts. But this comes too close to saying that he is benefitting from affirmative action and that just shows that you are a bigot.

"Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind..."

Andrew Stephens, of the New Stateman, sums it up beautifully in his column, "Hating Hillary".

(Emphasis mine)

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

And this is what I've been saying over and over. They (the DNC, MSM, progblogs) are all foisting an unvetted, inexperienced, little known, "hope" candidate on us because they think there's no way they can lose in November. Oh, but just wait until the GOP starts in on The Precious. Forget about comparing McCain to Bush. The Obama they'll be running against has way more in common with the GWB who ran in 2000; he's a "uniter", who's going to bring "hope" and "change", who misspeaks on more than a few occasions. 

What Obama will find out, and is already getting a taste of, is that he has also something in common with the Bill Clinton of 1992; he's married to a professional woman in her own right, who is outspoken, and has made comments that don't sit well with a lot of voters. Oh, dear. Imagine how that is going to play out. Hmm... And just imagine the outrage of the Obamaphiles. They will be shocked, just shocked at the rampant sexism and vilification of the Democratic nominee and his spouse. And they will be look to the Hillary supporters to 'call out' the media and the people making these outrageous claims! 

And to them I will say, "Good luck with that."

DissNfranChise?



Great job Hire Heels!

You say you want a Revolution?

I sure as hell do!

The Brand Called Obama

Check out this piece called "Brand "O" by Robert Zimmer written back in March. He references the article in the April 2008 Issue of Fast Company, "The Brand Called Obama".

Here's a clip from "Brand "O" (emphasis mine):

The Machine Behind Obama's Mystique -- Barack Obama's campaign may claim to be about a new brand of politics, but behind the scenes, the machine that has carefully controlled Brand "O" is anything but.

Next month's issue of Fast Company magazine will include an article entitled "The Brand Called Obama." It's about time.

The mystique surrounding Obama reinforces a sort of mythology that suggests to supporters that their messiah figure rides around on a magic carpet, with perhaps only a single lucky acolyte to assist, the candidate occasionally descending to deliver impromptu spirit-reviving speeches and raise the dead at town hall meetings. This mystique is not an accident. The unusual talent of this first-term Illinois senator is real, but so is a machine designed to ensure its dimensions appear transcendent and larger than life from every angle. The Obama candidacy and campaign, while undeniably substantive, are the result of a very intelligent strategy driven by old-fashioned product marketing techniques and political machinery. That the strategy has been both innovative and successful does not change the fact both components of Obama's campaign are very calculated. Contrary to the brand ID of effortless authenticity, Brand "O" has been masterminded by some very smooth operators who are among the usual suspects in political media consulting.

Check out the whole piece and the Fast Company article. The video above dovetails perfectly.

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

Check out the website.

They've got the proof.

And for the skeptics they've got, "No, Dear, Barack Obama is not the Messiah"

Here's a video from there: "Barack Obama: Personal Jesus"

(Warning: Assimilate. Resistance is futile!)

"We've Come a Long Way Baby"

Not.

Please check out the video and give it a good rating at You Tube.

John Aravosis wants David to get on the Obama bus...or else

We wrote the other day about how odd it was that the superdelegates from College Democrat of America and Young Democrats of America were refusing to make an endorsement. Obama has overwhelmingly won the youth vote, and he has caused a surge (pardon my French) in youth turnout. So you'd think it would be a no-brainer for the superdelegates who represent the youth vote to endorse the candidate who represents the youth vote. Well, three of the four youth-vote superdelegates - Lauren Wolfe, Crystal Strait, and Awais Khalil - have finally endorsed Obama. And good for them. The final youth-vote superdelegate, David Hardt, is holding out. And that doesn't look good. At some point, you miss your window of opportunity. You still have a chance to get on the Obama bus, David. But the bus isn't going to wait forever. Obama is going to be our nominee, and he's going to be our next president. The only remaining question is whether you're going to announce your endorsement before folks get tired of this little dance. Because at that point, you'll have missed a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Oh, brother. Yeah, David. Better get ON the bus before Obama throws you under it with Rev. Wright, grandma, and the all of the Hillary supporters.

The scales are falling from their eyes?

Steve Soto at the Left Coaster is a little upset with Obama in his new post, "Not Good, Senator"

It is one thing to lose an uncontested race by 20 points or so. It’s another matter entirely when you lose the same race by over 40 points, after the media has anointed you the presumptive nominee. Team Obama can spin this any way they want, but to suggest that being obliterated by that large of a margin as the presumptive nominee means little is a little disingenuous.

I am also troubled this morning by the news that Team Obama wants to control all the Democratic money this campaign cycle themselves. The campaign has apparently put the word out that Obama doesn’t want his supporters to contribute to the pro-Democratic independent committees that make up the emerging part of a counter-GOP infrastructure. The campaign may be arguing that it wants to ensure a unified message consistent with Obama’s own, and therefore doesn’t want any independent players doing a Tier Two negative campaign against McCain, especially if former Clinton people head those groups. However, a successful Democratic candidate at the national level needs a Tier One/Tier Two effort to win, whereby the candidate stays on the high road pitching voters a positive message himself while Tier Two organizations pin the GOP opponent up against the wall and keep them on the defensive through surrogates that have some distance from the campaign. This is the way successful GOP campaigns have operated against Democrats for years, and Democrats had reached the point of parity with the GOP over the last several years, with better funding. It was supposed to be an essential part of the pushback effort against McCain this year, and Obama just pulled the rug out from under it, because he apparently wants to control the whole message, whatever that will be. I guess I wasn’t aware that the whole party was being taken over by the Obama movement.

Regardless of what you may think about Hillary Clinton's campaign, no one can now doubt that she would have thrown the kitchen sink at McCain using every club in the arsenal during the fall campaign. If Obama thinks that controlling everything himself through a single message from one point of attack is what the primary voters endorsed when he won all these contests, then Democrats have a right to know now what exactly that message will be this fall, and how tough and ruthless his campaign will be in carrying it out. I don't want to find out in September after Obama's defunded the progressive infrastructure through unilateral disarmament that he feels it is beneath him to go toe-to-toe with McCain and fight fire with fire.

This post is from the same guy who wrote, "Hillary, It's Time to Leave!" on the last primary night. Nice to see that opinions can be changed. Way to go, Steve!

Stronger

Two chances

Way, way, way too soon - on Tuesday night - Steve Soto, on The Left Coaster, posted "Hillary, It's Time to Leave".

Here are a couple of points he made that really sent me over the edge:

"However, he now has a clear path to the nomination at a time when we need to start destroying John McCain and the GOP every single day between now and November. It will be a challenge, as the party is about to test the proposition that his core voters can lead the party to a general election victory.

Nevertheless, the time for that experiment to begin is now, regardless of our feelings about how we got here. Again, no matter how you feel now, in the fall it will simply come down to Obama against a doddering, pandering, Bush ass-kissing sack of shit. If you vote for the sack of shit out of rage at how Obama won this thing over Clinton, we are all screwed. We cannot endure another four years of disaster capitalist elites running this country into the ground, aided by a Supreme Court full of corporatists. If you are a Clinton supporter, please leave your disappointment behind as you enter the voting booth in November. Your opponent is not Barack Obama, but rather the bastards across the aisle that got us here."

In comments I responded:

Hey Steve,
Thanks for telling me who my “real” opponents are. And thanks also for kicking me in the ass on my way out the door and reminding me not to be mad.

I’ll tell you what - The Precious and his “core voters” can lead the way to their own general election victory. They’ve decided to alienate half of the Democratic base. Let’s see how well that works out for them. I’m already a registered Independent and will be watching from the sidelines. I’ve been disenfranchised for the last time.

The next comment was a sarcastic one from a MisterOpus1:

Darrow, if McCain wins, I don’t ever want to hear one gripe, one bitch, one moan out of you, because you are the last person on earth to have any credibility to do so. I hope that certainly makes you feel good, allowing another Bush-like President into the office, just because your widdle feelings got all hurt between these two great candidates.
Something tells me, however, that you were never too terribly aligned with Democratic values in the first place. Can’t imagine why I think that…..”

Don't you just love the dripping threats and accusations of me not being a true Democrat?

My response to him:

MisterOpus,
Don’t worry. I won’t be bitching, griping or moaning about the general election. I’m not allowing another Bush into the White House. The pie-eyed idiots who think Obama can beat McCain after they’ve alienated half of the Democratic base are.

So I don’t want to hear any whining or bitching from you when Barry and his core voters go down in flames this fall because they were in a rush to coronate their unvetted, inexperienced Precious and decided that disenfranchising half of their party was the way to victory.

These Obamaphiles are so manic that they can’t even see that they’re backing a sure loser. Now they want us to get onboard and back their loser after they’ve insulted us and told us they don’t need us. I say screw ‘em. They've got exactly two chances to get me to vote for their loser in November: slim and none.

Here's a song for the Obamaphiles

Obamaphile makes Fox's Cavuto seem like the sane and rational one

Jesus Christ in a jumpsuit - these Obama fools drive me to drink. 

Watch as Flavia gets schooled. (h/t to Uppity Woman)

Bill-O's Hillary convert

My husband and I have a group of social friends who usually avoid the discussion of politics or religion because, let's face it, you're not going to change anyone's mind about either one so why ruin a perfectly good friendship? But we've had one friend who still insists on talking politics in social settings. In the last couple of weeks he'd bring up politics and shout loudly, "HILLARY - NOOOOO!!!", with a huge gesticulating thumbs down gesture. Kind of hard to have a rational discussion with someone like that so we would try and steer the conversation to a less controversial subject. 

Well, last night,  I just about fell out of my chair at dinner.  The same man, who for the last few weeks has been trashing Clinton, said that he watched her interview on Bill O'Reilly's show and he totally changed his opinion of her. He said that he really didn't know much about her before except what he'd heard from second or third-hand sources and he admitted that she was nothing like he expected her to be. He said that after watching the interview he was really impressed with her and how she stood up to O'Reilly, and he said that he really "admires and respects" her now. That is a word-for-word quote. Wow.

Like Melissa said:

The one thing KenBlogz and I just couldn't. get. over. was how profoundly not the Dragon Lady she is, despite what we are meant to believe. KenBlogz's comment was, approximately, "The way the media represents her is a complete lie; they might as well say she stabbed someone onstage, which would be just as truthful as the way she is represented." This, from an 18-year-old.

That's why I'm glad to see Hillary in so many different venues; townhalls meetings, debates (come on Obama!) and, yes, even on Fox. If her interview could change the opinion of such a rabid Republican just imagine what it could do to someone more moderate? 

This is the best blog title ever

"I'm Just Relaxing In My Schadenfreude Recliner"

Lambert posts my sentiments from yesterday exactly.

Hillary is killing "hope"

This letter to the editor, "Hope would die with Obama loss", is a good example of an Obamaphile in total meltdown, panic mode. This is my favorite line:

Ironically, Obama is the son that Bill and Hillary wish they had. Now, they are committing infanticide.

Um, actually I think that Obama is the son that Dean and Pelosi wish they had.

It continues:

If a sharp-tongued Hillary is allowed to bring down Obama with lies, slander and innuendo, America will have lost a historic opportunity.

That "sharp-tongued" she-devil is back at her evil ways. She needs to be stopped!

If the Clintons are allowed to overturn the voice of the people and bring Obama down, all the thousands of inspired young people Obama has brought into the process will retreat into the silent woodwork for another 50 years.

Really? 50 years? No more cheeto-stained tirades in the "progressive blogosphere"? And your're saying that this would be a bad thing??

Hillary will have killed the hopes of the old and young alike for change in this country. It will be politics as usual in Washington.

Obama inspires and motivates people - especially young people - to dream, to hope that there might be change in Washington. His words are not "just words." His words are an inspiration to millions of Americans who have long been disaffected by our political system. Obama has the ability to inspire and unite our country. America and the world need Obama.

If Hillary should happen to snare the nomination by stealth, I think we can expect four more years of George Bush war policies in the person of John McCain.

Hey, how about if she wins because she's the best candidate and more people vote for her?

See, here's the ironic part. Obama supporters can hope all they want for him to get the nomination, but that doesn't mean that he has a chance in hell of winning the general election. And they'd be the ones giving us "four more years of George Bush war policies in the person of John McCain."

Great cartoon

by Gary Varvel

The flat-out truth:

"The DNC and the media are hell bent to shove Obama down our throats."

Exactly. I am so sick of the inevitability of the Obama coronation. Between his "I'm going to be the nominee" and not counting Florida and Michigan, I feel like it's 2000 all over again and Drinky McDumbass, with his ugly-ass bruised face, is telling us, "I'm soon to be the President". Only this time it's the Democratic Party, along with the media and, in particular, the so-called progressive blogosphere, berating and disenfranchising half of it's membership. 

As I'm writing this my husband, who is reading his email, looks up at me and says, "What the hell happened to Buzzflash? They send anti-Hillary emails every day and then hit me up for money? Don't they realize they're pissing off half of the Democratic base??!"  

Exactly. 

'Irreparable' damage? 

Oh, dear. The Obama-supporting handwringers are so very mad at HRC. (Emphasis mine)

The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies – blacks and wealthy liberals – who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama.

And how would I know that these "core constituencies" are Obama supporters? Because they're "blacks" and "wealthy liberals"? I guess  the redneck, dumbass, low-income, trailer-trash, poorly educated racists are all Hillary supporters. See how that works?

“If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a backroom somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, warned yesterday. “I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, (the damage) is going to be irreparable.”

"Backroom brokering"? How about a media-driven drumbeat to drive a strong Democratic candidate from the race? How about a party trying to drive out a candidate who is garnering over 50% of votes in must-have general election states?

“If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November,” Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., a black lawmaker and Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

Mr. Clay, HRC's loyalty to the Democratic Party is why she's staying in the race. And it's about damn time that there was a fighter in the party. Just think where we'd been if Al Gore had fought back in 2000. 

OMFreakingGod

Has Huffpo suffered a "paradigm shift" or am I drunk. Oh, wait a minute - reality bites. 

For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown.

Phew! At least they said "metaphorically" drown. Right? Did I read that right at least? Yeah, but they're linking HRC to Rove so all is right with the world again. Huffpo hates the Clintons more than the Republicans.

Thanks Arianna and Lord Kos for abandoning your party (Republican) and coming over to abscond with mine. Now I've registered as an Independent. Are you happy? (Aside: I'm still voting for Hillary : p )

Wolcott Nails It

Shorter New York Times editorial:

Hillary Clinton's ruthless insistence on winning big-state primaries with traditional Democratic voters only hastens and strengthens the case that she drop out of the race and let Barack Obama finish his waffle.

You Don't Speak for Me

What's next? "Smack the bitch up"?

Matt Y and the cool blogger boiz think this Obama move sends a great subliminal message. Here's what he says:

This business is pretty cool. Somewhere between a dog whistle to the kids and a reverse Sister Souljah. Check out Obama at 2:20.

Stay classy Obama.

Air America - All Obama, All The Time? 

I stopped listening to Air America quite awhile back. All the shouting and yelling in between the commercials was tiresome and irritating. But today I had a long car trip and tuned in to see what I'd been missing out on.  What I heard wasn't very pretty.

It seems that Ed Schultz is furious, just furious, that people would misconstrue Barack's "bitter" comment and he took every opportunity to lecture any caller who tried to explain why it was offensive just exactly what Obama really meant. Geez. For the world's greatest orator, he sure has a lot of people 'splaining what it was that he really meant. It didn't take long for Ed's ridiculous Obamamania and Clinton-hating to get old.

Later in the afternoon I got brave enough to switch it back on and heard a high-larious comedy bit about how "Joe Six Pack" would just love the new White House with Hillary the party animal there. (See, she had a shot and a beer at a bar in PA.) Yee-haw!!! Talk about the exact example of what Ed was arguing against! Only Joe Six Packs and rednecks would vote for Hillary.

I tuned out to listen to music for awhile and when I switched back Richard Belzer and his sidekick were going on about how outraged "people" were at Hillary's attack against Obama as "elitist". Then Richard's quote blew me away. It was something to the effect that he couldn't believe how different these two candidates were; one was unflappable and the other was "shrill". Damn! I wish I had better cell phone coverage there because I was tempted to call in and congratulate him on turning the tables and calling his Messiah "shrill".  He couldn't possibly be referring to Senator Clinton in such sexist terms could he?? Right...

Hey Ed and Richard - Here's a nice t-shirt you guys might like.

Back Off Boiz

"Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary."

April 14, 2008 | Dana Lossia, a 29-year-old labor lawyer in Brooklyn, describes herself as a "pretty big Obama supporter. " She worked for a year at Michelle Obama's Public Allies Chicago, where she met Barack a few times. She called him "the most inspiring, amazing person, a different kind of politician." Of Hillary Clinton, whom Lossia supported in her Senate runs, Lossia said, "I just think she's acted badly during this campaign."

And yet, as Lossia wrote in a recent e-mail, "I've been really bothered by what I perceive as sexism [among some male Obama supporters] and have spent hours defending [Clinton] ... A lot of guys just can't stand Hillary, and it's the intensity of their irritation with her that disturbs me more than their devotion to Obama." (...more)

Flashback to March:

Obama's cool self-confidence got him into trouble in New Hampshire when he said Clinton was "likable enough," faint praise that grated on female voters who didn't appreciate him condescending to the former first lady. link

Uh, oh. Could Jesus-lite be starting his fall from grace with the media? I hope the scales fall from the eyes of the Obamaphiles before it's too late and we're stuck with an unvetted, inexperienced unknown.

Sorry, but call you can call this progressive "Obama-Skeptical"