Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Obama's Grim Scenario

Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post was shilling today -- as usual -- for his bestest hero, Barack Obama.

Robinson asks, "If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of Hillary Clinton?" One simple answer: She'll be president of the United States.

His little tale about Hillary "being reduced to citing the timing of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination as a reason to stay in the race" is total bullshit. Let me say this for the hundreth time so you can understand, Mr. Robinson. Hillary's point was that campaigns sometimes go on for a very long time.

But the purpose of Robinson's op-ed is clear: to hype Obama and trash Hillary; and with a few strokes from his unity pen, the seasoned scribe extends the story of Hillary's media-framed outrage into a second week of 24/7 wankfess, harping on and on about Hillary's comments and then gamely framing them as "animate[d] myths and fairy tales."

Well, for anyone who missed it, Barack Obama claimed yesterday that his uncle liberated Poland. Now setting aside Obama's disturbing historical gaffe, it was a lie; more wishful thinking, a fairy tale, if you will (Bill Clinton probably won't mind the howler borrowing the phrase). The Soviet Army liberated Poland.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe Obama's uncle parted the seas, too.

As for Robinson's observation that Hillary is "disintegrating," well, if anyone is falling to pieces right before our eyes, it's not Mountain Mama but Barry, the tired hero who keeps making gaffes of the kind that'll cost Democrats the presidency in the fall. If Barack can't take the heat and needs a rest, well, let him take as long as he likes while Hillary continues to clean his clock by her work ethic alone.

Now begging your pardon, Mr. Robinson, you go too far in claiming Hillary needs an excuse to stay in the race. Hillary doesn't need your permission or anyone else for that matter. And equal to Hillary's "evocation of RFK," Obama's evocation of Auschwitz suggests that he too needed "some tactical reason." And it was to puff up his legacy and pander to Jews; and thusly, Obama fabricated his little yarn out of thin air.

Yep, Obama's campaign has to know that Clinton is the better candidate with a better resume, more votes,a greater chance to beat McCain and now, longer coattails in the fall for Dems in congressional races (as evidence by Kentucky).

Every day more superdelegates may well trickle to Obama's side of the ledger, but everyday more superdelegates also trickle to Clinton's side. Is Robinson trying to argue on behalf of Obama by using language and imagery that conjures up inevitability and advances this spurious meme???

It seems to the howler that if anyone is losing their soul during the Democratic race, it's not Hillary; it's people like Robinson and Olbermann and Matthews and Shuster and a whole slew of male pundits who've been shilling for Obama and have too loud of a microphone during the process.

In light of Obama's most recent gaffe, the karmic irony of Robinson's op-ed is not lost on the howler. He opined to readers about the scenario of Hillary's demise; here's the howler's for Barry.

Sheer tears of agony when he loses to the bitch who refused to quit.

Of course you realize that Obama had a verbal gaffe and meant Buchenwald instead of Auschwitz. But you can continue to score cheap political points by evoking the Holocaust.

By the way, Obama picked up two more delegates today. Clinton...none. But please continue using right wing talking points to bash the eventual suits you so well.
If she truly wanted to point out that campaigns can last a long time, there are far better (and more appropriate) examples than Robert Kennedy. Alluding to a campaign cut short by a bullet was calculated, as is everything Senator Clinton has done for most of her adult life. How about Mondale/Hart in '84 (where an upstart Hart challenged the establishment candidate Mondale who eventually persevered to gain the nomination only to lose 49 states in the general election). Even her use of Bill Clinton's road to the White House is disingenuous. Yes, he officially wrapped up the nomination in June, but the contest had really been decided well before that (Paul Tsongas, the last "real" alternative to Clinton dropped out in March of that year). And even if we ignore the assassination aspect of Bobby Kennedy's run, that primary season had barely started when Kennedy was assassinated. There had only been 13 primaries. Not really a parallel to today, is it? So why use it as an example EXCEPT to reinforce the idea that Barrack Obama is a marked man?
pw blue,

You are right about the bogus history Clinton used to make her point. Not only were there only a total of thirteen primaries in 1968 but Bobby Kennedy was NOT the presumptive nominee. Had he lived, he would almost certainly have lost the nomination to Humphrey who had wrapped up the lion's share of the delegates. And it wasn't a long campaign either. Kennedy had only been a candidate for two months when he was shot.

I have to disagree that Clinton's unfortunate remarks about the assassination were coldly calculated. I understand the history of both of the Clintons in this regard. The making of questionable statements and then either acting shocked when they were "misinterpreted" after they have had the desired effect or claiming never to have said them at all has been part of their standard operating procedure for years. It is hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. Take comfort though. In the age of You Tube their cynical style will be less effective in the future. It is much easier for people to call bullshit on them in a timely manner.

Just the same, it is still possible that she didn't mean it to be as ugly as it seemed. Perhaps more for the benefit of others rather than for her benefit, we should assume no ill will and let it pass. It won't change anything and the focus should be on the general election.
Hillary Clinton has NEGATIVE coattails for Democratic Congressional candidates, especially in places like Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon. Democrats do not want to have their wins depressed by a top-of-ticket candidate with negatives above 50 percent and whom the American public does not trust. Americans don't vote for people they can't trust...sorry.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?