Saturday, September 06, 2008

What she said

On the Confluence a couple of days ago, a reader-commenter named Janis contributed a remarkably insightful message, which I would like to preserve here. She skewers...
...this preposterous charge, constantly repeated, that Hillary’s primary campaign was a total shambles, a complete disaster, and that Obama out maneuvered her with his “brilliant” scorched-earth attack campaign.

That attack campaign is what’s dooming him now, you stupid fucking Obots. There is a reason that primaries are historically softball — and must be. If you come out guns blazing in the primaries, you lose the general. More to the point, your party loses the general. A scorched-earth PRIMARY campaign leaves half the dead bodies on the field wearing your uniform.

Obama’s campaign was “brilliant?” Hillary “didn’t fight back hard enough?” Okay, let’s accept that. Obama fought like a cornered weasel against Hillary Clinton. Where does ti get him and his party now? The bots were always guilty of forgetting that there were two elections to be won. They sunk everything they had into the primary, and forgot about the general. Their candidate came out in full-on attack mode against his own party members, while playing softball with the other guys, expressing admiration for them, practically fellating Reagan’s dead body. Did he forget who wore what uniform? Did his brainless, koolaid-addled, foamy-mouthed followers?

Hillary’s campaign didn’t hit back hard because, if she had, she would have been in precisely the position that Obama’s in now … with the other side going after her gunz blazing, and half her own voters abandoning her. She lost, but there is a reason that primary campaigns are waged the way she waged them. Unfortunately, she was up against a stupid, out-of-control neophyte who decided that he was going to win the less important election at the cost of the most important one by deliberately immolating half his party.
I would add this: The bots sunk everything they had into the primary because the only enemy they cared about ran in the primary. I think the Kossacks subconsciously favor McCain. I favor him too (by default -- he's the only thing standing between Barack Obama and the White House), but the difference is in this: I am aware of what I'm doing. Deep down in the hidden regions of the mind, lefties think that power is in bad taste. They think that the forces of good must ever be on the outside, insulting those within the throne room. Every time progressives see the name "Clinton," they are reminded of a Democrat who succeeded, who got in, and they cannot freaking stand it.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well said.

djmm

Anonymous said...

Yes, Yes, Yes! Hillary held so much fire in the primary because she knew what the election was about. Tragically, Obama and his minions thought that since this was the year a Democrat "couldn't lose" that it mattered not that they destroyed the party in the process.

I am not voting for Obama. He killed my party. To vote for him now would be akin to marrying the person who murdered my mother.

Anonymous said...

Some of the things I believe about this primary. 1. Hillary won the damned thing. She won just about every state where there was a legitimate primary election held by the state. Obama won rigged caucuses. Caucuses where the DNC was responsible or counting the votes. 2. She won the roll call vote or at least would have in a floor fight. He didn't make the number of delegates despite all the crap they pulled. 3. She gave in because she knew damned well that she lost the AA vote even if she would have emerged with the nomination. No AA vote equals a devestating loss in November.

Now, what exactly happened is the real question. Soros bought the nomination using Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, etal. as lackeys? I think so. The whole campaign that Barry ran is beyond comprehensible. It almost guaranteed that no matter who emerged with the nomination would have no chance in the fall. He tagged the Clinton's with the racist label while simultaneously calling every poor and middle class white person in America racist hicks. He even called out whole states that might have gone his way in the fall.

Fortunately, I think Obama's political career is coming to a screeching premature halt because of this crap. I don't see how he survives being a US Senator for 3 years and pretty much ignoring the office for at least 2 years. We have laws against that and I hope he gets prosecuted for it. Unfortunately, he might just bring an entire political party down around him and pretty much ruin every qualified AA candidate's chances for the next 20, 30 or even 50 years. The only thing worse than these repercussions of his awful behavior would be if he actually won the office. I cringe at the thought and as a real life bonafide liberal Obama and I are supposed to agree on everything at least philosophically.

Anonymous said...

"Deep down in the hidden regions of the mind, lefties think that power is in bad taste. They think that the forces of good must ever be on the outside, insulting those within the throne room."

Now that's insightful, Joe. That may be the most brilliant thing I've ever read on this site. Damn.

Gary McGowan said...

I don't know what's going on in the subconscious areas of these people, but I want to ask if it is relevant that the same corporate conglomerate, based in a foreign country, is/was lead advising the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain...

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showComment.do;jsessionid=55196CE2CFAC79F799D2A7FC7D104C28?commentId=15656
URL made short:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6g654p

Unknown said...

I think both comments are pretty much right on: 1) Hillary did not run a "good" campaign until the second half and then she ran a great campaign; 2) Obama puppet was bought and paid for by the authoritarian leftists with a huge help from (devious? - I think anyone could see that one coming)Rovian Republicans, and, ironically, from many corporate types whose interests, Obama assured them by his actions, he would never vote against. Go figure what this mix means; I think it means the extension of Chicago/Illinois corruption -- with good-ol'-boy-and-girl African Americans also on the take -- on a national and international basis.

I have noticed that people get very heated when Hillary's campaign strategy and tactics are questioned. However, I think this is helpful in the long run -- for one's next choice of candidate. Fighting, and fighting hard, does not mean using dirty tactics; it means using and spreading the truth or truths as skillfully as one can and in doing so to connect with the hopes and beliefs of everyday Americans. One example, once 90% of African Americans began to vote for Obama, I believe Hillary should have publically noted that fact, publically said she could understand because of their pride and hope, but... if they took a very good look they would see who really had their interests at heart -- and showed in commercials. She could have showed in commercials what happened to AA's who lived in his Ill distict, etc., etc. What did everyday African Americans gain from his time in office compared to what he had done for his chosen few -- and what they had done for him. I believe this is what fighting in an election is all about -- vetting, showing the truths, identifying the best candidate. I believe that Hillary did not do enough "comparing" of herself to Obama. I believe this is why Palin offers such hope; she tells those corrupt guys that she is playing along and she vetts them to the public. This is fighting for everyday Americans and for the truth. Country and people before party.

OTE admin said...

"The whole campaign that Barry ran is beyond comprehensible. It almost guaranteed that no matter who emerged with the nomination would have no chance in the fall."

Barack Obama was and is a ringer for the GOP. He is NOT supposed to win; that is why the GOP and their GOP-leaning media propagandized heavily in his favor.

I rejected Obama immediately upon his announcement. There was too much about him that was disturbing to me.

Anonymous said...

Obama conducted a scorched earth primary campaign because he had nothing else. He couldn't argue experience and the judgment thing regarding the AUMF was getting worn out. He couldn't argue health care policy since Hillary actually had a health care plan while he had a health insurance plan that, if implemented, will leave millions uncovered and will serve to enrich insurance companies. Obama's energy and environmental plans also left something to be desired when compared to Hillary's plans. As for accepting money from special interests, all Obama did was eliminate the middle man.

Even on the trade issue, Obama came up short. During the 2005-2006 Congressional session, at least three bills addressing the trade issue were introduced by Sen. Dorgan. Hillary co-sponsored S. 355 (Foreign Debt Ceiling Act - introduced 2/10/2005) which called for a monetary limit on trade deficits. Obama's fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, co-sponsored S. 196 (Runaway Plants Bill - introduced 1/26/2005). This bill would have ended tax loopholes for companies that close U.S. plants and transfer them to other countries. The third bill was S. 2267 (Withdrawal of Permanent Trade Status for China - introduced 2/9/2006) and was co-sponsored by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham. Obama was co-sponsor of none of these bills and he did not (to my knowledge) introduce bills of his own to address the trade imbalance. Yet in a May, 2005 townhall meeting in Illinois, Obama stated about the trade deficit, "This is an issue I agree is of utmost importance to our long-term future and that of our kids and grandkids, but it's just not being talked about in Congress."

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050506-q_a_obama_answers_questions_at/index.php

Trade is an important issue in Illinois since a good deal of the state's manufacturing was lost due in part to the trade agreements. A number of companies in Illinois (Kraft and Revere are two of them) relocated manufacturing to Mexico or China. Many small businesses that depended upon the larger companies for their work have closed down. In 2006, the Southern Education Foundation published the results of a study that concluded 46% of the public school children in the U.S. are poor. In Illinois, the percentage of poor public school children is 49%. There are a variety of reasons for this high number, but the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs is a primary one. Surprisingly to me, few people in Illinois seem to realize that Obama has done little to mitigate the damage done to his state.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20922.html

Whenever Hillary pointed out the differences between her policies and those of Obama, his campaign very effectively used sexist, ageist, and racial attacks to shut down any perceived criticism. And now Obama is attacking Palin instead of McCain and Republican policies. Maybe that is because his ego just can't stand the bashing or maybe it is because his policies on two of the most important issues, the economy and Iraq/Afghanistan, don't differ too much from McCain's.

old dem

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's Soros - I think it's Rove pulling the strings on this one. Look at Obama's career - things get incredibly easy right about the time it becomes clear that Hillary is going to win her first senate run. All of a sudden, he has legislation being handed to him with his name on it. Think about his first campaign for the US senate - a Republican's divorce records are allegedy unsealed, he drops out of the race and, lo and behold, the GOP cannot find another Republican prepared to run against an unknown state senator in the entire state of Illinois. What are the odds of that? Then GOP sleazemeister Rezko is kicking in a lot of money so that Obama can buy a $2.3m house for $1.3m.

He's running W's campaign all over again! You think Axelrod can't come up with anything more original than the Unity schtick?

I can't see how anyone, save the Republicans, has benefitted from Obama's entry into the race. So, until I have information to the contrary, I'm going to assume that they're the ones who financed and finessed his presence there in the first place.

Anonymous said...

The Repubs are ... sort of ... the ones who financed his campaign. I think that in reality, there is one party in this country: the party of money. The Zillionaire Party.

It latched itself onto the Republican party a few decade ago like a vampire finding a host. It sucked it dry, and now that it's host has been left teetering, it must find a new host or die.

It found one. And it latched on. First thing it did was try to kill off competing support systems; that's what you want as a parasite organism, to make the host unable to get away by killing off any other system that can offer support to it.

That's the Clintons.

Now, it's latched on, and the feeding cycle is beginning. It's the same strategy because it's the same five zillionaires in charge, as usual.

If McCain/Palin wins, they'll shift back to the old host faster than you can blink.

Perry Logan said...

In history books of the future, the Obamites will be known as The Blue Gum Democrats.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to hear Palin without a teleprompter or without repeating the speech written for her by Bush speech writer. I'm impressed with the speed it took Obama haters to accept Palin without even vetting her. It's like : She's not Obama so she's qualified !!! You would really support a pit bull with lipstick if you had the choice.

Basically, she will be innocent of every accusations without any verification while Obama is guilty of every accusations without until proved innocent with 110% certainty... and even then, he might be a secret muslim.

I think your impartial objectivity is the quality I appreciate the most with hateful bigots like you. Or is it the hypocrisy of your denunciation of people who do exactly like you ?
Who knew elections were about the ego of the electors...

CheriB said...

I see nothing much has changed here. False conventional wisdom propounded as if it's true.

Hillary thought she had the nomination in the bag. She ran into a phenomenon, is all. His was HARDLY a 'scorched-earth' approach (what planet were all of you on).

Obama rightly didn't trust HER, and so passed over her for the VP nomination.

Blaming Obama for destroying a party that sets its own course for destruction years and years ago is a bit rich. He'll win if they count the votes, just as Gore would have won and Kerry too.

Joseph Cannon said...

I let Cheri's comment go through because it was so fetchingly dumb. If you didn't see the "scorched earth" approach," you weren't looking. Use Google. Or use the intra-site search engine to see the stuff I've documented here.

Anyone who did not support the Lightbringer was told -- for months, repeatedly, by virtually ALL Obots -- to "get out of the party." "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya." And you accuse US of being traitors, simply because we did as told?

I let the anonymour comment about "teleprompters" go through for one reason: I've uh, I've heard, you know, Obama speak, uh, without, uh, you know, a teleprompter. And I uh, I've never uh been all that, uh, impressed.

That "secret Muslim" thing is your last hole card, innit? The guy is guilty as sin of bieng involved in Blogaojevich's and Rezko's corruption schemes, and you know it. So the Obotos never -- EVER -- address that stuff directly. Instead, we always get Ye Olde Subject Switch.

Anonymous said...

Oh for heaven's sake.

You know, Joseph, you used to command some respect and your blog used to be worth visiting for a different take on politics - especially around the COLB farce, and even lately your rearguard action to correct misconceptions abut the Kilkenny letter, but you're fast going the way of so many other right-wing blogs and becoming so much blather.

The history and shortcomings of Hillary's campaign couldn't have been more clearly laid out than if she'd written them herself. So why still the gripes? She was let down by her divided campaign team and didn't show good management of her staffers. That's a shame.

Based on campaign e-mails that have not been refuted, here's what went wrong:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign

As for the polls, I'd have hoped you were mature enough not to jump up and down at a post-convention bump that was well forecasted, and cheerlead as each day's new poll comes in.

Get real. The situation that matters isn't the Gallup (which has been out of line with most other polls, having favoured McCain) nor Zogby et al., no matter how much wishful thinking you employ.

Take a look at any of the Electoral College roundups - what will REALLY matter on election day - currently published by reputable sources and you'll see more of what a major task faces the McCain campaign:

http://www.electionprojection.com/president08.shtml

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I should maybe shut up. If you're rooting for the Republicans, maybe you need to get good and complacent and just lose.

But for all the holdouts who're saying they're not backing Obama because he "can't win", you need to get out and about more and not keep haunting Republican-leaning blogs to the exclusion of information that doesn't reinforce your prejudices.

Anonymous said...

Teleprompters?

Again, Joseph, look at what happens when Palin doesn't have a teleprompter:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/sarah_palin_fumbles_on_fannie.html

Anonymous said...

i'm not voting for obama because of his zealots period. ill be voting green again this year. ralph nader has a posse.

jersey shore dude.