Clinton Obama Filter redux

May 23, 2008 7:23 PM

I'm sorry. I (really do!) hate it when this happens, but I unfortunately feel the need to both dip into the ugliness of U.S. politicsfilter and second-guess our moderators at the same time.

I wonder whether this post about Hillary Clinton's comments earlier today should be reinstated. It's turning into a major story, and it will, I am sure, eventually show up again on the blue. No, it wasn't a great post, but I don't know how it could have been presented any better, and if it's something that is going to be discussed anyway, it may be better to have it discussed when it first comes up.

posted by yhbc to MetaFilter-related at 7:23 PM (353 comments total)

I dunno. I don't think that a single statement from Hillary Clinton is worth a post unless that statement is "I quit."
posted by Bookhouse at 7:29 PM on May 23 [16 favorites]

Hillary's a loudmouthed idiot who just killed her chances at a VP position. She'll soon be yesterday's news because of it, thank God. What more needs to be said, really?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:29 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

Or maybe, "Goddamn, do I love Hitler."
posted by Bookhouse at 7:30 PM on May 23 [9 favorites]

No, it wasn't a great post, but I don't know how it could have been presented any better

Seriously?! It starts off with "Oh No She Di'n't! '" and you can't figure out how it could have been presented better? Nothing comes to mind?

Then you're not qualified to post this complaint to Metatalk and I'm worried about leaving you home alone.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 PM on May 23

my wife is upstairs and I've got a cat right ... over ... there ...

Okay, it could have been worded better, but the presentation - that is, "Here's a post about a breaking story in the U.S. election, specifically, the Democratic primary race" couldn't be made appreciably better with additional links, commentary, etc. It is a freaking one-link ELECTIONFILTER post no matter how it's presented, that's what I meant.
posted by yhbc at 7:38 PM on May 23

Probably not worth trying again, but if you did you might want to mention this as well.
posted by Artw at 7:39 PM on May 23

I can't imagine a good, balanced discussion coming out of this.
posted by ColdChef at 7:43 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

Let's put it this way: She has made herself yesterday's news because of this. During the big tagging fest, I found that four of five old tagless Metafilter posts contained dead links because posts containing news links were rendered dead. Ultimately, she's caused her own career extinction and a newsfilter post about her will contain dead links in four years or less. So there's little or no value in having a Metafilter post about it. She's made herself political toast. She's done. Time for the country to move on.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:44 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

And, hell, why not be even handed and include the links from this as well?
posted by Artw at 7:44 PM on May 23

couldn't be made appreciably better with additional links, commentary, etc.

I disagree. The insistence on excusing a crappy post just 'cause it's A Very Important Breaking Story does nothing but lower the bar for the next Really Important Story.

Christ people, if it's so damn important, take 10 minutes and put some decent content in the post as opposed to some lame ass snark.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:44 PM on May 23 [3 favorites]

Okay. I just thought it was a Major Milestone, maybe even a Turning Point, and as such would eventually be addressed on MetaFilter proper, so I wondered if the original post about it (which I didn't make, by the way) shouldn't be the proper place to do so. I may have been incorrect in any number of my assumptions, and I can accept that.
posted by yhbc at 7:50 PM on May 23

...a newsfilter post about her will contain dead links in four years or less...

Oh dear, if dead links within four years is a reason to not post something, I reckon there's loooots of FPPs that shouldn't happen. The link deathrate is going up, up up.

Not saying this particular Hillarypost should've stayed, BTW.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:52 PM on May 23

Eh, there was nothing in that post that I couldn't have gotten from CNN. It needed more content and fleshing out, IMO.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:54 PM on May 23

It is a freaking one-link ELECTIONFILTER post no matter how it's presented, that's what I meant.

And this is an argument against deleting it?
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:00 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

"Reinstatement" is such a wrong word here...
posted by Burhanistan at 8:11 PM on May 23

In 6+ months, when whoever (please please please be Obama) has been elected President, someone can do an aftermath analysis of the whole democratic campaign. In that post, a link to a well written article on the fallout and scare tactics of Clinton mimicking those of the standard Rove attack ads can be included. In that article, Clinton's remarks will be highlight, and hell, you could even use her statement as the linked text to said article.

Until then, this post probably doesn't need to be resurrected.

Or after the DNC and it is clear Obama is the Dem. Candidate, it could be added as a footnote pointing out that Clinton's prophesy did not come through.

But really, I prefer the first one.

I just trained my computer that Obama is not a spelling mistake for Abeam, ABM or IBM
posted by mrzarquon at 8:13 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" about Hillary Clinton invoking Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
posted by ericb at 8:14 PM on May 23 [8 favorites]

Keith didn't pull any punches on that commentary.
posted by iamabot at 8:16 PM on May 23

"The issue of assassination has been a sensitive one this election."
posted by ericb at 8:19 PM on May 23

Lay off HRC, please.
posted by BrooklynCouch at 8:28 PM on May 23

Lay off HRC, please.

Naw, bash her more, but at least make decent posts about it when you do. HRC supporters are confused.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:29 PM on May 23

Keith Olbermann

Oh Jesus, that's just what we need. Just because it's a non-issue about a non-candidate doesn't mean good old Keith can't do 20,000 self-important words on it.

it's interesting to see how much people rant about American politics without actually, how do you say, paying attention to it? Obama is running against McCain now- Clinton has lost this election and everyone knows it. But to say her "career is over" is ridiculous- she has a big future in the senate; she's running for majority leader right now.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:35 PM on May 23 [3 favorites]

It's the high silly season and all the wraiths and dingdongs are at play.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:36 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Her campaign will not be over until he's lost, one way or another.
posted by Artw at 8:37 PM on May 23

Lay off HRC, please.

as soon as she lays off our country - she shouldn't even be senator
posted by pyramid termite at 8:37 PM on May 23 [3 favorites]

Burhanistan- I agree. I want my anti Clinton FPP posts to have more substance than one link. I need at least two or three angry editorials, a Daily Show clip and Keith Olbermann's special tonguelashing to call it a worthy FPP. Also, choice embarrassing photos of Clinton, maybe her at a rifle range or something.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:38 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Apologies in advance, but it seems inevitable:

Metatalk: all the wraiths and dingdongs are at play.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:39 PM on May 23

BrooklynCouch is ParisParamus.

For those who aren't long-term MeFi members, suffice to say he was such a troll that he gained the "honour" of being one of the few people perma-banned from MeFi—quite a feat, given there've been more than 60000 people sign up, yet less than a dozen perma-banned.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 PM on May 23

I agree - with the original poster's use of the word 'unfortunately'.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:52 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

^ ericb: "Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" about Hillary Clinton invoking Bobby Kennedy's assassination."

Thank you for that. His concluding remarks were absolutely devastating.
posted by self at 8:53 PM on May 23

You could seriously power a small town with Keith Olbermann's nightly indignation.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:02 PM on May 23 [10 favorites]

Let's just all agree to not use the words "lay" and "HRC" in the same sentence.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:04 PM on May 23

God help me I've discovered Finntroll.
posted by Sailormom at 9:10 PM on May 23

If we all ignore her, she'll go away.
posted by empath at 9:15 PM on May 23

BrooklynCouch is ParisParamus.

Awesome. No, seriously, this is awesome.

Next time we have an FPP on, I dunno, Agriculture Subsidies, he'll jump in and say "We wouldn't need to subsidize agriculture if it wasn't for those atheist lesbian environmentalists!!!" -- and then leave the thread without a trace.

The man is a fucking drive-by thread assassin -- possibly the most skilled that I have ever seen.
posted by Avenger at 9:23 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

Ding Dong (disambiguation)
posted by lukemeister at 9:27 PM on May 23

Zowie. Worth watching right to the end, and that's a long rant.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:27 PM on May 23

Passionate commentating is great. Wish we'd had a lot more of it this past eight years. Olbermann has been great at lots of critical moments, though.

The "assassination" comment is interesting, and I was glad I caught the link before it was deleted. At the time my opinion formed thusly: it's not a great example of Clinton's nefariousness or subtly evil machinations. I honestly don't think she meant to evoke a threat.

What it is, though, is an excellent example of the tone-deafness that has characterized her campaign from the beginning.She should have known better; she should have been aware of how this would be recieved (and it indicates a lack of connection with minority communities that she didn't). She (or her advisers) haven't been able to understand the zeitgiest or navigate the sensitive field of American identity politics safely. She's asking for her voters to believe she can lead everyone, while at the same time being very clear to her audiences that some voters are more important than others. Olbermann's "forgiveness" portion of this is very strong and hard to contest. Her message does not play equally well to all audiences, and that, finally, is the art of politics.

Still, I agree with those who say the post itself probably wasn't so great. It could only devolve into Your Favorite Candidate Sucks. The post-event analysis once nomination is done would make the better post. This is one sentence in a much bigger story.
posted by Miko at 9:50 PM on May 23 [5 favorites]

I really don't think this will end up a big blow for Clinton. It was tasteless, but harmless. It was a minor gaffe and will be mostly forgotten when she returns to the Senate. She wasn't getting the VP nomination anyway.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:32 PM on May 23

BrooklynCouch is ParisParamus... he was such a troll that he gained the "honour" of being one of the few people perma-banned from MeFi

Well, that makes sense.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:44 PM on May 23

Hillary in a judicial role would be interesting.

The always-present 20% will think its armageddon, but then they always do. Meanwhile the majority of you would perhaps find your right to habeus corpus restored, drug laws made sane, equality made real. And she'd be able to cement her name in history, which is something she craves, and she'd be able to really make change, which is another thing she craves.

Of course, she also seems to crave power and money, two things one really doesn't want one's judges to be craving. Herein lies the flaw with my ideaI suppose...
posted by five fresh fish at 10:46 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Also, the BC alias has not yet posted so many trolling messages as to be particularly noteworthy. It was premature of me to taint the BC alias with the regrettable history of the PP alias.

Please make your own evaluation of BC's participation/behaviour on MeFi, and do not let the users' past history influence you. It's been a good long while. People can and do change.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 PM on May 23

Nah, these people never change. Nuke from orbit.
posted by Artw at 10:51 PM on May 23

Gah! No!

There are many, many sites that already do American politics where this will be discussed to death.

It was a crappy post, and it should stay dead. "But it's important!" is a terrible excuse. I understood Metafilter was about interesting, not important.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:54 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Another assassination another show, pink ribbon slip of the tongue .
posted by hortense at 11:14 PM on May 23

Hillary simply reminded people that it isn't over until it is over. She referred to the fact that Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy and their opponents were were still campagining in June.
The haters looking for any excuse to vilify her deliberately misinterpreted her remarks.
Why?
Not on her merits. She tried to bring adequate health care to the US. She has been attacked as Eleanor Roosevelt was for daring to speak out. I fail to understand the knee jerk hatred from those in her own party.
posted by Cranberry at 11:30 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Hillary simply reminded people that it isn't over until it is over. She referred to the fact that Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy and their opponents were were still campagining in June.

Surely the difference is that in those cases, the California primary and its massive delegate contribution was still up for grabs in June, whereas now, she is counting on the less massive contribution of Puerto Rico and one of the Dakotas..... So the comparison, apart from being insensitive, is superceded by history. Rather like her.
posted by Rumple at 11:35 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

It's about time Obama stops dipping into the fray. Wouldn't it be great if his campaign released an official statement saying, "I'm sure she didn't mean anything by it"? When he tries to capitalize on her gaffes he admits that she still has a chance. Instead:

The campaign of her rival for the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. Barack Obama, reacted quickly.

"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," it said in a statement.
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:36 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Cranberry- Olbermann made a very specific point, which was she didn't mention assassination the second time around when she was making the statement (as she had first done in March) and had not said it since until yesterday. Why would she make a slip of the tongue when she had repeatedly said the same sentence or similar phrases numerous times before without having to mention assassination.

Also, one would argue that her merits are flawed, and her actions (including wanting to bring Fl and MI delegates back into the fold, even after she agreed that they should be counted in the first place) shows that she will do anything to be president.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:40 PM on May 23

It's turning into a major story

Kind of early to determine that, no?
posted by deern the headlice at 11:42 PM on May 23

should be counted

should NOT be counted

Also, yes to bring up the other issue: if you wish to ignore history, then June makes sense in the past because of california. But California happened, she won it, AND IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER.

So now she is waiting out June because she is planing on a coup? on obama being taken out? or as people are now fearing, an attempt to run in 2012?
posted by mrzarquon at 11:45 PM on May 23

I've got such serious respect for yhbc...

Let's consider this. If it turns into a major story, it's gonna be here anyway.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:48 PM on May 23

BrooklynCouch is ParisParamus.

No. ParisParamus was totally Manhattan, and not into the Jesus shit. BC has been putting out some homophobic stuff that ParisParamus (who I kinda miss) wouldn't have brooked.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:50 PM on May 23

Then it would have to be an even more elaborate troll.
posted by Artw at 11:54 PM on May 23

Well, fuck me.

I dunno what to say. I should read MeTa more often, obviously.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:00 AM on May 24

oh yeah, what kinda cat is there with you?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:06 AM on May 24

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

KO, on the other hand, clearly has a special licence not only to invoke it, but to harp on it.
posted by flabdablet at 2:28 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

wemayfreeze: "It's about time Obama stops dipping into the fray. Wouldn't it be great if his campaign released an official statement saying, "I'm sure she didn't mean anything by it"? When he tries to capitalize on her gaffes he admits that she still has a chance."

Are you kidding? Responding to a statement by calling it "unfortunate and has no place in this campaign" is the weakest, most boilerplate message that an opposing campaign can send while still making it unambiguously clear that they completely disagree with the statement itself (and want no part of the fallout). Obama's camp did not make a sideshow to, as Hillary would say, "reject and denounce" her words, nor did they take the opportunity to grab a soapbox and elaborate on their answer (they had responded with a very terse statement). If you want to see "capitalizing on her gaffes", look to Clinton losing no time in calling Obama's "bitter" remarks as "elitist", or Obama accusing McCain of having poor judgment and understanding of foreign policy after McCain's gaffe in confusing Shia and Sunni. The statement from Obama's camp in this case is simply political speak for "go hang yourselves with your own rope, we want no blood on our hands." Far from "dipping into the fray" here -- the Obama people aren't touching this with a ten-foot pole, even though the media obliged them to release a response on the incident.

Making the mistake in appearing to sympathize with Clinton's remarks would only leave an opening for Obama himself to get dragged down by this. It would be exactly the kind of political naivety that he is accused of, not to mention how patronizing such a gesture would appear to be. And why is it that people are always asking for Obama or Dean or some other figure to intervene on Clinton's behalf (for example, asking Dean and other party elders to denounce sexist remarks from certain media commentators)? Did Obama ask Clinton or Dean to defend him from, say, false Muslim smears? Nevermind that having someone else fight her battles would only undermine her carefully-crafted image of toughness. If you want to see sexism in this campaign: why do people keep asking the other principle players to help Hillary? It's demeaning to make the suggestion. She can defend her own words, just as everyone expected Obama to defend his own "bitter" remarks.

The main sin of Clinton's remarks: it's completely tone-deaf. In the context of Huckabee's joke during a recent NRA speech about someone pointing a gun at Obama, Kennedy's cancer diagnosis this past week, and the ongoing concern about the safety of black presidential candidates (concerns that, for instance, led Colin Powell's wife to forbid him from ever making a presidential run and led the Secret Service to start protecting Obama far earlier than usual due to death threats), what Clinton said was astoundingly careless coming from a seasoned pol with an iron media discipline. And while Huckabee to his credit apologized to Obama fully and sincerely in subsequent interviews, Clinton's non-apology looked like it was more aimed to placate the Kennedy clan rather than smooth things over with Obama himself. All this has probably cast some serious doubts among the big donor-types as to whether Clinton still has "it" to play the political game on a national level. That famed Clinton mojo is fading, fast.

What one should really be mad about is how incredibly weak on the facts Clinton was in citing evidence for her argument. Bill Clinton's last nomination contest was on June 2, 1992 (not mid-June as Hillary stated), but the nomination was already decided in March when Paul Tsongas dropped out. As for RFK, it's true that his last race in California during June was closely contested and pivotal, but there were only 13 primaries in 1968 and it was only 12 weeks from the first contest (New Hampshire on March 12th) to June 4th. So her bringing up RFK might've said something about how late on the calendar it's getting, but nothing about how long the primary season has dragged on: it's been almost twice as long since the first contest this year. If she were writing an essay and chose to use the 1968 and 1992 contests to support her thesis that "primary contests used to last a lot longer," she'd receive a D+ for this effort.

If Clinton were really trying to be intellectually honest in discussing extended primary contests, she'd be citing 1972, 1980, and 1984 as examples instead. And the track record there is dismal for the Democratic party. Despite having clinched the 1972 nomination, McGovern faced having his two opponents staying in the contest all the way until the convention while trying to peel away his delegates; on the Colbert Report, McGovern recalls his nomination struggle where he and his team spent the weeks before the convention on the phone with his California delegation instead of vetting his VP candidate, leading to the Eagleton fiasco. Democrats were obliterated that year. 1980? Ted Kennedy lost in delegates but took the fight all the way to the convention, getting no closer but forced Carter to chase him down on the stage when it came time to lift their hands together in a sign of party unity, demonstrating the exact opposite. Another Democratic loss. And 1984? Hart fell behind frontrunner Mondale but kept fighting until the bitter end under the premise that "unpledged superdelegates that had previously claimed support for Mondale would shift to his side if he swept the Super Tuesday III primary." (Sound familiar?) And yes, yet another Democratic loss in a landslide. With the protracted nomination record like this, you can see why the Democratic party is trying so hard to wrap the nomination up and move on to the convention. Had Hillary Clinton wanted to talk about extended nomination fights, she should have been discussing McGovern and Mondale, not RFK and Bill Clinton whose fights weren't nearly as long nor contested by historical standards. So that's not why she brought up Bill Clinton and RFK.

No, Hillary Clinton didn't simply "referred to the fact that Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy and their opponents were were still campagining in June" when she chastises us by saying "people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer." To take that at face value and actually believe her rationale is to drink her Kool-aid, because those nomination battles weren't the real long, protracted primary fights when you look at things in a historical perspective. No, she had invoked Bill Clinton and RFK to place herself in the same narrative that she was just like them, a deliberate spin implying that she was also a nominee who fought the Democratic establishment and eventually won the heart of the party, despite the fact that she herself was the DLC establishment candidate. Her followers aren't rooting for a charismatic underdog like Bill Clinton or RFK -- they're rooting for an "inevitable" frontrunner who bungled her campaign badly and lost. And with her latest RFK assassination remarks, she delivered her campaign spin completely ham-fistedly and wound up being hoisted by her own petard. Schadenfreude, anyone?

Anyway, the media will be playing her remarks non-stop over the weekend (just as they did with Wright, etc.), but it isn't even one of the top two real nomination stories leading into the weekend. The biggest is "The Cardoza 40", a group of largely California superdelegates who have previously endorsed Clinton but will be defecting to endorse Obama in the coming weeks. (Al Giordano who broke this story also broke Obama's Kerry, Kennedy, and Edwards endorsements before the MSM did and has had two superdelegates contributing to his site in the past, so he is considered a credible source and this story has been hitting the political blogs big.) Cardoza declared in his endorsement: "I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process." It's a signal that rather than winning her more superdelegate support, Clinton's powerplay for Michgan and Florida has instead closed her final "path" to the nomination with the superdelegates (which was alway an illusion, since superdelegates won't overturn a pledged delegate victory). The other story is Obama's major policy speech in Miami on his Cuba and South American policies, which will have a large reception in the Spanish-language media. "Assassinate-gate" isn't really news -- it's just the noise of the MSM gawking at what is increasingly becoming a Hillary Clinton trainwreck. Before this primary season had begun, I doubt anyone had predicted that this would be the way she'd be ending her campaign. It's going to be a very long summer for her and her supporters.

Obama, on the other hand, has slowed his superdelegate endorsements down to a trickle in recent days, leading to the speculation that he's gaming the delegate count so that the pledged delegates from final June 3rd primaries will be what finally pushes him over the post-Florida/Michigan pledged+unpledged delegate "magic number" to officially seal the nomination. This would be understandable, considering that the Obama campaign would prefer not to appear that it was superdelegates who pushed him over the top (even though he's already won a majority of the pledged delegates) and no superdelegate wants to be the one to do it, either. If Obama does indeed work the numbers to make this happen according to the alleged script, then it'll be a fitting capstone to his primary campaign and yet another masterful piece of political stagecraft that would make the "Mission Accomplished" people seethe with jealousy. Then the rest of the superdelegates will endorse en masse between June 4th and June 10th (including the Pelosi club and the remainder of the Cardoza 40) in a sign of rallying around the nominee, and Clinton will choose how she makes her exit -- or not, if she decides to hopelessly continue by appealing the May 31st ruling. Whether Obama nails the delegate totals on the nose on primary night or not, I'll be saving some popcorn for his speech marking the end of the primary season. Instead of Chicago, perhaps he'll have the chutzpah to deliver the speech from Denver itself. It promises to be a good one.
posted by DaShiv at 3:33 AM on May 24 [188 favorites]

Wow DaShiv.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 3:46 AM on May 24

When he tries to capitalize on her gaffes he admits that she still has a chance.

The point of capitalizing on her gaffes now is not to continue to fight the nomination battle, but to blunt the controversy when he asks someone else to be the veep.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 3:46 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Thank you DaShiv
posted by adamvasco at 5:08 AM on May 24

she had invoked Bill Clinton and RFK to place herself in the same narrative that she was just like them

Balderdash. I watched her interview with the newspaper editors live. It was date-stamping June in the primary race in historical/precedent terms within the wider (and the most sane of her remaining arguments) observation that it's strange and unwarranted that so many people and news outlets are calling for the race to be ended when it is so close and within 2 weeks of the final primaries.

Have at her for the real gaffes and tactical errors, the incredibly poor advice given by Mark Penn that will ultimately be seen as the root cause for her (almost certain) loss, but these incidental asides from which mountains of speculative rhetoric about ridiculous subtextual meanings are being built are of zero significance.
posted by peacay at 5:28 AM on May 24

Hey DaShiv, can I canvas for you?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:34 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Make a better post if you think the topic needs discussing, that one sucked.

If you guys are so far gone that you think "Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Presidential Candidate?" is an appropriate way to lead off a political post on MeFi six months before the election then you should go canoeing instead of commenting here.

yhbc, I love ya, but 1) we almost never reinstate posts and we won't be reinstating that one and 2) that post was bad but removing it didn't mean there was a kibosh on the topic, more like saying "hey make an effort please? please?" I know I'm late to the game here and that this is likely to become another situation where the MeTa thread itself becomes the discussion the yanked MeFi post didn't [and I'd love to see that trend not continue] but I figured it might be good if one of us chimed on.
posted by jessamyn at 5:53 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

oooh ah obama !
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:00 AM on May 24

this is likely to become another situation where the MeTa thread itself becomes the discussion the yanked MeFi post didn't [and I'd love to see that trend not continue]

Sorry, jessamyn. It's only interesting in that she said the same exact thing to Time magazine, but got a pass. I guess she was taken at face value then, making a comment about a temporal matter. Or maybe nobody reads Time magazine?

Now, slow news day coupled with cellphone video + Teddy's got cancer = front page everywhere.

Bobby Kennedy, Jr. (who yes, is a Clinton supporter) absolved her.
posted by fixedgear at 6:28 AM on May 24

If Clinton were really trying to be intellectually honest in discussing extended primary contests, she'd be citing 1972, 1980, and 1984 as examples instead.

1976 on the republican side is the model she seems to be emulating - the only problem being is that she's no ronald reagan
posted by pyramid termite at 6:56 AM on May 24

She was "date-stamping" June with respect to the historical length of the nominating process. Perhaps you missed the part where I quoted her when I cited the two sentences immediately preceding her RFK reference: "People have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer." Clinton knows full well that: a) this year's primary season started earlier than any other, resulting in a January-to-June schedule and thus the longest primary calendar ever; b) Bill Clinton's nomination battle effectively lasted less than 3 months, being decided after Tsongas dropped out in March and Brown could not attain anything close to a plurality that might threaten Bill Clinton's delegate count; and c) RFK's nomination battle also lasted less than 3 months since it didn't start until mid-March. Thus, the only primary seasons that lasted "a lot longer" were ones that weren't finalized at the end of voting and were finally decided by a convention floor vote. Those are the historical facts, but she chose to use Bill Clinton and RFK instead of McGovern and Mondale as her examples.

Which means either:

a) She is flat-out ignorant about the history of the Democratic nomination process when she said "primary contests used to last a lot longer" by using historically inaccurate examples like Bill Clinton and RFK when accurate examples like McGovern and Mondale exist -- and she is certainly not ignorant; or
b) She's fudging the veracity of her examples in order to paint a more positive picture of protracted nomination battles instead of being tarred with the disasters of McGovern and Mondale's party disunity, which is what I had argued.

Or to put it differently: while discussing protracted nomination battles, a historian would cite McGovern and Mondale as the most historically accurate and relevant examples. A politician invested in prolonging her own nomination battle would cite Bill Clinton and RFK to justify her own protracting of the process even when it's less factually correct and less tenable because those nominations weren't very protracted (by historical standards). Clinton partisans defended her words by justifying it as the former -- a mere historical observation -- when in fact, the only plausible explanation (outside of ignorance of the history and/or being flat-out wrong in her assertion) is that she's playing hard and loose with the facts in order to frame her nomination battle favorably alongside those of Bill Clinton and RFK. (Which favorable qualities she's trying to compare herself to is up to you; I mentioned what I felt were most plausible.) It's an argument by association, and it's no different from when Obama in his stump speech characterizes the Democratic party as "the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy" rather than "the party of Cleveland and Carter."

It's not nefarious, it's just politics. And her carefully-constructed argument (which she had previously used) blew up in her face.

By the way, I erroneously implied that all superdelegates would declare the week following the last primary. I meant the Pelosi club and other superdelegates who were waiting "until the voters have spoken", "until we have an nominee", etc. The vast majority of them will be declaring for Obama within a week, or before the end of June at the latest (as per Dean's instructions). On the other hand, some from conservative districts may never endorse, to keep their distance from the national party. In any case, there will be enormous superdelegate movement after the last primary.
posted by DaShiv at 7:02 AM on May 24 [14 favorites]

DaShiv covered every single point I was going to make, better than I could.
posted by Busithoth at 7:06 AM on May 24

It's only interesting in that she said the same exact thing to Time magazine, but got a pass.

It's also only interesting if the minutiae of this particular horse race matters to you, every back and forth, every misstep and misspeak and gaffe and videotaped nosepick. I know that the issue of "who is going to become president of the US" is a topic that is of interest to people outside the borders of the US and I too am interested in how this goes. That larger issue is serious and I don't claim otherwise. But this particular sentence is TRIVIA in that larger serious issue. HRC -- who, like every other candidate, has every word she utters publicly gone over with a fine-toothed comb to probe for offense and character flaws and hidden meaning -- said something that could be given an uncharitable reading and even a totally charitable interpretation is maybe a little bit of a stretch. People then flip out and act like she reversed her opinion on roasting babies alive.

We do a disservice to the issues that really matter in this campaign and in politics in general when we act like this sort of thing is the pivotal moment in this whole larger campaign. It's all reflecting an embarassing media frenzy for conflict, in my personal opinion, and none of it has fuckall to do with whether the war will end or I'll get decent health care or whether local and global poverty will be alleviated at all. I'm fine with the fact that this is a topic that people want to discuss, and equally fine with the fact that this is a topic people want here on MetaFilter, but people should make the smallest effort to make posts that have a chance of appealing to people who aren't living and breathing Election 2008 every waking moment. Some context maybe, or some backstory, or something that isn't just a link to the New York Post.
posted by jessamyn at 7:10 AM on May 24 [28 favorites]

God help me I've discovered Finntroll.

I have no idea why that comment is in this thread, but:

Fucking SWEEEEET. Finnish metal can indeed provide a refreshing palate-cleanser in the midst of all these American political arguments.

So for those of you who feel bogged down and tired as a result of all this Obama/McCain/Clinton foofaraw: take a deep breath, watch this video, and then spend some time quietly thinking about how the American political system would be different if all the candidates were ancient Nordic mythical humanoid warrior creatures.
posted by Greg Nog at 7:16 AM on May 24 [4 favorites]

none of it has fuckall to do with whether the war will end or I'll get decent health care or whether local and global poverty will be alleviated at all.

of course it does - a president who doesn't say dumb alienating things that offend people is going to be much more effective than one who does - for example, i think hillary will have some difficulty talking to the iranians now that she's talked about obliterating them

the ability to persuade is important and difficult to exercise with one's foot in one's mouth

which is not to say this was fpp-worthy
posted by pyramid termite at 7:37 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

I think both Hillary and Obama need a hug. I am sending them a big canadian hug.
posted by ddaavviidd at 7:46 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

My comment was more like 'why is this MSM story-worthy now when she said essentially the same thing in March?' We're not gonna hear about the issues because the coverage isn't structured like that. It's horse race pure and simple.
posted by fixedgear at 7:53 AM on May 24

it's not worth having as a post because it won't be a big story next week, and the readership here has already made clear their distaste for HRC. It isn't worth going through it every time something happens. Personally, I must suffer from the same tone deafness Miko suggests is at fault for Clinton here, as I just don't understand the uproar, and honestly that Olbermann video seemed liked a parody.

He is literally getting himself worked up into a crazy outrage knot over her having said a particular word. He thinks it's fine for her to be in the race, to make this statement about why she is staying, to compare herself to the winning candidates rather than the losers (as Dashiv points out), so long as she does it the way she did it the last two times she's been quoted on the topic, without using the word "assassination" - saying "tragedy" or "loss" or something is ok, but once you say "assassination" it's like the magic password that flips the switch on all the racistbots lying in wait or something... Is this for serious? We can't say a particular word to describe an actual event in history because it might give people ideas that they otherwise would just not have come up with? I don't understand.

She isn't going to get the nomination, but I really don't think most people outside of the super revved up political/media community give much of a shit about this particular comment.
posted by mdn at 7:54 AM on May 24

Having watched the clip, the statement in context is bizarre. It just comes up as a complete non-sequitir, the way she slides it in there. Yes, we all know the RFK was assassinated 40 years ago next month, but why even bring it up at all. She knows that people have been joking about Obama getting assassinated for months now on late night tv, and that it's a genuine fear among African-Americans. Maybe she mixed up the talking points memo with the "Hillary's List of Words She Must Never Say to the Media" memo?

Based on the clumsy way she blurted it out, I have to say that it was calculated. But whatever it was she was trying to effect, she blew it up the minute the words left her mouth.

Again, what's with all the Hillbots screaming foul about Obama's very mild rebuke? It almost as if Hillary has a messianic like sway over her supporters. That she can do absolutely no wrong in their eyes. Scary stuff.
posted by psmealey at 8:02 AM on May 24

My comment was more like 'why is this MSM story-worthy now when she said essentially the same thing in March?' We're not gonna hear about the issues because the coverage isn't structured like that. It's horse race pure and simple.

I think it's because of her continued slide into Will Say Anything To Get Elected land. After running an incredibly disciplined (if wooden) center-right Democratic campaign, she's turned into Huey Long. In the past few weeks, she's reached out to "hardworking Americans, white Americans", stumped for McCain's pandering gas tax holiday, took the MSM to the woodshed on misogyny and sexism, and now this.

I don't think anyone is going to be willing to cut her any more slack at this point.
posted by psmealey at 8:08 AM on May 24

I don't think anyone is going to be willing to cut her any more slack at this point.

I'd bet against that, actually. Somewhere in America there are still some die-hard Hillbots screaming bloody sexism. They'd do it even if she "reversed her opinion on roasting babies alive". Srsly.
posted by WalterMitty at 8:19 AM on May 24

I meant the media, but I agree with you. I ended up surfing to here accidentally this morning. It is a very hardcore pro-Hillary site. The degree to which her people have willingly and shamelessly adopted the tactics of the right is stunning. I'm sure that there are Obama supporters that have posted hateful things here and there, but I cannot imagine a lot worse than I saw on that site.

I had no idea that she inspired such passionate support. But when you make direct appeals to people's fears and baser impulses, there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. The sort of anger, hatred and bitterness she's stirred up, is (charitably) an unintended consequence of her tactics.

That's a lot of toothpaste to try to shove back into the tube.
posted by psmealey at 8:29 AM on May 24

of course it does - a president who doesn't say dumb alienating things that offend people is going to be much more effective than one who does - for example, i think hillary will have some difficulty talking to the iranians now that she's talked about obliterating them

That there has ever been an elected president who has managed never to say a dumb alienating thing that offended people seems like a flight of imagination. Being very good != being perfect.

Anyway, late in responding to this, but yes: minutia-filter chucked out just for the sake of consuming and arguing once again over minutia is just not a great way to make a post. There's a lot of time left until November, and no doubt a lot of posts on the primary season and the election and the candidates, all heading our way still.

If this verbal faceplant is in fact a story a week from now—if there's something lasting and profound that comes out of it—then a post with substance on the subject would be understandable. But this was total water-cooler stuff. It was a lazy, oops-of-the-minute excuse to talk politics.

And, as Jessamyn pointed out, here we are having a thread that's turned into an excuse to talk politics, and at this point it seems like maybe we need to start closing these things as asked-and-answered early on if the trend keeps up.
posted by cortex at 8:40 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Shiv's commentary properly chopped up may have been the FPP this should have been.
posted by iamabot at 9:15 AM on May 24

That there has ever been an elected president who has managed never to say a dumb alienating thing that offended people seems like a flight of imagination. Being very good != being perfect.

but she's not very good - or good - she's mediocre tending towards terrible

she's making a habit of it

And, as Jessamyn pointed out, here we are having a thread that's turned into an excuse to talk politics,

people will just find another thread to discuss it in
posted by pyramid termite at 9:33 AM on May 24

Let's see, if Barack Obama = RFK, the candidate of hope, then Hillary Clinton becomes Hubert Humphrey, who is tarred by his association with a discredited president presiding over an unpopular war. Clinton/Humphrey is nominated at a convention marred by violence, and then McCain/Nixon is elected president. In 2014 a scandal which begins as a 'third-rate burglary' brings down McCain.
posted by lukemeister at 9:49 AM on May 24

which is not to say this was fpp-worthy

I initially read that as 'fap-worthy', which it isn't either.
posted by lukemeister at 9:51 AM on May 24

Christ I hate to argue with Jess, but:

We do a disservice to the issues that really matter in this campaign and in politics in general when we act like this sort of thing is the pivotal moment in this whole larger campaign.

Except that, you know, these things often are the pivotal moments.
The Duke in a tank? Silly, stupid meaningless photo op gone wrong. But that, combined with another trivial moment - his debate answer about Kitty being raped - elected Bush I. Ditto Gore's sighs and Kerry's windsurfing.
It would be nice to live in a country where people voted based on which candidate would best handle the economy, foreign policy and health care. But it aint this one. And to pretend otherwise is ignoring reality.
And I would argue most strenuously that a candidate saying she's still running because hey, Bobby wasn't killed until June, is not at all comparable to a mere "nosepick."
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:53 AM on May 24 [2 favorites]

People then flip out and act like she reversed her opinion on roasting babies alive.

So... she was for roasting babies alive before she was against it?
posted by languagehat at 11:18 AM on May 24 [3 favorites]

Nah CL I think we agree on the points you make, I just think we don't know beforehand which of the turning points in any race will really truly matter and which are just the other side trying so desperately to fan the flames and say "THIS is the one that matters"

A whole bunch of people eye-rolling and chest-beating about how something MAY be the crucial turning point is less interesting to me (and a less good post for MeFi imo) than an analysis of why it actually is or better yet WAS important. Until election time, this is all various houses of cards that many people are watching and stomping on the floors next to trying to see which ones topple and which ones remain.
posted by jessamyn at 11:21 AM on May 24 [2 favorites]

And, as Jessamyn pointed out, here we are having a thread that's turned into an excuse to talk politics, and at this point it seems like maybe we need to start closing these things as asked-and-answered early on if the trend keeps up.
posted by cortex at 8:40 AM on May 24

I'm not at all certain, but there seems to me to be the very faintest whiff of an adversarial attitude toward members generally in this comment, and insofar as I may have contributed to opening the way even to the possibility of such a development, I repent abjectly and promise to go and sin no more.
posted by jamjam at 11:25 AM on May 24

It's...nauseating to watch Drudge manipulate the press and thereby the word. One weird dude, with undeniable genius, controls the political news cycle. And people who claim to loathe the man listen to what he says is important.
posted by dawson at 11:37 AM on May 24

word=world, or maybe logos...cosmos, I'll have a cosmo.
posted by dawson at 11:38 AM on May 24

I repent abjectly and promise to go and sin no more.

You are doomed to walk the archives 'til the end of time with the mark of ceiling cat upon your forehead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:45 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Does Drudge really have all that much influence?

Also, I suspect a lot of the HRC foofoo is all about Republicans who, knowing they need to jump ship on the party because Bush/Cheney/Rove have made it so utterly, thoroughly poisonous to the American public, have latched on to her as the next-best-thing.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:04 PM on May 24

You are doomed to walk the archives 'til the end of time with the mark of ceiling cat upon your forehead.

Unless and until a restless, questing hero born among the MetaDanes shall come to sleep in mathowiegar's great Metatalk hall and rip my typing arm off when I creep in to drink the favorites lifeblood of his doughty longboat Metathanes, sending me down to MetaHell at last.
posted by jamjam at 12:09 PM on May 24

undeniable genius

Drudge is nothing of the sort.
posted by trondant at 12:29 PM on May 24

Drudge is nothing of the sort.
well, I'm no apologist for the man, but how else can one explain his playing of the print and broadcast sycophants and his obvious impact? It's senseless, but there it is. He matters in that game.
posted by dawson at 12:43 PM on May 24

Do you really think the press would have ignored Hillary's comment if Drudge hadn't headlined it? He linked to a New York Post story and other outlets were preparing stories too. I'm not going to disagree that Drudge has an outsize influence, but it's foolish to dismiss this growing flap as merely a creation of his.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:54 PM on May 24

DaShiv's comment should be an FPP
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:20 PM on May 24

CL, I may be wrong and hope I am, but yeah, I think those rags do the story in order to get linked. Who reads the NY Post, really? I just see him as a supersized drama queen, buzzing around stirring the shit, making things appear worse than they are. I'm for free speech and against the Fairness Doctrine, so good for him, but I do tend to think he has more leverage than any one man should. Again, I'd love to be shown to be wrong.
posted by dawson at 1:57 PM on May 24

sorry, I think I was sorta talking over you, I agree more than disagree with yr statement. My answer, I think this story would be a lot less dramatic and probably never linked here sans Drudge's breathless coverage.
posted by dawson at 2:01 PM on May 24

Impact and influence, sure. But it doesn't take anything nearing genius when all you really do is lend a helping hand to people already devoted to self-deception. Any asshole can do that.

I think it would've wound up here anyway; people have been waiting for the misstep that makes it OK to bay for her withdrawal. I've been waiting for that misstep for quite some time myself.

The reason this story is getting so much attention is simply that it isn't every day that someone hands your their own head on a stick.
posted by trondant at 2:14 PM on May 24

Well, MetaMan must be grieving, I'm sure not.
posted by dawson at 2:20 PM on May 24

This thread introduced me to Finntroll, whose bombastic stupidity I find momentarily enchanting. Thanks, MetaFilter.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 3:05 PM on May 24

You are doomed to walk the archives 'til the end of time with the mark of ceiling cat upon your forehead.

this is what happens when you go with cut-rate trepanners - the migranes continue and a little cat pops his head out from under your hat brim - then the cat has kittens and they all pop out of your forehead mewling for milk right as the sun's about to rise

there's even a song about it called "a brimful of cats all on at four to five"
posted by pyramid termite at 4:20 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Keith Olbermann is at least 10% as annoying as Hillary Clinton. Yes, it was an unfortunate and even shocking statement, but K.O's commentary is just way over the top.
posted by delmoi at 6:01 PM on May 24

I've always liked Hillary. Back in the day I used to argue to my American friends that she could win a general election and that she'd make a fine president. But her primary campaign has felt like a Shakespearean tragedy. Back when she joined the senate she judged her greatest future liability for a presidential run to be whether voters would trust a woman to be the commander-in-chief of the U. S. military. So she joined the armed services committee and supported the war in Iraq and so on. People smarter than me predicted that the 2008 Democratic primary would come down to a contest between her and someone who had opposed the war from the start and that the other candidate would win. And so it went. She misjudged the ebb and flow of society and thus her ambition and dream ran aground. This speech by Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar sums it up perfectly:

Under your pardon. You must note beside,
That we have tried the utmost of our friends,
Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe:
The enemy increaseth every day;
We, at the height, are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
posted by Kattullus at 6:11 PM on May 24 [8 favorites]

Now that I think about it, K.O is probably only about 1% as annoying as Hillary, over all.
posted by delmoi at 6:17 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Hmm, here is an diary on Talking Points Memo talking about how Hillary never really faced a tough election herself before.
posted by delmoi at 7:31 PM on May 24

"That there has ever been an elected president who has managed never to say a dumb alienating thing that offended people seems like a flight of imagination."

William Henry Harrison?

"I just think we don't know beforehand which of the turning points in any race will really truly matter and which are just the other side trying so desperately to fan the flames and say "THIS is the one that matters""

We've had nearly eight years of constantly thinking, "Surely this … !" We're primed for it.
posted by klangklangston at 8:00 PM on May 24

Well, I'm glad it got posted, then deleted, then MeTa'd because DaShiv has laid the smack down, and given me a real history lesson. I wish I had an nth of his knowledge of political history, and wherewithal to build thoughtful, reasoned posts like that, all choc-full-o-links.

In the smaller context of the use of the word "assasination," the best I can muster for Clinton is "ham-handed." I don't think she wants anyone killed, but She could have used the word "nominated," which RFK was, the day before, and made the same point. It still would have been specious, but at least it might not have been pernicious. Yes, personally, I'd like her out of the race, by losing fair and square and withdrawing, rather than imploding, or through the media manufacturing a "Dean Scream" moment. The Democratic party needs neither of the last two.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:15 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

The turning point came at least a month ago, when it became obvious to everyone except apparently Hillary that she wasn't gonna get the nomination. I'm not sure what this is. I think most people are just really fucking sick of her, and it's only gonna get worse from here until she comes to her senses and just goes the fuck home already.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:35 PM on May 24

pb for President!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:42 PM on May 24

Hell, at this point the only interesting question remaining is, 'will DaShiv's comment make the sidebar?' It's probably the single most intelligent political comment we've had all year, and will certainly get over 100 favorites, but it comes in a MeTa about a crappy thread that was rightfully deleted, and sidebarring it will probably just ncourage more crap political posts.

Yep. That's a toughie right there.
posted by mediareport at 8:43 PM on May 24

Metafilter: whose bombastic stupidity I find momentarily enchanting.
posted by 31d1 at 9:25 PM on May 24

I can hardly believe it. If, in January, you would have told me that Hillary would exit the campaign in this fashion ... Who'd have thunk it?

After all her talk, after all her shapeshifting, after playing the lowest common denominator time and again.... She turned out to be Fredo??

And what happened to Fredo? He went fishing.

Hillary showed she's just not that smart. Ode to Fredo.

Seems almost poignant.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 9:52 PM on May 24

Yes, personally, I'd like her out of the race, by losing fair and square and withdrawing, rather than imploding, or through the media manufacturing a "Dean Scream" moment. The Democratic party needs neither of the last two.

How about we just buy her a MeFi account? Dollars to doughnuts she self-links in a day and a half and flames out spectacularly in the ensuing MeTa.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:11 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

I can hardly believe it. If, in January, you would have told me that Hillary would exit the campaign in this fashion ... Who'd have thunk it?

No kidding. I was expecting to go from mild dislike and anger about her war vote to grudging acceptance and even defense the way I did with Kerry in '04. Instead she not only feel behind but started acting in a totally obnoxious way.

What this really illustrates is that she's just not that great of a politician. In fact, she's not even that good at actual campaigning. She could probably do an OK job as president, better then bush. But she has really displayed the exact same kind of inability to deal with failure and defeat. She thinks she can just keep fighting and fighting, and being totally dishonest with everyone about her chances. Just the same way Bush has been fighting in Iraq.
posted by delmoi at 10:22 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

Maybe most of you all are fucking sick of her, but you're not in the majority.

Friday, May 23, 2008
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 32% of Democrats now think Clinton should withdraw from the race. [..] As for Barack Obama, 23% of Democrats say he should drop out. That number has remained quite consistent through all surveys on the topic. Three percent (3%) want both candidates to drop out and 48% aren’t ready for either to leave.
posted by citron at 12:35 AM on May 25

Jessamyn for Joint Chiefs of Staff! She'd give war the banhammer.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:16 AM on May 25

As for Barack Obama, 23% of Democrats say he should drop out.

Wow. I wonder what their, uh, reasoning is?
posted by languagehat at 8:12 AM on May 25 [2 favorites]

Wow. I wonder what their, uh, reasoning is?

Interesting Newsweek cover story this week: A Memo to Senator Obama -- "Given his successes, it's easy to argue that Barack Obama doesn't need advice. But how he'll handle race going forward is by no means a settled issue. Our open letter."
posted by ericb at 8:44 AM on May 25

New York Times' political blog The Caucus has a good piece on the effect of the Kennedy remark on Clinton and her campaign, On the Road: Clinton’s Very Bad Day.
posted by Kattullus at 9:00 AM on May 25

Or maybe, "Goddamn, do I love Hitler."
posted by Bookhouse at 7:30 PM on May 23 [7 favorites]

Well, if that post didn't Godwin the thread, maybe this one will.
posted by fuse theorem at 10:11 AM on May 25

well, this ought to godwin it if that doesn't - (did you know who get a youtube account?)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:56 AM on May 25

he'll jump in and say "We wouldn't need to subsidize agriculture if it wasn't for those atheist lesbian environmentalists!!!" -- and then leave the thread without a trace.

The man is a fucking drive-by thread assassin

well, we wouldn't need to assassinate threads either if it weren't for those atheist lesbian environmentalists.
posted by quonsar at 11:01 AM on May 25 [1 favorite]

So "Barack Obama Is The Next Adolf Hitler" is the new slogan of the Hillary campaign? Hey, it might just work!
posted by languagehat at 11:02 AM on May 25

David Axelrod on the issue, from here:

As far as we're concerned ... this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology ... is accepted. Let's move forward.

It loses some power because of their earlier statement, but I'm glad they're trying out the high road.
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:03 AM on May 25

Maybe most of you all are fucking sick of her, but you're not in the majority.


I'm pretty sick of her, but I don't want her to drop out of the race. I want her to stay in until she has made herself good and irrelevant. Since the time to bow out with grace and sportsmanship has long past, I imagine her like the Red Queen at the end of Through the Lookingglass, shrunk to the size of a doll and running round and round chasing after her own shawl.

What a disappointment she turned out to be. I feel like somewhere in there was the making of a good politician. I don't think she ever felt she could just be herself and make it in politics, and that's sort of depressing. I have to say that if she had kicked Bill to the curb back in the day instead of clinging to him in an attempt to somehow represent Clinton Whitehouse Redux in her path to the presidency, she might have emerged as a far stronger, more focused and sincere candidate. It's sort of the same thing that helped sink Gore; tie yourself to the Bill Clinton machine for the power it represents, but distance yourself from the Slick Willy Circus. It can't be done.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:28 AM on May 25 [1 favorite]

she keeps fucking up, and this time it was by apologizing. she'd have gained tons of support by coming out and refusing to apologize, saying something along the lines of "get a fucking brain people! it's clear what i meant. stop letting breathless media clowns do your thinking for you and you might get the nation you want instead of the one you deserve!"
posted by quonsar at 11:29 AM on May 25 [4 favorites]

Language Log analyzes Hillary's apology and this is the conclusion they come to:

"From this perspective, an important part of the public ritual of political apology is the question of which feelings of offense (however allegedly misguided) the politician feels compelled to mention. The apologizer's goal is to cite the narrowest possible range of offended people and reasons for offense. Thus it's not an accident that Senator Clinton mentioned the feelings of the Kennedy family and others about mentioning RFK's assassination, but not the feelings of those who were shocked by the implication that she should stay in the race in case her opponent is killed."
posted by Kattullus at 11:45 AM on May 25 [1 favorite]

On a less-about-Clinton note, I happy she's stayed in because way more people have registered to vote, far more state's issues are being brought up and debated in those states as they actually become sort of relevant, and we haven't had the truncated primary season we've become accustomed to. The states jostling to go first in order to be relevant have learned a small lesson, as well. In short, the process is playing out like it's supposed to, and I think that's a good thing.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:54 AM on May 25

Late to the discussion, but I feel I really must say: Obama/DaShiv '08!
posted by scody at 1:39 PM on May 25 [2 favorites]

Now that I think about it, K.O is probably only about 1% as annoying as Hillary, over all.

I have faith that were he to run for office, he'd rapidly undo that 99% annoyance gap.
posted by Drastic at 1:49 PM on May 25

Hillary needs to apologize to everyone who supported her six months ago. They're the ones she has really let down.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:30 PM on May 25

Clinton Still "A Fighter", Not Going to Quit

NEW YORK, NY, November 5, 2008 - On the day after Barack Obama became President-elect of the United States, Hillary Clinton held a news conference announcing that she "was a fighter and I owe it to the people who have been campaigning for me to continue my fight to be President at the earliest possible date."

"Sooner or later, it's going to be my turn," she said, "if not in 2012, than in 2016. If not in 2016, then 2020. If not 2020, than 2024. We are in this thing until we get what we want."

Neither President-elect Obama, Don Quixote or the Energizer Bunny could be reached for comment.
posted by pyramid termite at 3:01 PM on May 25 [1 favorite]

Joking aside.

Liz Trotta, former New York bureau chief of the Wahington Times in reference to assassination,
"Osama, uummm, Obama, well both if we could".

Fox News.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 5:33 PM on May 25

The fact that Fox News doesn't joke about Hillary Clinton being murdered as well is just one more shameful example of how the media refuses to take her seriously due solely to her gender. Will Obama's free ride never end?
posted by scody at 6:09 PM on May 25 [4 favorites]

The fact that Fox News doesn't joke about Hillary Clinton being murdered as well is just one more shameful example of how the media refuses to take her seriously due solely to her gender. Will Obama's free ride never end?

Scody, god help me, this is your fault. I said no joking aside and then you post that. I laughed and spit out some cheap Memorial weekend beer all over my keyboard. Damn you Scody!
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 6:20 PM on May 25

Wait, "I said no joking aside...". Should it be "I said joking aside..." I need an editor.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 6:28 PM on May 25

Wait. I don't need an editor. I need an editrix. That's the ticket.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 7:19 PM on May 25

Hold on, let me swap some parts around.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:21 PM on May 25

scody,

Alas, DaShiv isn't old enough to be on the ticket yet. I'm registering dashivin2016.com right now!
posted by lukemeister at 8:01 PM on May 25

Three percent (3%) want both candidates to drop out

What the hell? To make room for Edwards, or are these the closeted Republicans in the poll?
posted by jacalata at 11:45 PM on May 25

Hi. After reading this thread, I'd like to make an appeal to Obama supporters on behalf of what is, I think, in the best interests of your candidate.

At some point, most likely in the next few weeks, Obama is going to secure the nomination. If, at that point, Clinton decides to try for a credentials fight over Florida and Michigan, or take it to the convention, I guess (at least as far as I'm concerned) feel free to continue to say whatever you want. But if at some point she drops out, whether gracefully or otherwise, I'd like to ask you a favor.

Drop it. Please.

If that comes to pass, please don't gloat. Please don't go on and on about how relieved you are that she won't be president, or won't be the candidate. Please don't talk any more about what a horrible person she is. Celebrate your candidate's victory, absolutely, but as for the rest of it, drop it.

I'm a Clinton supporter. There are lots of us. You wouldn't know it from here, but millions of people voted for her, across the U.S. The majority of us don't regret it. The majority of us aren't racists. The majority of us aren't even second-wave feminists. The majority of us certainly aren't MetaMan. Many of us are people who, after weighting the issues, decided that Clinton was the better candidate.

In the fall, you will need us.

I think Clinton was a good candidate who arguably ran a bad campaign. I also think, as do many Clinton supporters, that every word she has said throughout the campaign season has been run through a microscope and put in the worst possible light by an often hostile press and by the often hostile supporters of her opponents, democrat and republican. As I think is the case with the subject of this thread.

Her candidacy meant a lot to a lot of people, and you are doing yourselves no favors by this.

When Obama clinches the nomination, I intend to support him. I intend to send money his way. I intend to vote for him. Please make it easy for me.

Because I will also be said that a candidate I thought was a good one crashed burned. Please let me mourn that without seeing (for the millionth time) what I consider to be unfair or out-of-proportion attacks on her. While she's your opponent, sure. But once she's not, please drop it. Think it, sure, if you want, but you needn't broadcast it to the world. Let us feel good about your candidate instead.

Because millions of people *don't* agree with you about her. And Obama needs their votes.
posted by kyrademon at 5:03 AM on May 26 [9 favorites]

(apologies for typos. 2 AM here.)
posted by kyrademon at 5:03 AM on May 26

Many of us are people who, after weighting the issues, decided that Clinton was the better candidate.

I don't think anyone doubts that, at least up until March. Since then, your candidate decided to rely on the all-too-familiar tactics of pandering to classist and racist spite. As a result, a lot of us got very frustrated that Clinton wasn't being held to account by people in her own camp who, apparently, can never admit that she might have done anything wrong.

By contrast, you heard a lot of Obama supporters complain very vocally when, after his brilliant speech on race in Philadelphia, he did renounce Wright a couple of weeks later.

So, when we heard Clinton supporters go on about Obama's "messiah complex", and that his supporters were all "drinking the kool-aid", we couldn't help but feel a little put off that those accusations were coming from people who were trying, transparently to transfer their own issues onto us.

Whatever your views on Obama's qualifications, we've heard an awful lot of people just toss out names like Ayers, Wright, Rezco, and thinking that by merely uttering them and not explaining what the nature of these accusations is, Obama gets put in the same "just another politician, he's as tainted as anyone else", when it seems, by anyone's standard for present day politicians, he's as clean as a whistle, the guy is practically an Eagle Scout.

I don't think you'll see much gloating kyrademon, I think what you'll see is relief in that Obama cleared a major and very, very difficult hurdle.

I'd like to credit Senator Clinton with that, and for a time, I was tempted to. But the way she exploited the racial divide in order to run up the score in West Virginia and Kentucky, and bolster her case for "electability", was something that Richard Milhous Nixon would have been proud of. It was a shameful moment for her, and really, for all of us. But the Democrats who supported her and refused to see that she caused injury in doing this, they have earned our mistrust.

I still think we can win on the issues in the fall, but Obama's going to have do more than just win the election, he needs to carry a message to all of us that what we've been doing is hurting ourselves, and affecting our ability to accomplish anything. So long as it's possible to divide the body politic with racism and sexism, and class jealousies and resentment, nothing will get done, and the power elites will continue to sell us a bill of goods so that they might continue to loot the Treasury.

For my own part, I will support Hillary if she manages to game the system and get the nomination. But once she's installed in the White House, I don't really expect to see much beyond a continuation of the failed policies of the last 16 years.
posted by psmealey at 5:37 AM on May 26 [1 favorite]

But the Democrats who supported her and refused to see that she caused injury in doing this, they have earned our mistrust.

See, by writing that, you're saying to kyrademon and many, many others: "Fuck you, we don't consider you worth paying attention to; we expect you to suck it up and vote for our guy despite the fact that we're jeering at you all the way, and be grateful for the privilege." If you think that's a smart policy, please continue with your partisan venom.
posted by languagehat at 6:02 AM on May 26 [1 favorite]

Mistrust is not the same as "fuck you, we don't consider you worth paying attention to...". It means a whole lot of work needs to be done to fix what's been broken. What I was trying to do was to explain the source of the frustration, which is too often attributed to unthinking partisanism itself.

But if you think it's a smart policy to ascribe methods and motives that aren't there to people you don't know, please continue with your snarky blindside hits.
posted by psmealey at 6:22 AM on May 26

I think Clinton was a good candidate who arguably ran a bad campaign. I also think, as do many Clinton supporters, that every word she has said throughout the campaign season has been run through a microscope and put in the worst possible light by an often hostile press and by the often hostile supporters of her opponents, democrat and republican.

And the great difficulty about all this is that it's a flip of the coin or a chance of luck or history or circumstance that the race and the local mood have been for the one candidate or the other—everything you're saying here has applied at times to Obama too. Which is not an "oh, but, but" thing: my point is exactly that I think it's too easy for folks to be upset by what's been thrown at their own favorite, and too easy to not feel real sympathy for the folks on the "antagonistic" side of the race. It sucks to lose, but it sucks more to get so mired in winning and losing that you lose a sense of context and just try to eat each other alive.

So I agree with you a lot, kyrademon, and I hope you get your wish.

If I was feeling foolish, I'd extend the idea to national politics across the board, but I think that the inter-party gap at this point is kind of helplessly canyonesque compared to the Democratic split, and this doesn't seem like a race to make bridging that possible.
posted by cortex at 6:49 AM on May 26 [1 favorite]

If you think that's a smart policy, please continue with your partisan venom.

and if you think it's a smart policy to base your political views on what a bunch of random people write on the internet, go ahead

we're NOT that important and therefore what you or kyrademon or anyone else thinks about us isn't all that important, either
posted by pyramid termite at 7:30 AM on May 26