Pocochina’s Weblog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

a twofer!

Posted by pocochina on March 23, 2008

This weekend’s All-High Badass Dick-Swingin’ Motherfucker:  MARK HALPERIN! Mark, your momma must be so proud.

Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows – Or Should  Know

And because he is such a  Nice Guy (TM), Mark will tell her!  And by “her,” I’m of course referring to “those people who read Time online and have already voted for Obama!”

1. She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.

Conveniently forgetting that neither candidate, thanks in part to Obama’s counterdemocratic hit job on Michigan and Florida, will be able to win without superdelegates, and that the allotment of elected delegates does not actually necessarily reflect the proportion of the popular vote. 
2. She can’t win the nomination without a bloody convention battle — after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.

“History” and “many Democrats”?  Jesus Christ, do you actually have to have narcissistic personality disorder to work in the mainstream press?  “History” and “many Democrats” might think that because YOU ASSHOLES SPEND ALL DAY AND NIGHT TELLING US TO, AND WE STILL AREN’T BUYING IT.

3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.

It’s not like they already voted in Michigan and Florida!   Except – oh, wait.  And note the implicit admission that there’s a significant chance the elected delegates might not be reflecting the popular vote – she can catch up in the popular vote, she can’t in the elected delegates.  Aside from which, she will then be “cast as a villain” by the unspecified players in #2 even if she wins a majority of votes.  Wheeeeee!
4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

Notice how he doesn’t cite any of the prominent male supporters of Senator Obama – if the sisters aren’t sticking together, how can TEH MENZ be expected to vote for her?  Aside from which, there are plenty of leading members of Congress who do think she can win, and have expressed that belief by coming out in support of her.  It’s also interesting that Donna Brazile, who was persona non grata after the catastrophy that was 2/2000, is now once again Important and Respected, because she has made her support for Obama clear, even when she as a member of the DNC is arguably neglecting a vocational duty to remain neutral.

5. Obama’s skilled, close-knit staff can do things like silently kill re-votes in Florida and Michigan and not pay a political price.

I’d call losing general election votes in Florida a political price, but who am I?  Just someone who’s been conscious for the last eight years, is who. 
6. Many of her supporters — and even some of her staffers — would be relieved (and even delighted) if she quit the race; none of his supporters or staff feel that way. Some think she just might throw in the towel in June if it appears efforts to fight on would hurt Obama’s general election chances.

Who?  What supporters?  I would be furious if she threw in the towel – and not at her, but at Senator Obama for his underhanded tactics, the press for unashamedly and consistently lying about her, and all the sexist motherfuckers who are still making Monica jokes.

I can’t speak for her staffers, because I’VE NEVER MET THEM, and I expect Mark hasn’t either.  Likewise, even though she has literally millions of supporters, I’m guessing he didn’t ask one of us if we would be “relieved…and even delighted” if she quit.  BECAUSE WE WOULDN’T, DOUCHEBAG.

7. The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee — and that has an impact every day.

Way to come out and say you are a biased motherfucker.  See, it’s that kind of unabashed douchery that got you where you are today!  Keep it up.

8. Obama might not be able to talk that well about the new global economy, but she (and McCain) can’t either.

Obama’s weakness…..is HRC’s weakness too!  All of the candidates are, in MH’s mind, on equal footing here so….it’s a reason she should drop out? 
9. Many of the remaining prominent superdelegates want to be for Obama and she (and Harold Ickes) are just barely keeping them from making public commitments to him.

Bad Mommy Hillary is GROUNDING THEM!  Maybe the “remaining prominent superdelegates” haven’t made up their minds.  Maybe some of them are professionally supposed to keep up some semblance of neutrality even though (see #4) they’re doing a piss-poor job of it.
10. She can’t publicly say more than 2% of all the things she would like to say about race, electability, beating McCain and experience.

Why “can’t” she?  BECAUSE IF SHE DOES, MARK HALPERIN WILL GET ALL HOPPED UP ON X, GET ONLINE, AND TELL US WHAT A BITCH SHE IS.  This faux-objectivity makes me sick.  Implying that she would “like” to say things about race that are derogatory towards Obama is irresponsible.  She’s the candidate who bothered to show up for the State of the Black Union, giving us at least some indication that she cares about the black vote. 
11. If she somehow found a way to win the nomination, she would have to offer Obama the veep slot, and she doesn’t want to do that.

Did you call Miss Cleo for this one, Mark?  First of all, the reason she would “have” to offer Obama the VP slot would be because if she didn’t, the press (read:  YOU, you narcissistic asshole) would spend so much time wondering concernedly about how! awful! it would be for Obama devotees to *gasp* have to vote for a ticket WITHOUT HIM ON IT.  And how the fuck do you know she doesn’t want to?  In fact, she knows – and unlike Obama, she cares about this fact – that in the long run it would be an excellent move for the party and for a progressive agenda. 
12. This is a change election, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton can never truly be change.

I cannot stand the ridiculous conflation of Bush II with HRC for a lot of reasons.  First of all, it’s blatantly sexist.  You know why she is “a Clinton” instead of a Rodham, as she was born?  Because she and her husband were punished in the polls because she dared to wear her own name.  She is by far the most liberal person on that list, by even farther the smartest person on that list, and as you assholes remind us every second, SHE HAS A VAGINA OMG.

Less importantly but more pedantically, every election without an incumbent is a change election.  There’s going to be a different person in office on January 21 than there was on January 19.  And amen for that, but it’s an unabashed adoption of an Obama talking point – he’s fresh! and! new!  He is not the only candidate in the election that will change things, in fact, he is far less likely to change things for the better than Senator Clinton.  
13. Obama is having fun most days, and she isn’t.

You’re right, Mark, this lady looks fucking miserable.  It’s totally not fun to hang out with Elton John in NYC.
14. Even though her campaign staff is having more fun than it has for a long time, there’s hardly anyone there who, given half a chance, wouldn’t slit Mark Penn’s throat — and such internal dissension won’t help her in the home stretch.

Nobody is voting for Mark Penn, you jackass.  In fact, outside of political junkies, nobody in this country knows who the fuck Mark Penn is.  Until you went out of your way to tell us, as another excuse to hate on Senator Clinton.

****
Again, I’m not saying that none of these things have a basis in fact, or that the Clinton campaign isn’t painfully aware that the press and DNC are VIPs in the Obama fan club, or that they have a tough vote count ahead of them.  They know that.  But the utter abuse of the weight of a major publication to appear neutral, when you are simply engaging in a round of “we hate that bitch!” is disgusting, as is the swaggering entitlement that he expects to get away with obvious contradictions (see 1 and 3).  And this is what passes for Serious Commentary.  Clearly my sorry ass is in the wrong line of work.


Honorable mention:  Matthew Yglesias!

Item number 4 on Mark Halrpin’s list of painful things Hillary Clinton knows — or should know:

First sign of douchery:  citing Mark Halperin as a Very Serious Commentator.

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

Pelosi has certainly said and done some things that have “signaled” this, as we say in DC,

Oh, as you say in DC?  I bow before the altar of your superior brilliance.

but I think that insofar as it’s really true that she and “other leading members of Congress” think this, they need to communicate it more clearly.

“The Speaker of the House isn’t agreeing with me loudly enough!  MOOOOOOOOOOOOM!”

Perhaps she really hasn’t made up her mind, or feels that it’s a standard of professionalism that she stay out of it and support the Democratic nominee.  Because, you know, it would be and all.

After all, consider the situation in Pennsylvania.

I love that, the “situation.”  People indicating that they might not vote for Obama is a “situation.”  Like how losing your DivaCup,* or realizing there’s a missing suitcase bomb somewhere in the former USSR, is a “situation.”*

All indications are that a clear majority of Pennsylvania Democrats would prefer for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee than for Barack Obama to be the nominee.

And those peons think they get to vote for the person they like and shit!  What do they think this is, a democracy or something?

But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race

But there’s a very clear indication that you’re going to Tell Me How It Is, Matt.  See, we’re not all drooling illiterates!

— that a miracle Obama comeback in PA would mean that Democrats enter May with a nominee and a financial advantage, whereas a sizable Clinton win in PA may mean that Democrats don’t get a nominee until August and that that nominee, who’ll almost certainly be Barack Obama anyway, will have a much tougher time winning in November.

Well, a blowout in PA means that it’ll be less certain that the nominee will be Barack Obama, so for starters, we’re being a little inconsistent there, aren’t we?  Aside from which, the huge numbers of new Democrats, the record turnout in the primaries (even the ones that Obama is trying so freaking hard not to count) and the fact that more Americans are Democrats than Republicans – these things still all point to Democratic strength in the fall.

Also, it’s pretty clear that as a campaign strategy, all the Republicans have right now is character assassination.  So a moving target nominee isn’t the worst thing in the world.  It would be even easier if those leading Democrats would step up to the plate, in the absence of a nominee, and set the stage for the ultimate case against McCain, rather than telling us every second of the day why we should hate HRC so much it hurts.

I think if voters better-understood the situation, they’d be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat in the race, much less eager to do volunteer work for Clinton, much less inclined to donate money to her campaign, etc.

If only you weren’t SO STUPID, you’d be doing what I TELL YOU!

General elections are the time to hold your nose and vote strategically.  The Democratic party has been asking PA voters to do that for years.  Primaries are the time when you’re supposed to be able to vote for the candidate you believe in, the one who matches your politics, the candidate you trust with the most important parts of your agenda.  For lots of us, that’s Senator Clinton.  PA voters don’t lose that right because that primary is three and a half months after Iowa. 

But people won’t understand the dynamic unless it’s explained to them by credible party leaders.

A fundamental problem with this statement is that Obama has positioned himself (unconvincingly,  in my stupid non-politically-savvy Hillary-supporting opinion, but there we are) as the anti-establishment candidate.  So for the DNC to trot out en masse and tell us why we should all vote for him would reveal the fundamental hypocrisy of his candidacy – he’s not anti-establishment at all.

****
Again, it’s not just my disagreement with the writer’s clear candidate preference.  It’s the idea that agreement with said candidate preference is the benchmark for Very Serious Commentary, and the assumption that those of us who disagree are just dumbass yokels who need to be told how to vote.

(Thanks, Corrente, for reading The Atlantic so the rest of us don’t have to!)

Keep up the good work, Matt!  Someday you, too, might be an All-High Badass Dick-Swingin’ Motherfucker.

*I jest, of course, with this unequal comparison.  Someone would definitely die if I lost my Diva.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: