Hillary Clinton Is Pres. Bush In Drag


No credibility, no integrity, and totally delusional:

This morning brings the news that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has launched a new website where they are announcing how they are officially preparing to make the case that the rules of the Democratic nomination process should be changed.

I feel like Kyle does:

I admit it, I’m utterly baffled. I am beyond fully comprehending the latest move on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Not that I don’t understand it, I know full well the driving motivations and can grasp the reasons for doing it, I simply just don’t understand how any half way reasonable person would actually think it was a good idea.

The move comes in the form of a website, one designed to make the case for Hillary Clinton. But unlike what one might expect, a website designed to show how she is ready to be the president, one that might point how she stands head and shoulders above the rest of the competition, the only thing this site does is provide a justification for changing the rules of the game in the middle of playing it.

Created in the form of a “fact hub”, The Delegate Hub presents a set of “facts” which lay the groundwork for any inkling of democratic principle to be removed from the Democratic nomination race.

Here’s a fact for you:

FACT: Any time ANY candidate presents an item as unquestionable “FACT!” do not take it as such. There’s a good chance they are twisting things around or maybe just outright lying. I wouldn’t really even trust the Obama campaign in such a situation and I’m one of their supporters.

In truth, the so called fact hub has a little of everything when it comes to lies, from outright untruths to lies of omission. Indeed, the actual lay out of the website itself is in a way dishonest; instead of making it blatantly honest that this is coming from the Hillary campaign, with a nice banner or something, the website looks on the surface as an impartial resource; one that simply presents facts regarding the Democratic nominating process. You have to look all the way at the bottom to see, in small print mind you, “Paid for by, Hillary Clinton for President”.

But the deception far from ends there. Then comes the usage of “Automatic Delegates” a term that Orwell would be proud of, one that strips all of the connotations out of the old “Super Delegates” term. …

Kyle then goes on to debunk these Clintonian “facts.” It’s long, so I won’t quote it here, but read it, because it’s very authoritative.

Now, where have we seen this Orwellian manipulation of facts and information before?

As Trapper writes, some of the “facts” claimed by the Clinton campaign are not facts at all. Throughout the campaign they have maintained an Orwellian named Fact Hub which presents propaganda as fact. I fear that this is the same mentality which leads to a president making false claims such as using the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq war. We must not forget that Hillary Clinton joined Bush in making such false claims. In justifying her vote in favor of the war, Clinton said:

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

Isn’t it the Bush administration’s dishonesty and cynical manipulation of data that voters want to get away from?

When engaging in questionable tactics the Clinton campaign fails to understand that this is why they are in the situation they are in to begin with. The more Clinton engages in tying to break the rules and in dishonest campaigning, the more Obama’s call for change resonates. Clinton cannot defeat a real call for change by repeatedly offering herself as an example of exactly why change is needed.

Mark Schmitt asks, “Can we just stop talking about the superdelegates?”

This is not complicated. If Senator Clinton comes into Denver without a majority of pledged and seated (i.e., not Michigan and Florida) delegates, she is not going to be the nominee. Period. That would be true in almost any case, but in this case it’s doubly certain, because the African-American superdelegates would switch to Obama first. That would create a dynamic in which, for Clinton to win, the white superdelegates would have to override the preference of the elected delegates, the Democratic primary and caucus voters, and the African-American superdelegates. I know some serious Clinton loyalists, but I don’t know anyone who would be willing to be responsible for that racialized and ugly outcome. It isn’t going to happen.

I’ve made this point to various hyper-knowledgeable people, who want to turn it into a game of margins: How big does Obama’s lead need to be for the superdelegates to not matter? The answer, I’m pretty sure, is one. If he has a lead in pledged delegates, he will be the nominee.

Which is not to say that Clinton can’t sharpen her message, change her tone, and win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by sizable margins. If she did that, she would win the nomination. But she is not going to win it by somehow convincing the press that she’s going to win it by superdelegates or some other means. And everyone on her campaign who is wasting time spinning reporters about how they could win with superdelegates is someone who is not doing the task at hand.

Or, put another way, “Persuade some people to vote for you!”

Jason Zengerle thinks that may be asking too much:

… I’m beginning to think that the Clinton campaign might just be incapable of that. I remember after the Steve Glass and Jayson Blair scandals, some people made the argument that if Glass and Blair had put as much effort into their reporting as they did their fabricating, they actually would have been great journalists. But I never bought that line of argument, since real reporting is a lot harder than just making stuff up. I’m starting to wonder if the same lesson doesn’t apply to the Clinton campaign. I mean, coming up with clever arguments and spiffy websites for reporters is a lot easier than organizing a good ground operation or fielding a full slate of delegates. For all the complicated and even psycho-social explanations being offered for Obama’s success, one simple explanation for it may be that his campaign is just outworking hers.

Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

Tags:

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: