Hillary's "Count Every Vote" Hillpocrisy

Here is a fun bit of hillpocrisy, for those jonesing for an early morning fix. This didn't make the news anywhere, but at the same time Hillary has been running around the country decrying the terrible disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida who voted for her (she wants to disenfranchise every single voter who voted for Obama in Michigan), equating their struggle (okay, actually her struggle because they don't seem to really care) with the suffrage movement and the fight against slavery, and comparing the Florida-Michigan row to Mugabe's anti-democratic actions in Zimbabwe, she has been trying to disenfranchise voters in Texas. Yes, we all know she also doesn't want to count any voters from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, but now she is going after caucus goers in Texas, who just happened to have voted for Obama. Hillary's campaign tried keep an entire county from being seated at the state convention because that county's senate district conventions were held a day late, because there wasn't a large enough venue in the county for the day it was originally scheduled. So Hillary's campaign wants everyone in the county (again, the county went to Obama, just a coincidence I'm sure..) disenfranchised, for breaking the rules, because they essentially had no other choice.

This of course directly contradicts her moral standard she has employed in the Florida-Michigan fiasco, which is that "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Hm, I'm pretty sure these people intended to vote for Obama, so why are you trying so hard to get everyone in that county disenfranchised if you are supposedly the new hero of democracy? What happened to fighting for every single vote to be counted?

Oh, and a Hillary supporter on the credentials committee that would decide the ultimate fate of the votes from Collin County said "What is troubling me...is that it seems to me that this rule is crystal clear." Which is funny, because the rules of the DNC were also crystal clear, even clearer actually because they were warned of the consequences, and yet they violated the rules anyway. In Collin County the local Democratic Party didn't want to break the rules, but they had nowhere to hold their county convention that day, so they had to do it the next day. But regardless, what we see here is that on one hand you have Hillary demanding that every vote (that was for her) be counted, and saying screw the rules, and then on the other hand you have her trying to disenfranchise 40% of the voters from Michigan, not count the votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and now trying to disenfranchise the voters of an entire county in Texas, and defending the rules as "crystal clear". Funny how that works huh?

But that's hillpocrisy for you!

But this story has a happy ending, for democracy, not Hillary, because last night the Texas Democratic Party's temporary credentials committee voted unanimously to deny the challenge aimed at unseating the entire Collin County delegation from attending next week's state convention. The reason? The man Hillary's campaign had file the actual challenge with the committee on the grounds the change could have confused some voters in the county wasn't even from the county in question!

What Do Hillary, Bush, Mugabe and Saddam All Have In Common?

In a great article in The Guardian, "Clinton Has Run Her Campaign The Same Way Bush Has Run The Country", Gary Younge quite aptly compares Hillary's modus operandi with that of Bush, pointing out the same willingness to lie to voters and distort reality (along with a whole host of other ills like fearmongering and exploiting racism) to further their political agendas. He starts off by setting the groundwork, "In her cynicism-sustained attempt to defeat Obama, she has shown contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy." Even though he is on the other side of the pond, he gets right what the MSM (with the exception of Olbermann) have failed to grasp:

As the primary season draws to a close it has become increasingly apparent that Hillary Clinton has run her campaign with the same contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy that Bush has run the country. Like the Bush administration, her campaign has been sustained by cynicism, divisiveness and fear-mongering, leaving a toxic and rancorous rift in its wake. Like the White House, her aim has been to win at all costs. And like the White House, it has produced the same result. Failure.

It is a continuum not of policies - on that front she is closer to Barack Obama than either of them would concede - but a mindset that has served America ill these past seven years. Creating a bespoke reality out of whole cloth and then hoping people will not just buy it, but wear it.

Younge then proceeds to explain her dance of deception and hypocrisy over Michigan and Florida, and how she unabashedly switched her entire position on those primaries when it served her political interest to do so (and amazingly the MSM here in America never points this very important fact out):

But then she won both. Now everything is different. Speaking before a crowd of senior citizens in Boca Raton, Florida, last week she went into metaphorical hyperbole, comparing the battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan to the suffragettes, the civil rights movement and Zimbabwe - where more than 40 people have been killed in election-related violence. "We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," she explained to a crowd of senior citizens. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote."

Clinton insists she is winning the popular vote. She's right. But only if you tally votes with the same degree of selectivity as Robert Mugabe. For her claim to make sense, you would have to count the discounted Florida and Michigan primaries and discount the legitimate caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state, three of which Obama won. These four states do not reveal popular vote totals. It's like saying if you include your goals that were ruled offside and don't recognise your opponents' headers (it is football [soccer] after all) then you really won the game.

The reason Clinton has had to resort to this sophistry reveals another trait she shares with Bush - hubris. She believed she would have the nomination sewn up by Super Tuesday. She woke up on the following Wednesday out of money, ideas and volunteers. It was a month and nine contests before she won again. By then the momentum was Obama's and, though he has stumbled, he has been running with it since. By most reckonings he leads by about 190 delegates and 400,000 votes. Even if Michigan and Florida were counted, she would still trail in delegates.

I would also like to add that in order for her to win the popular vote, not only would she have to count the discounted Michigan primary, she would have to give Obama ZERO votes in the entire state, even though it is clear that over 40% voted against her, and that the vast majority of those would go to Obama (and the rest mostly to Edwards, who now supports Obama).

Hell, you think Bush bastardized democracy in Florida in 2000, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Over the weekend Lanny Davis, Hillary supporter and complete idiot, proposed a Michigan "compromise", which gives Hillary all of her votes, and then basically splits the non-Hillary votes between Obama aaannnddd...?

You'd be thinking Edwards right? Well that would be wrong. According to Lanny Davis, around half of the people who didn't vote for Hillary even though she was on the ballot, actually wanted to vote for Hillary. Yes, this complete imbecile thinks Hillary should get half of the votes that were cast against her, and that Obama should get the other half. That makes sense, right? Yes, this is the kind of idiocy that comes from the Clinton camp, and you know why? Because they can't "win" the popular vote without making up asinine "compromises" like that. That should tell you something. So much for when Hillary said this:

Now I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country, that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted.

Okay, so let's set aside your utter hypocrisy here, since you and your top aids supported stripping both states of their delegates when the DNC voted, and you had it within your power to stand up for the voters then but didn't. Let's look past that and look at that last part, "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Okay, so 40% of voters in Michigan CLEARLY did not want to vote for you, so how should that "clear intent" (can't get much clearer than that) guide us? Well give half of those to Hillary! Apparently the best way to count the voters according to their clear intent, at least as far as hypocritical Hillary is concerned, means either:

• 40% of voters voted against Hillary, either for Obama or Edwards, but let's assume not a single voter voted for Obama, or
• 40% of voters voted against Hillary, so around half of those must have intended to vote Hillary, and just couldn't find her name on the ballot, even though it was the only name there.

And yet she still gets away with this self-righteous talk, this blatant hypocrisy, and the media doesn't bat an eyelash. She can talk about the fight against slavery and the fight for women's suffrage and compare this election to Zimbabwe and proclaim that she is in this to make sure every single vote is counted for the sake of democracy, and in the very same breath she ignores the voters from four caucus states and 40% of the voters from Michigan, and sees no problem with a Soviet-style election in which her name was the only name on the ballot, and in which no opposition candidate was allowed to campaign. Apparently she thinks THAT is a legitimate election. Well now we found something her and Mugabe and Putin and Saddam can agree on.

Anyway, back to the article, after discussing her distortions concerning Michigan and Florida, he highlights some other examples of her employment of Republican tactics:

And, like Bush, she has appealed to the basest instincts of the electorate to dig herself out of a hole. First came fear. "It's 3am in the morning and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the telephone [in the White House]," went her ad.

Then there is racism. The most recent example of which was her claiming that Obama's "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", as evidence of her own viability. Later she would concede that equating "white" and "hard- working" was a "dumb comment".

And then he finishes with this, which really is the question we are left with:

Like the Bush administration, the issue is no longer whether she leaves the stage with her reputation irreparably tarnished, but what state she leaves it in and how many people she is prepared to take with her.

Hillary Questions The "Principles" Of The Democratic Party [UPDATED]

Here's some great hillpocrisy for you. Today she took some time out of her busy schedule to trash on the Democratic Party:

I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.

Again, she clearly only cares about Michigan (and by Michigan I mean only the voters who voted for her) and Florida because they were essentially held in information blackout and thus went to her by decent margins. Let's take a look back at what Hillary was advocating a few months ago:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

How's that for principles Hillary? But hey, if you want to know why Florida and Michigan can't be seated as is, maybe you should ask your top spokesman Terry McAuliffe, who made the stakes clear in 2004 (the last time Michigan broke the rules):

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

Oh, you mean there are rules, rules that have a purpose, and they knowingly violates these rules even after they knew of the consequences? Apparently for Hillary rules are meant to be broken, even if breaking them means anarchy in future primaries. On wait, they do know this, they signed a pledge saying as much back in 2007:



Chuck Schumer got one thing right, Hillary changes her position based on what helps her, but Obama has been 100% consistent and 100% in compliance with the DNC rules that everyone agreed to at the beginning. Hillary is the only one here saying one thing and then spinning around and saying the completely opposite for political gain.

But what is really disappointing here is that Hillary would go after the Democratic Party like that, and say that there is something wrong with their principles because they made rules and created consequences for breaking those rules as a way of enforcement. She is basically saying to the people of Florida and Michigan that the Democratic Party is out of touch and doesn't care about them, and I think it is safe to assume she is implying that unless the Democratic Party gives her what she wants and ignores the rules, they will suffer loses in Florida and Michigan in November, which is no doubt what she would like to see since she won't be the nominee.

And of course she went on to repeat her outright lie that she is ahead in the popular vote, which couldn't be further from the truth. Kos did a great job of summing this argument up today:

One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

I'd like to expand a little bit on his first point. This is a delegate race, that is what the agreed upon rules state and there is no mechanism in those rules to accommodate a win by any other metric than delegates. Now if they had decided popular vote would decide the nominee from the beginning, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington were counted (and Florida and Michigan counted fairly--NOT Hillary's way), then the primary could have been decided in that manner, but that means that the strategies would have been very different. Her bringing up ridiculous measures of victory like popular vote, for the Republican system ignores the fact that if we had been playing by different rules Obama wouldn't have chosen the same strategy he did, so you can't assume the results would have been the same. If it had been winner-take-all you can be sure Obama would have fought like hell for California and the bigger states. If it had been all about the popular vote you Obama and Hillary would have focused more on running up the turnout in their home states while focusing on the most populous states and ignoring the majority of the US. But popular vote wasn't the goal, and this was never winner-take-all, so Obama went with the best strategy for winning the most delegates, and he won. Now Hillary can whine and go "but what if.." or "but the Republicans.." or "if only.." and she can try to change the rules and play the victim like she was robbed of the nomination, but those were the rules, the rules she agreed to, and the rules that must be followed. This is about fairness, not about what works best for Hillary. She doesn't seem to understand that. I, for one, am sick of hearing her lie and spin about the popular vote, Michigan, Florida, and all her false excuses for losing. Basically I'm tired of watching Hillary act like a child. It is undignified and embarrassing to the Democratic Party.

Update: Hillary highlights her attack/threat against the Democratic Party:

If we fail to [seat the Michigan and Florida delegates], I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well. We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you.

And then she put counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan (oh, except Obama's) on the same level as the struggle against slavery and other historic fights:

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak."

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote."

Yes, she is comparing the issue with Florida and Michigan, whose votes wouldn't even change the outcome of the primary, to universal suffrage and the fight against slavery. Oh, but of course she doesn't have a problem with disenfranchising everyone who voted for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, or the people who voted in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Funny, the fight for HER voters in Michigan and Florida is suddenly the latest battle for human progress, but everyone else's voters can go to hell. And apparently she doesn't care that the voters in Florida and Michigan didn't really have a choice, as long as voters were put in boxes, it was "democratic" and should be counted. Many a third world dictator would agree whole heartedly. Oh but wait, there is more:

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

So there you have it, in the same breath she lied and said she was ahead in the popular vote, she compared Obama to Bush stealing the 2000 election, and she committed brazen hillpocrisy by saying "if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished" when HER OWN PLAN doesn't count the votes of half the voters in Michigan and completely ignores the voters of FOUR other states!! The ridiculousness of this is astounding, I mean just amazing that she can talk like this with a straight face. How shameless and small, invoking the memory of the great struggles of American history to serve her own political agenda, while committing the same acts of disenfranchisement that she is being all self-righteous about. Shameless.

Next thing you know she'll be saying Christ died for the votes of Florida voters, and only her voters from Michigan, and so that the people of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington got ignored. "You better seat those delegates or Jesus died for nothing!!" Hell, she acts like she has a divine right to the nomination and the presidency, it is only a matter of time before she invokes the will of providence as a new measure of victory.

Update #2: Oh, and I should also add one more thing. You know those super fair and democratic Republicans who Hillary is saying will get all the angry Democratic voters? They cut the delegates from Michigan and Florida by half for breaking the rules. So I can only assume that Hillary would be ok with her delegates from both states being cut in half as well, since that is how the Republicans do things, which is pretty consistently the measure by which she addresses all problems.

Update #3: Here is a statement by a Florida voter who is tired of Hillary speaking for them. This voter is not being disenfranchised. This voter is not being punished.

Update (5/22): NY Governor and Hillary supporter David Paterson profoundly disagrees with Hillary's Michigan-Florida claims:

Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

On Clinton's claims regarding the popular vote and likening the fight to set the Florida and Michigan delegates to the civil rights movement, Paterson said:

"You have to rule out the undecideds in Michigan. You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."

Hillary's Dead Wrong Pandering Ploy Exposes More Of Her Character

As Hillary intensifies her attacks on Obama over his refusal to support her ill-conceived (actually the Republicans' ill-conceived) gas tax pandering gimmick, the consensus over just how ill-conceived the plan really is has grown exponentially. As the following article shows, there is virtually no support for the plan, outside of McCain, Bush and Hillary. Furthermore, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said that the Democratic leadership of Congress has no intention of pursuing the summer tax suspension gimmick that Hillary is promoting, adding that the plan "would not be positive". At the end of the day, she has been caught in another mistake, and we all know that when Hillary makes a mistake or tells a lie and is exposed, she just keeps running with it, more and more aggressively. Just like Bush, she can't admit a mistake, and when she is losing, she doubles down. This is a horrible trait to have in a leader. First, she knows the policy is crap, because she opposed the same policy 8 years ago when her Republican opponent for the Senate was promoting it, and she attacked him for it. This means that she is purposely lying to voters, telling them what they hear, even though she knows it is a bunch of crap and would actually hurt more than it helps, all to get their votes. That is not a leader, that is a professional panderer, a liar, a cheat, a fake. Secondly, when it is obvious that she is wrong and everyone acknowledges that she is wrong, she refuses to alter course. Just like Bush with Iraq, she has locked in her course, and she won't let any pretty facts get in her way. Do we want another president like that? One that openly lies to voters, has such an obvious contempt for facts, and who doesn't know when to stop pursuing a reckless policy? Read:

Expert Support For Gas Tax Holiday Appears Nonexistent
by Sam Stein, The Huffington Post

Here is Obama's new ad hitting back at the Hillary-McCain politics as usual. Hopefully on the ground he will also highlight Hillary's hypocrisy over the issue, and the fact that it is nothing more than a gift to the oil corporations, direct from the tax payers:



Update: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the McCain-Clinton tax pander scheme:

It’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view. I don’t understand why you think there’s any merit to it whatsoever. We’re trying to discourage people from driving and we’re trying to end our energy dependence. We don’t do that -- oh, and incidentally, we’re trying to have more money to build infrastructure. All three of those things go fly in the face of giving everybody $30 a year. The $30 bucks is not going to change anybody’s lifestyle. The billions of dollars that we would otherwise have in tax revenues can make a big difference as to what kind of a world we leave our children.

[...]

Obama was right on this one, and McCain and Clinton were wrong. The last thing we need to do is encourage people to drive more and to take away the monies we need for infrastructure in this country.

Update #2: Another similarity with Bush arises, contempt for expert advice. If this quote were unsourced it would be easy too imagine Bush saying it when referring to unfound weapons of mass destruction or the the "fuzzy science" of global warming:

"We believe the presidency requires leadership," said [Clinton spokesman Howard]Wolfson. "There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with. And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with."

Yes, those damn "experts" (virtually everyone) are all wrong, and it takes a "strong leader" to ignore every expert and run blindly with a bad policy. And if you disagree with Hillary, you aren't really an expert, you become an "expert" for your temerity. Hillary is apparently showing how great of a leader she is. And Bush was a modern Abraham Lincoln.

Update #3: Pelosi is very much against the plan as well, she is apparently now just quote-unquote "Speaker of the House of Representatives", not a REAL Speaker of the House of Representatives:

First of all, there's no reason to believe that any moratorium on the gas tax will be passed onto the consumer, first and foremost. This has not been the history, of a lowered gas tax being passed onto the consumer. Second of all, it would defeat everything we've been trying to do to lower the cost of oil. ... There are other remedies that are much better than that, and again, have a direct impact on the problem that we're trying to solve. I think the biggest answer to our challenges is to invest in renewable energy resources and to do it now.

Update #4: Hillary is now using Republican attacks with Republican talking points supporting a Republican policy to attack DEMOCRATS in Congress. Read more here.

Hillpocrisy Is Endemic In Hillary's Campaign

Let's talk about Michigan-Florida hypocrisy. We know that top Hillary official Harold Ickes voted as part of the DNC to sanction Michigan for violating the DNC's rules. And now he takes the exact opposition position, now believing that they should be counted (because it helps Hillary now).

We also know Hillary's past position on Michigan and Florida:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

And this was Hillary later:

Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot.

Notice the hypocritical change of course when it benefits her.

And now we have top Clinton spokesman Terry McAuliffe himself, as DNC chairman, in 2004 stressing the importance of following the DNC's rules:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

And Terry now, when Hillary stands to benefit, has a 180 degree change of heart, and suddenly the rules are no longer the rules:

I'm saying they've already voted, let's count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

Now we have long known that Hillary is a shameless hypocrite, to the point I actually had to create a new term to describe the amazing depths of her hypocrisy. But it seems like everyone around her has come down with a bad case of the hillpocrisy as well. Bill is a total hypocrite. All her top supporters seem to be total hypocrites. It seems that hypocrisy is extremely contagious. At this point I'm getting concerned. The next time I hear someone from her inner circle being a complete hypocrite I'm putting in a call to the CDC, because we may have an epidemic on our hands. I think the sooner Hillary drops out and we can put her in quarantine the better for the Party and the country.

Pennsylvania Results (Hillary Won The Battle, Lost The War A Long Time Ago)

As expected Hillary won Pennsylvania, but not without having Obama cut deeply into her once huge lead, despite all of her advantages in the state.

As expected, she is spinning away, completely out of touch with reality.

As expected, the media is pretty much saying the race goes on (imagine that, they ratings go on as well).

As expected, McCain and the Republicans are undoubtedly very happy that many Democrats apparently don't understand that attacking their nominee from two fronts at once probably isn't the best idea.

Hillary won Pennsylvania by a mediocre less than 9% margin, far from the blowout win she needed, but enough for the media to continue to indulge her delusions of having any chance of winning the nomination. Not that the media needed much push, they've been willfully ignoring the math for months now, while repeating Hillary's talking points like they are witty jokes they think may impress someone. Thus even on The Huffington Post there is a big headline which reads: Hillary's Next Must-Win: Indiana.

Excuse me? Her next must-win? Let's inject some reality into that statement. EVERY state is a must win for Hillary if she wants to actually win the nomination. Not only is every single state a must-win for Hillary, every single state is a must-win by HUGE blowout margins. She failed miserably at this in Texas and Ohio, and she has failed in every state since then. She failed miserably again last night. Before yesterday's primary Hillary needed to win 65% of the vote in EVERY SINGLE remaining state in order to win. For a little perspective, I could count how many states she received over 60% of the vote or more on one hand, if I had been in an industrial accident which lost me 4 fingers on that hand. Yes, she has only once even overcame the 60% mark, and that was in her home state of Arkansas (she didn't even come close in New York, her new "home state"). And before yesterday she needed to win 65% of the vote in every single race. She failed. She only got 55% of the vote in Pennsylvania, a full 10% below what she needed. Now, she needs 68% wins in EVERY SINGLE STATE from here on out to win. Considering Obama has a big lead in North Carolina right now, and will also easily win Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, and Indiana will be close, there is absolutely no way she can pull this off. Simply put, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

And yet the media continues to pretend that a less than 9% win in Pennsylvania (a state she had every possible advantage in) means something. Well, it does mean something, it means the same thing her failures in Ohio and Texas meant, it means that she has even less of a chance today than she did yesterday. As Slate puts it, "Coming into today, the odds that Clinton would catch Obama in pledged delegates were very small. Now they're zero." Exactly.

Okay, so let's talk what Obama achieved last night, despite Hillary's spin and the media's regurgitation of it. Beyond cutting her huge lead down to less than 9% despite all of her advantages, Obama also gained among her core supporters. Obama made gains among the 60+ crowd, among white, among white men, among white women, among lower income voters, and among protestants. Obama's close margin is even more impressive when you consider that the demographics in Pennsylvania were significantly less favorable to Obama than the those of Ohio. In the end Hillary's spin that Obama has some sort of problem capturing her demographics is flat out wrong, because he has continually shown he can cut into her base.

One last thing, the general election polls in Pennsylvania have been all over the board, however they show clearly that Hillary has no better shot against McCain in PA than Obama does, and in fact Obama generally outperforms Hillary in the general, despite her win in Pennsylvania, which shows her primary-derived electability argument is complete crap. Yet expect it to be repeated ad nauseum, as Hillary seems to think very lowly of our intelligence, as pointed out in this excellent blog.

Okay, another last thing, Hillary is also running around saying "now more people have voted for me than my opponent", which is a complete lie. She is of course including the votes from Florida and Michigan, neither of which were legitimate elections given that in neither race did the voters have the information to make an informed decision (they were essentially name recognition races, with Obama unable to touch Hillary's advantage with his own advertising), and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so according to Hillary Obama got ZERO votes for Michigan. Nice try Hillary. Also the popular vote was never counted for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME & WA (three of which Obama won, and the other was essentially a tie), so the reported popular vote totals under report Obama's popular vote lead, and Hillary knows this. So to recap, she thinks it is fair to count the popular vote totals in two tainted races, one of which didn't even have Obama on the ballot*, but she doesn't think that four legitimate states should have their votes counted in the popular vote totals. So when you hear her running around claiming she has won the popular vote, realize that she is being purposefully deceptive. In reality she is still far behind in the popular vote, and those numbers are only going to get worse for her in the races ahead.

Update: The New York Times, which endorsed Hillary originally, wrote a scathing indictment of the low tactics she resorted to in order to pull off her small win in Pennsylvania:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.[...]

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Update #2: It seems that Hillary only gained 9 pledged delegates from Pennsylvania. For a little perspective, Obama recently gained 8 delegates from California after they finished counting the ballots there, and the media didn't even mention it. 9 is nothing.

*Note: Let's have a flashback to what Hillary said about her name being the only one on the ballot in Michigan:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

Yes, and now she is trying to claim not only those pledged delegates, but the popular vote as well. What ever happened to "not going to count for anything" Hillary? Or was that your other face talking?

Update: Apparently the results are still not completely in from PA, not that the media cares (as they are still reporting the false 10%), but several heavily pro-Obama precincts have yet to report, so her margin of victory will likely still shrink a bit more.

Update #2: Keith Olbermann isn't fooled, unlike most of the mutton media:

Another Heavy Dose Of Hillpocrisy As Hillary Attacks Obama

Here is a comment that Obama made at an event yesterday:

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush," Obama said.

"But what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?" Obama asked as he wrapped up a town-hall style event at Reading High School in central Pennsylvania.

Okay, so first a few things. First, he was correct, even John McCain isn't as bad as George W. Bush, but that doesn't say much at all. McCain is close to Bush, but it is pretty much impossible to be as bad or worse. Having said that, the comments probably weren't all that useful given that Democrats are trying to paint McCain as basically a third term of Bush. Now he essentially is, and Obama's comments don't contradict that line of attack, but they aren't really necessary (although I'm assuming that, as usual, this is taken out of context and would seem even more harmless in its actual context).

But here is where it gets ridiculous. As usual, Hillary smells blood in the water, her eyes roll back into her head and she blindly attacks:

We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee.

"We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain"...and here was Hillary praising John McCain (not only praising, but essentially endorsing John McCain over Obama in the general election, and she repeated this at least four times):

I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.

And she did it again here:

I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold...I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.

So on one hand Hillary seems to think endorsing the Republican nominee and throwing the Democratic nominee under the bus is appropriate and helpful for Democrats, and yet now she has the audacity to attack Obama for "cheering on" McCain when he did no such thing? Does she have any idea how hypocritical she is being?

"We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee"...the facts seem to contradict that claim, but so does Bill Clinton:

"She and John McCain are very close," Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

Oh, and Bill again:

"[McCain] paid as high a price as you can pay to serve this country without getting killed, and we have to honor that," Clinton said. "[And] he has some redeeming qualities for a Republican: he doesn't believe in toture, he supported campaign finance reform and he doesn't think global warming is a myth... So it is not gonna be all that easy to beat him."

I...rest...my...case.

Update: Obama responds:

"To say that John McCain and some of his instincts may be better than George Bush's, that's a low bar," the Democratic presidential candidate said, adding that he also has stressed that McCain is offering "warmed over versions of Bush foreign policy and economic policy."

"So, there's no contradiction there," Obama said.

Hillary Hates Talking About The Issues, Commits Hillpocrisy, Again

The response to the now-infamous ABC "debate" was overwhelmingly negative, and that consensus was nearly ubiquitous. Take for instance this open letter to ABC by journalists and media analysts condemning the network's poor handling of the debate:

We, the undersigned, deplore the conduct of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators' occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate--who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves--have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Signed: Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent; Eric Alterman, City University of New York; Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online; Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report; Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films; Ari Berman, The Nation; Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium; Michael Berube, Crooked Timber, the University of Pennsylvania; Joel Bleifuss, In These Times; Sam Boyd, The American Prospect; Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times; Joe Conason, Journalist and Author; Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley; Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly; Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber, George Washington University; James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin; Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe; Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune); Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network; Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films; Christopher Hayes, The Nation; Don Hazen, Alternet; Michael Kazin, Georgetown University; Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist; Richard Kim, The Nation; Ezra Klein, The American Prospect; Mark Kleiman, UCLA/The Reality Based Community; Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed; Ari Melber, The Nation; Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America's Future; Katha Pollitt, The Nation; David Roberts, Grist; Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun; Mark Schmitt, The New America Foundation; Adele Stan, The Media Consortium; Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Mark Thoma, The Economist's View; Michael Tomasky, The Guardian; Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks; Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium; Kai Wright, The Root

Keith Olbermann and Greg Mitchell also condemned the debate, specifically the borrowing of Republican attacks, and the ludicrous scapegoating by Hillary that swiftboating fellow Democrats is somehow justified just in case the Republicans might choose to use the same tactics in the future (which makes about as much sense as the US launching nukes at itself just to see how it would cope if Iran someday acquired nuclear weapons and used them against us):



Jon Stewart aptly commented that "It fucking sucked"

MoveOn.org is circulating the following petition:

Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions—ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives.

(click on the above text to add your name)

In the video I posted yesterday you can see Obama's response to all of this, saying he doesn't worry about it (he simply brushes it off), and that this is just another example of the same old politics he is fighting against. He pointed out, and correctly so, that the American people are tired of these kinds of debates, and want to know about the REAL issues facing them, like health care and the war in Iraq and the economy and the environment.

Virtually no one thought it was a good debate or that the questions were what Americans really cared about, except, surprise surprise, the "moderators" and Hillary Clinton (and supporters, and Republicans)! So here it gets ridiculous (Bill Clinton yesterday):

When I watched that debate last night, I got kinda tickled. After the [debate], her opponents', oh, the people working were saying, 'Oh this is so negative, why are they doing this.' Well they've been beatin' up on her for 15 months. I didn't hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa or called her the senator from Punjab. [point of information: she called herself the Senator from Punjab, as did a supporter introducing her, Obama simply alluded to their joking - *gasp*]

And, you know, they said some pretty rough things about me, too. But you know, this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off.

Now this is coming from someone who has made a part-time career out of his red-faced, finger pointing rants about the media and how mean they are to his wife and how biased they supposedly are against her. HE is accusing Obama of whining just because he suggested (like virtually everyone else) that the American voters want to hear about the issues rather than right-wing attacks about who has the most patriotism?? THAT is whining?? Oh no, it gets better, her was Hillary attacking Obama today:

We were both asked some pretty tough questions. That's part of what happens in a debate and a campaign. And I know he spent all day yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked.

But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House. And in fact when the going gets tough you can't just walk away...

I think we need a president who can take whatever comes your way.

Now I must have missed the part of the debate where Obama walked away. The "debate" I saw, and yes, I forced myself to watch every wretched minute of it, had Obama responding to all of the bullshit questions in a calm and effective manner. Again, saying that Americans would rather hear about the problems facing them, and what the candidates intend to do to fix the problems is NOT whining. And yes, all this came from same person who during a debate interrupted just to complain about getting asked the first question, just because she had gotten the first question a few more times than Obama (even though that should be seen as a good thing given that she uses that opportunity to steer the debate where she wants it):



Yes, and she just ridiculed Obama for "complaining". Can you imagine what she would have done if she had been asked the same kind of questions Obama had been asked if she threw a fit over being asked the first question? I'm guessing she would have stormed out of the debate around the time she was being asked if she supported terrorism because her husband pardoned a couple of them before leaving office.

But no, Hillary would never complain about anything! But it looks like George Stephanopoulos used to be a total whiner when he and Hillary were both busy decrying the "vast right wing conspiracy" headed by the media against her husband. To think, people actually suggested that Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky! What lying bastards!

I leave you with this, the new face of ABC:

Hillary To Working Class Whites: "Screw 'em!"

Here was Hillary's feigned indignation a few days ago about Obama's honest and accurate (and clearly not elitist) assessment of the tough economic conditions facing low income families across America:

"...people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you."

It appears that wasn't always her view however:

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

Need I say any more?

Update from the Future: The media didn't say a damn word about this. Surprise Surprise.

Bitter Hillpocrisy

Harvard University political scientist Theda Skocpol comments on the cynical hypocrisy of Hillary's feigned indignation over Obama's observations, and shows us that the Clintons have themselves said the same things many times, in more cold and strategic tones, that they are now attacking Obama for voicing publicly:

I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!...

This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start.

This whole thing is quite reminiscent of the Reagan-praising fiasco, where Obama made some fairly obvious yet intellectual observations concerning Reagan's political legacy, and Hillary, Bill and all of her minions (like Paul Krugman, hack extraordinaire) jumped on Obama, purposefully distorting what he said, in a shameless attempt to paint Obama as a Reagan-lover. Then within 24 hours past quotes from both Clintons praising Reagan started floating to the surface, highlighting their hypocrisy (and again, Obama was in no way praising Reagan). Well sure enough, some past quotes from Bill are starting to float to the surface. Here is Bill while campaigning in 1991:

The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death.

Now obviously he is speaking the truth, and not using "insecure" in a pejorative sense. This is essentially no different than what Obama was trying to relate. And here Bill is just a few months later on the same topic:

You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What have you done to our country?'

So it is fine when Bill says it, indeed he is just speaking the truth about how the Republicans have always screwed the non-rich, and then co-opted their support by appealing to their fear and insecurity. Nothing to fault him for there. Yet when Obama observes the same sort of dynamic unfolding in the Rust Belt and all across the country in poor communities, and gives a voice to what these people are feeling, Hillary jumps down his throat accusing him of being "elitist and out of touch" and says that people aren't bitter or angry with 8 years of Bush (and 3 decades of uninterrupted economic conservatism), they are actually happy and positive about it! Meanwhile she tries to pretend to be Jenny from the block with her talk of duck hunting with Daddy and loving Jesus. When exactly did she turn into such a Republican? Or more appropriately, since we do know she used to be an actual Republican, maybe we should ask if she ever really stopped being a Republican. From the looks of it, I'd say no.

For those in the mood for some extra reading, here are some select writings on McCain/Clinton's latest pathetic attempt to take down Obama, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Update: Here is another one from Bill, this coming from his 2004 memoir, My Life, basically saying the same thing that Obama said:

If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns.

Hillpocrisy Is Now An Olympic Event

Upon running out of tactics to use to try to turn this election around, Hillary's desperation finally leads her to pretending to care about human rights in China:

"The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for presidential leadership," she said, charging the Bush administration "has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China."

She said Bush should not plan on attending the ceremonies "absent major changes by the Chinese government."

Oh where, oh where was this concern for human rights in China when she voted in favor of normalizing trade with China despite China's long documented history of human rights abuses? And where oh where was this concern for human rights when she sat on the corporate board of Wal-Mart, the largest exploiter of sweatshop labor and nearly nonexistent labor and environmental regulations in China?

Yet suddenly when her back is against the wall, and the Olympics are on the line, she finds the political courage to stand up fight for human rights, or, well, at least tell Bush he should be fighting for human rights by not watching a sporting event. After all, who cares about free trade with China or the growing percentage of our debt owned by China, when we can try to spoil their sports event?

There you have it, Hillary: Kind of barely fighting for human rights in China, since...a few days ago when Barack Obama started destroying her lead in Pennsylvania.

Hillpocrisy & Lies (University Edition)

At the height of the revelations that Hillary had lied about her trip to Bosnia as First Lady, Hillary's campaign desperately flailed at the Obama campaign with this gem, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from her lies:

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

First, this is an incredibly pathetic and transparent attempt to make up for being caught in a lie. Second, her campaign was wrong in saying that all professors have tenure, because they do not. Third, "details matter"? Seriously? This coming from the same person who fabricated WHOLE EVENTS from her trip to Bosnia (not to mention all of her other serious lies), and repeated them for months to try to prop up her foreign policy credentials, and then after she was exposed by video evidence tried to explain it all away as "I'm human" and "I simply misspoke" and "I was sleep deprived" and "the people don't want to talk about this, they want to talk about the issue"? But now this is relevant? And now details matter?? Yet again, the hillpocrisy is just stunning. And yes, I do believe details matter, like this one released today by the University of Chicago:

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Oh details, details, so inconvenient aren't they Hillary?

Update (4/1): Add some more hillpocrisy to the pile because apparently Hillary felt a little differently last year when she sent out a press release trumpeting the endorsement of California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, who she describes as a former "law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC Law Schools". Only her official title was that of "Instructor", which technically would have ranked her below the position Obama held, if that sort of thing mattered, which apparently it does (but didn't previously) to Hillary. Yet another example of Hillary changing her position 180 degrees depending on who she is trying to bullshit at the time.

A Tailspin of Lies and Hillpocrisy

So Hillary has responded to the revelation (video evidence) that she had been lying through her teeth about her Bosnia trip since the campaign began by saying she misspoke, and even blamed sleep deprivation. Now excuse me, because I'm apparently just a gullible voter, but usually a misstatement is when you fudge a word once, not when you repeatedly fabricate a story that is at the heart of your "experience" argument which in turn is at the heart of your campaign and all of your attacks against your opponent. Also, I don't think you can call it a misstatement when people raised questions about it weeks ago, and then you disparage them and say they were wrong, and continue to repeat the lies even more brazenly. If it was simply "misspeaking" you probably would have stopped yourself and thought back really hard to recall if any of it was true, but you didn't, even though all of your statements were completely false, not even close to being accurate. Not to mention you made similar repeated "misstatements" concerning all of your other main examples of experience too, now that seems kind of odd doesn't it? And blaming it on sleep deprivation? Have you had sleep deprivation since this campaign began and you started lying about your "superior experience"? Did sleep deprivation lead you to write these lies into your speeches? Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and your fingers went sleepwalking and added lies to your speeches, in speech after speech? C'mon now Hillary, talk to us like we aren't gullible children for a change.

As if her lies on top of lies weren't enough, last night in an interview with Fox News Hillary added barefaced hillpocrisy to the mix:

"I'm a human being. I made a mistake and owned up to it," Hillary told Greta Van Susteren. "But that's not what people talk to me about. When I'm out campaigning ... people want to talk about the economy and health care, and they want to know what are you going to do to get fix our country and get it back on track, and help my family and me.

"And that what I'm really engaged in. Because, you know, when you've been on a campaign for 14 months there's all kinds of other distractions, but at the end of the day this is a hiring decision," she said.

Okay, so first, "owned up to it" apparently means repeatedly lying about it, and disparaging those who gave conflicting accounts, and then lying some more, until you are faced with video evidence of your lies and you can't lie anymore, so then you lie again by saying you simply "misspoke" and blame it on sleep deprivation. Yeah, that sure sounds like "owning up to it" to me!

Second, she does this thing she always loves to do, and it is starting to annoy the hell out of me. She uses "people" to say what she wants to say. She'll say "that's not what people want to talk to me about", because she can't come out and say that that isn't what SHE wants to talk about. Watch some of her videos, she does it over and over again, when she goes on the attack, it is "people want to her about Obama's (supposed) lack of experience", or "people want to hear about how wonderful I would be as Commander-in-Chief", and every time something comes up she doesn't want to talk about suddenly "people don't want to talk about my taxes, they want to talk about the issues." She uses "people" as a scapegoat for everything, so she can claim she didn't bring it up, it is just "the will of the people." And let's not forget the fact that she has no problem providing people with questions she wants to be asked.

So fine, let's pretend Hillary really wants to not get distracted by these "trivial matters" like her lying about her experience, the very foundation of her candidacy and her attacks against Obama. But wait...wasn't Hillary just yesterday trying to revive the Rev. Wright fiasco to get the heat off her recently exposed lies? What about when your campaign immediately called for the head of Samantha Power for her silly off the record opinion of you? Was that more important than the issues? More important than health care? What about how every time you are feeling the heat you scream "Rezko!" like that hyped up, debunked crap will save you. Is that more important than the war in Iraq or the economy? C'mon Hillary, how do you expect us to take you seriously when in the same day you desperately try to revive the Rev. Wright smears against Obama to cover your own ass you go on Fox News of all places and say you want to get back to the issues because that is what is important? Hillary, you are the most pathetic example of a hypocrite that I think I've ever seen. You are so lucky the media never connects your statements in one minute to your contradictory statements in the very next, or you'd be in a big pot of trouble.

Update: Breaking new video evidence out that shows Hillary was indeed deep in a war zone during her Bosnia trip, check it out below, it is a miracle she even survived, what a war hero, that Hillary Clinton:



The horror, the horror.

A New Tactic: Attack and Extort

Hillary's big establishment backers are now lashing out at Speaker Pelosi for her position that the superdelegates couldn't overturn the will of the people, and they are threatening to withhold donations to the DNC if she continues. They have a word for this: extortion.

Here is an excerpt from the angry letter her big money backers just sent to Pelosi, emphasis mine:

Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier...

Yes, you read that correctly. They actually had the audacity to say that the voters have a right to be heard, and then attacked Pelosi for saying that the will of the voters should be respected, and that the popularly elected candidate should be the nominee. It is hard to find a better example of shameless doublespeak, short of Orwell's 1984. "The people deserve to have their voices heard! How dare you suggest that the people's voices actually matter!!" That is essentially what they are saying...plain and simple. This is quite in keeping with Hillary's typical doublespeak on the issue, pretending she cares that every voter is counted in Michigan and Florida, saying it is a huge moral issue, while at the same time planning to overturn the will of those very voters by using superdelegates and stealing pledged delegates. How despicable. The only thing perhaps more despicable is the thinly veiled threat included in the letter:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

This isn't the first time her major establishment donors have threatened the DNC over not being pro-Hillary enough, and I'm certain it won't be the last time. It is very disconcerting though that Hillary and her supporters have resorted to extortion and threats in their attempt to steal this election. I wish only wish the media would point out the obvious brazenness of this latest development, as well as the overall theme of underhanded tactics and hypocrisy, but I have little hope of that happening. It would be nice if her supporters, at least those hardcore ones who may just not know any better would hurry up and become aware of these despicable schemes and her despicable power-hungry character so we could end this thing once and for all before it is too late.

Update (3/27): Oliver Willis of Huffington Post has a great response to these rich donors trying to walk all over the Democratic Party for Hillary:

Just Who Do These Rich Clinton Donors Think They Are?

Update (3/27) #2: MoveOn is gathering signatures for the following petition to show that progressives will stand being Pelosi against this extortion from Hillary's rich backers, so if you are angry about this brazen new low the Clintons have gone to, please sign!:

The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters--not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money--and time--to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.

Is Hillary A Dictator At Heart?

Okay, I have to repost this at the top, because it is just crazy, and something this important can't get buried. I wrote yesterday (and I've written previous to that as well) about how Hillary's only option to "win" this nomination is to hijack the democratic process by using superdelegates, and now "switched" pledged delegates, essentially disenfranchising 10,000+ voters for each delegate, only you'll never catch her saying it that way, but that is what it is.

Anyway, today the Clinton campaign has gone even further, basically saying that pledged delegates are expected to use their own judgment to pick whichever candidate they want, meaning that the will of the voters should have nothing to do with how the pledged delegates vote:

In an interview with Mark Halperin, Hillary Clinton again put out the idea that pledged delegates do not have to stick with the candidate they were elected to back: "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

They are essentially saying now that the will of the voters is meaningless, or should be meaningless, and that the entire race not only can, but ought to be decided undemocratically! That is crazy!! They are saying there needn't be any relationship whatsoever to what the voters want, and what the pledged delegates do, meaning the whole system in their minds is nothing more than an empty gesture, completely meaningless! This really shows how little they care for democracy and the will of the voter.......yet Hillary continues to cry foul about every voter in Michigan and Florida not having their voices heard (because she only cares about voters when they agree with her).

I'll just give you a second to let the astounding hillpocrisy of that sink in......