This guy is just a desperate old grouch without a plan, trying to bring BHO down and give himself a puncher’s chance. Ridiculous…I swear, someone should parody this…”he’s the oldest guy in the world”…show like Moses and George Burns. Somebody needs to get working on that.

Paul Abraham’s Huff Post piece on how Obama helped Bill Foster win narrowly edges out Daily Kos commenter Jsn’s “saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle” nugget of a comment.

Barack Obama — not Hillary Clinton — actively, with TV ads, supported Bill Foster’s attempt to win Dennis Hastert’s (former Speaker) seat in the House after Hastert’s resignation. Supporting Foster so openly was a risk, as it could have (and we know, would have) been used by the Clintons to raise doubt about Obama’s ability to rally support. After all, one thing Bill Clinton did not have was coattails — he lost the House for the first time in 40 years, and it remained in Republican hands for 12 years.

I must admit that even I’ve been suffering from primary fatigue syndrome to some extent over the past week or so. What I did want to pop on and say, however, is that I am pumped that today is finally here.

I’m sick of Hillary Clinton Tracy Flicking it up in the place. Her attitude is like to hell with the Democratic Party and the rules, we made this party and the nomination is mine. She really thinks that she’s earned this nomination, whether because of her bullshit 35 years of fabricated experience or because she suffered through the most famous blowjob in the history of the world. I disagree. I have never believed in the do-your-time, wait-in-line train of thought. Not in the workplace. Not in entertainment. Not in sports. And certainly not in politics. The best person for the job should get the job, whether they have 60 days or 60 years experience. Life isn’t fair–get over it, HRC.

Can’t you just see her pulling a Tracy Flick and ripping down Barack Obama signs in the hallway during a fit of mad rage? Man, I wish I could pull a Mr. M and screw with the ballots. Why? Not because I’m a dishonest person, but because Hillary is really trying to destroy Barack Obama’s chances of winning the general election. In the process, she could destroy the Democratic Party, a party on the verge of a major restoration. I used to respect the Clintons, now I’m getting sick of this bitch, her narcissistic prick of a husband and their disgusting sense of entitlement. I have never seen anyone spin like the Clintons before. Two weeks ago, Ohio and Texas was the impenetrable Clinton firewall. Now, if Obama doesn’t win all four states by a landslide margin he loses because he spent more money? Jibberish.

I’m not the only one who sees what the Clintons are doing either. Why else would that pill-popping, racist, neoconservative nutjob Rush Limbaugh tell voters to vote for Billary? Because he wants the Clintons to bloody up BHO for John McCain. They are scared to death of what will become YouTube vs. feeding tube (thanks, Bill Maher). The GOP wants every advantage they can get, and would prefer not to swiftboat a Black candidate, especially when the candidate’s own party mate is doing that dirty work for them.

Here’s the real question: If the tables were turned and Barack Obama was the one who was going to come out of today trailing by an insurmountable amount of elected delegates, would Obama do what’s right for the Democratic Party and its chances in November and drop out? I believe he would, and that’s all you need to know about Barack and Hillary. The race is “Yes, we can” vs. “Yes, I can.” Let’s finish the Clintons off once and for all today, even if they refuse to drop out.

 I can’t believe this. What an awesome ad!

By now, everyone has heard the comparisons being used to depict the Democratic presidential nomination race. There seem to be thousands of them.

• Hillary Clinton is Dunkin’ Donuts. Barack Obama is Starbucks.
• Hillary is a PC. Obama is a Mac.
• Hillary is prose. Obama is poetry.
• Hillary is analog, Obama is digital. (Which doesn’t work because analog records still definitely sound good and have their place)

Those comparisons only tell part of the story.

A more effective comparison is that Hillary Clinton is VHS, while Barack Obama is DVD.

VHS definitely had it’s day. It beat out all its competitors (like Betamax), and stayed on top of the game for some time. It got the job done during its day. Not too long after its inception, however, we knew that bigger and better things would eventually come along. We knew someday we would outgrow the format. Someday relatively soon… at least many of us hoped.

Then DVD comes along. After a couple failed attempts (ahem, Laser Disc), people thought that the format was too good to be true. It sounded better. It looked better. Everything about it seemed to make it a vastly superior product. Despite the legitimacy of DVD, people remained skeptical. While some consumers took the DVD plunge and reaped the benefits, others stuck by the tried and true dinosaur format of VHS.

The skeptics haters said things like:

• “I’ve invested so much in tapes, and they’ve always been dependable. I think I’ll just stick with these tapes for a few more years. No need to change yet.”
• “Why should I go for change? Could VHS be better? Sure, but it’s always worked for me. I think I’ll play it safe for now.”
• “DVD looks and sounds pretty, but does it actually work? How can one little disc accomplish all that stuff? There’s no way it can do all that.”

It took some time, but after a while the entire nation realized that we had outgrown VHS and its limited abilities. We moved on to DVD and never looked back.

Continue Reading »

I actually like this Paul Jenkins/Huff Post piece better than the Frank Rich one from yesterday. Here’s an excerpt from “Clinton Spinning Into Twilight Zone,” which you absolutely have to read:

It is in defeat that the Clinton PR fails, sounding awkwardly bitter and blaming everything from the caucus system to sexism, to open primaries, to independents, to black women, to white men, to red states, to young people, to educated people, to rich people for their loss. This was silly after Iowa, and is plainly ridiculous now: at one point or another in his 19-state winning romp, Obama has prevailed in primaries and caucuses; among white men and white women; states in the South, Northeast, Midwest and West; rural states, urban states and suburbs; college kids and working class retirees. It has been a remarkably encompassing and national success so far for Obama, the Clintons’ race-baiting jabs notwithstanding (Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina too, Bill helpfully emphasized).

The Clinton operation’s dismissive attitude towards the states that she loses (”didn’t campaign there,” “caucus!”) feels uncomfortably like a post-facto snub by the aggrieved party in a break up (”she’s not really my type anyway;” “he snores SO loudly;” “did I tell you I cheated on him once?”).

The whole thing packs that kind of punch. Definitely worth 5-10 minutes of your day.

The New York Times’ Frank Rich’s scathing indictment of the Clinton campaign is an absolute must-read piece. It was very difficult to find and pull my favorite snippet — I love the whole thing — but here you go:

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”