And I really really like this bit:

Yet, when you listened to the contents of the speech, much of what he said he could have actually delivered at the Republican National Convention.

Maybe Obama has something more in common with W than he does with Dick Cheney.

Fair is fair, now. :o)

Maybe because, just like he says, he’s worried, as a lot of us are, that Clinton is the last, best, hope, for the republicans.

I have NO problem with Clinton going after Obama and Edwards on the various issues. That’s what primaries, and elections, are for. I WANT them to go at each other.

In fact, the absence of the “electability” word from the interaction between them, is approaching the status of a conspiracy, my 2c.

But if she wants to accuse Obama for being too..librul…because, 10 years ago, he spoke out against the death penalty, and FOR more government regulation of our out-of-control health-care system, then SHE is the one using republican talking points, not those of us who just continue to put the facts about her positions and about her support for some of the worst policies of the bush administration; and she should have to pay a political price for it.

Which, happily enough, I think is happening, as her lead in New Hampshire, previously thought to be “safe” for her, seems to have evaporated. :o)

What gets me, is that when she gets up and just flat-out I.D.’s herself as repub-lite, there are progressives who STILL won’t dump her.

Tanbark, I think there are several reasons for this. What gets me is that there still seem to be people out there on the opposite side of the aisle who continue to genuinely think of her as a liberal, as obviously insane as that is on the face of it. My own theory is that because standards of political discourse have fallen so far, since she and her scumbag hubbie are perfectly willing to use progressives for their own selfish ends – and I do mean “use”, we have received absolutely nothing from the Clintons in return for our votes and support when the right slime them – that, all by itself, is taken as “proof” of some kind of closet liberalism on their behalf. It’s completely substance-free, of course, based entirely on rhetoric. But there you are.

That, and the fact that they’re not, y’know, bat-shit insane. Just a couple of crooked, self-interested political hustlers. On the surface, they certainly look respectable compared to the murdering little sociopathic manchild currently staining the Oval Office with his presence. How could they not? during the Katrina crisis, I found myself thinking Clinton was a Prince compared to Little Boots, and I have nothing but contempt for Clinton.

I don’t mind it so much when people on our side defend them, because I recognize that, on some level, most of the attacks on the Clintons from the GOP, the right and the media are really veiled (and sometimes not-so-veiled) attacks on us.

Ouch! That’s gonna leave a bruise. :o)

The pure hell of it is, that I was a BIG supporter of Hillary. Voted for Bill twice. Loved it when she talked about the “right-wing conspiracy”. (It was…)

I practically Danced a jig, when she won that N.Y. Senate seat, at the idea of her walking up to Trent Lott and asking him if he had any tips for a rookie senator from the state with the second most electoral votes in the Union. :o)

Now?

I’m Bill the Cat: “Phhhhffftpppppp!!!” :o(

What gets me, is that when she gets up and just flat-out I.D.’s herself as repub-lite, there are progressives who STILL won’t dump her.

In THIS year, when we have a president and a party who came to power seven years ago without even winning the popular vote, and whom are essentially a court-appointed administration, and when that president has lied, bullshitted, and koolaided us into the miserable state of affairs we have today, and with the GOP’s conservative fingerprints on this shit like they were pulsating day-glo neon…

then, for a democratic candidate to go after ANOTHER democrat for being “too liberal” is the foullest of political horseshit. It’s Clinton saying to republicans and conservatives:

“I will NOT make Iraq a big issue.” (She can’t!)

“I will not remind the voters of the five-and-dime “patriotism” koolaid that bush and the GOP peddled to us like it was mother’s milk, to crate and sustain the nightmare that is Iraq.”

“I will not remind the voters that EVERY FUCKING WORD they spoke about Iraq; from the “justification” for doing it, to the Orwellian doublethink for sustaining it, was TOTAL, COMPLETE, BULLSHIT!”

“When the warpimp-candidates have the brass balls and the love of ass-raping the truth, to WARN the voters, as they did two days ago, about “wasteful government spending” and, as Romney said: “We should get rid of the programs that don’t work.”, with $450 billion dollars of our money, and a half-million people dead, conservatively, in Iraq, then, I, Hillary Clinton, promise not to get up in some public place and hang a scornful shit on the podium in response to the laser-like truth-use of the english language which the repubicans continue to flaunt.”

In fairness, there should have been a Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir chorus of collective farts of derision from ALL of the democrats at those GOP calls for “fiscal responsibility”.
When they said it, I imagine that the walls of the Halliburton boardroom (they being recipients of something like $20 billion dollars in war largesse) were treated to a coat of jizz, at the patrio-execs NOT hearing THEIR name called in conjunction with “wasteful government spending”.

All snark aside.

To the people still clinging to the idea that Hillary Clinton is deserving of support from anyone who views the war in Iraq for anything other than the bloody, bullshit-driven debacle it is:

You have a choice to make; you can either keep on supporting her, and watch her turn an opportunity for a political tsunami for our side, into a contest close enough for the republicans to steal ANOTHER election…

Or, you can help us begin the process of putting an end to her candidacy and then get on with selecting the candidate than CAN deliver a big win, in this most critical of elections.

Hillary Clinton is not part of the solution to what we’re facing; she has been, and still is, part of the problem. Please deal with it.

Please.

Her hiding from the DLC convention was one clue. And people who don’t like strong women would never have voted for her under any circumstances. It’s just the real Hillary, that we don’t like.
Let me give you an inside taste of who your ‘heroine’ really is: last summer after Israel dumped over 400,000 of those toylike cluster bomblets all over Lebanon Senator Feinstein, with most of the world behind her -including the Red Cross, offered up legislation to place a moratorium on all further use of cluster bombs, but only in civilian areas. She made no attempts to ban the child maiming flesh searing toys away from the US government.

Your dear sweet Hillary voted with all of the Republicans and a few other Democrats to defeat her own colleagues humanitarian effort. How completely against every principle of the Democrats base beliefs was that vote?
I would throw your argument back at you -how can ANY woman or Mother cast such a vote?

Yeah right, we definitely need her in the Whitehouse -what we’ll get is a Clinton Lieberman Whitehouse from hell -to equal that of the Bush Cheney massacre.

Obama voted with Senator Feinstein.

I agree with every word you’ve said about HRC. Just so know, I’m John D. from the Groupnewsblog gang, so you should have some idea of my feelings towards the Clintons, that is, that they don’t stand for a Goddamn thing apart from themselves. I know my crack about Hillary and Obama “doing the Rethugs’ dirty work for them” sounds pretty naive, but viewed in a certain way, there really is an unseemliness here that simply isn’t present with their GOP counterparts. The campaigning Rethugs have displayed some bitchiness towards one another, true, but nothing like the open warfare between Hill and B.O. And I find that incredible, given the grotesque Egos on parade with the GOP Presidential candidates. It’s just all very depressing to watch, even if I understand the reasons for it.

As for Hillary’s “helpfullness” towards Ned Lamont, BDBlue, I thought that was just an example of her hedging her bets, as per usual.