A National Disgrace

The Clintons are truly a national disgrace and the sooner HRC and her band of trolls exit the stage, the better.

Bill Clinton has been giving speeches across West Virginia that can be described only as breathtaking in their shameless, shallow pandering.  According to the Politico, Bill said

“Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say,” Clinton said. “And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you’re as smart as they are. She thinks you’ve got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I’d rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her.”

Who knew that the majority of the voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses to date don’t need a president as much as the people in Ripley, West Virgina, where the adulterer-in-chief made those remarks.  Why was our former president in Ripley, W.V., a city of about 3,000 people?  A couple of reasons come to mind.  First Ripley has a female population of 55.6%, making the odds even better for Bubba.  It’s also nearly 100% white.  Sounds like Ripley is in the wheelhouse for both Clintons.

Bubba must not have know what to do when he hit Madison, another bustling West Virginia hamlet of 2700.  Unlike Ripley with its 2-4 African Americans (and yes, it is 2-4, not thousand, not hundred, just plain 2-4), Madison is practically East St. Louis–the African American population of Madison is a whopping 4.18%.  Fortunately for Bill, Madison has 100 females for every 84.4 males, so the odds are still in his favor.  In Madison, the people voting for Obama didn’t need a president less than Hillary’s supporters, they were downright anti-American:

“It is very interesting, from the very beginning of this race there has been a sharp divide in the vote — the people who need a president, who need to turn the economy around, who need to restore the middle class, who need to give poor people a chance to work their way into the middle class, who need to give our children a better future, who need to restore our standing in the world and the war in Iraq, but do it in a way that rebuilds our military and stands up for America’s security and standing around the world — they have been for her from the get-go.”

Bill Clinton never articulates how these tiny, all white towns are representative of America.  The why is simple: they’re not.  They may be representative of Hillary Clinton’s core supporters, but they are not representative of America as a whole.  The people who live in those places aren’t second class citizens, but neither are those people who live in racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse cities, which someone should point out to the Clinton campaign are most of us.  I may not be smarter than your average West Virginian, but I bet I’m better educated and given the choice between a high school diploma and a graduate degree, I’ll take the graduate degree any day of the week.

The Clintons have truly morphed into Karl Rove.

There really is no question that the Clinton campaign has decided on a scortched earth exit from this race.  It’s sad but I believe that neither Hillary nor Bill can somehow get their minds around this simple fact: she lost.  The candidate who started out with every conceivable advantage, other than incumbency, was beaten by an African American freshman senator.  I just wish someone close to the Clintons would have the guts to let them know the game is over.

Immediate Opening–Short Term Assignment

It seems that the Clinton campaign is, or should be, in the market for a fact checker.  Unfortunately for whoever gets this job, it’s not likely to be a permanent gig.  I’d say the job will be about an 8 week max assignment.   The campaign has a desperate need to fill this opening, especially given Hillary’s latest frolic and detour from the truth.

Hillary’s latest “misstatement” concerns the Ohio woman who, although pregnant, was turned away from a hospital twice  because she was uninsured and could not pay  the hospital $100.  Later, the woman was rushed to the hospital, delivered a still born baby, and had to be airlifted to another hospital where she died.  Pretty moving stuff.  The problem is: all of the salient points for which Hillary told this story were false.  As matters of fact, the woman, Trina Bachtel, was not turned away because she could not pay a $100; she had insurance; and  far from being turned away, she had been under the care of an obstectrics practice affiliated with the facility.   Otherwise, everything else checks out just fine.

You can cut some slack to Hillary on this one.  Unlike the Bosnia whopper, she evidently chose to believe a story told to her by a supporter without any fact checking whatsoever.  (Her inept campaign staff gets no quarter for allowing their candidate to peddle this A Million Little Pieces tale of health care woe without verification.  Maybe one of the HRC campaign’s unpaid bills is for the internets.  Without The Google, fact checking is hard work after all)).  What’s most entertaining about this is HRC’s supporters’ reactions.

For example, over at MyDD, The Shorn Wonder, girded (girdled?) for battle rushes to Hillary’s defense:

Suddenly we are supposed to think this proves Hillary lied or didn’t properly check this??

First, I’m more likely to trust Hillary than a hospital only releasing the records and information convenient for it to cover its ass. I’m also more likely to trust Hillary than the NY Times, they of “WMD” and plaigarised stories, and holding the NSA spying scandal until after the 2004 election. Hell, I’m more likely to trust the deputy sherriff in Ohio than either of those two entities.

Second, Hillary told this as a story told to her, therefore, it was and remains true. (as true as the fact that 10,000 people died in an Arkansas tornado).

Third, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it is not true. Except for a hospital nobody knew was responsible for the woman’s care when she died, claiming they’ve done nothing wrong.

Fourth, claiming Hillary should’ve somehow proved this was true first is stupid. The hospital, even NOW, won’t release any records that could show whether they actually provided the care they claim.

The Shorn Wonder has a fifth point: the fictional $100 charge in Ohio matches the charge her mother is allegedly required to pay at the Elko, Nevada emergency room before she is seen.  Maybe conspiracy theories are the hobgloblin of little minds.

Anyway, The Shorn Wonder might have done a little fact checking herself before deciding on a strategy of defending the story as spun by Hillary.

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee acknowledged that the campaign had tried but hadn’t been able to “fully vet” the story before she began repeating it on the campaign trail.

“She tells the story as it was told to her by the deputy sheriff. She had no reason to doubt his word,” Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it didn’t happen that way, we certainly respect that and she won’t repeat the story. She never mentions the hospital by name and isn’t trying to cast blame.”

The title of the post really takes the cake:  “Hillary’s ‘Hospital Lie’: the Further Disintegration of Obama Fans.”  It makes me wonder whether The Shorn Wonder went through the Kool Aid line twice.

Over at TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat, calls this post at Daily Kos, evidence of Clinton derangement syndrome.  Big Tent’s conspiracy involves the hospital.  Saint Hillary never mentioned the woman’s name, so why would the hospital say anything at all? It seems to have slipped by Big Tent, much like the whoppers slipping by the Clinton goalies, that the press was looking into this story.  Clinton identified the woman’s occupation, where she lived, and where she heard the story.  It wouldn’t take a reporter, even one with the minimum diligence required for keeping his job, too long to find the woman’s name.  In fact, Big Tent even cites the same type technical, trade secret sleuthing that I bet was used to discover Trina Bachtel’s name.

Senator Clinton heard this story, from Ohio Deputy Sheriff Brian Holman:

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.

Getting from HRC’s story to the full set of details as currently known doesn’t seem to require much more than a phone, a pen or pencil, and maybe an old receipt on which to take notes.  Big Tent even finds it odd that the hospital even cares about being part of this story:

But if you care about the health care issue, if you care about people like Trina Bachtel, you might want to ask why this Ohio hospital made such a big deal about this.

Yes, in Hillaryland, you should be suspicious of a hospital that objects to being portrayed as turning having denied care to a pregnant woman who, along with her baby later died. The inference being, of course, that the hospital somehow caused in some way their deaths.  Why on earth would a hospital object to being falsely associated with that story?

When, when will Hillary Clinton withdraw from this race?  I think both Hillary and her troupe need a long vacation .

The Pot Calls the Kettle, Dendrochronology, and Race Baiting In Hays County

Jim Mattox, a former Texas state attorney general, showed up at the Hays County Democratic caucus this past weekend and warned the delegates against bolting from the party in the general should their preferred candidate not receive the nomination:

Mattox referred to a recent national poll that found 16 percent of Democrats would rather vote for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain than for the other Democrat if their candidate loses.

“That defeats you right there. If you understand the math at all, that defeats you right there,” Mattox told delegates. “What’s more, if you are part of that 16 percent, you need to get up and get the hell out of here right now.”

If any Democrat cannot tell the difference between McCain and a Democrat, “you are a danger to yourself and society.”

“If I offend some of you, I mean to,” Mattox said to laughter.

Jim Mattox also discussed his carefully thought out rationale for supporting Hillary:

Mattox also reminded everyone that he supports Hillary Clinton, calling her a longtime friend. “I am a believer in the seniority system. I frankly think it is Hillary’s time,” he said.

There’s no word as to why Mattox didn’t endorse Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kuchinich, Bill Richardson, or Tom Vilsak, all of whom have more “seniority” than HRC.

Perhaps encouraged by the laughter, Mattox went on to channel his inner Archie Bunker:

[W]hen Mattox drifted into a rambling account of past Democratic defeat in presidential campaigns, then ewarned of a coming Republican smear campaign by playing the race card against Barack Obama, the grumbling began.

I believe we can expect more of this from HRC and her supporters as the campaign wears on.   Simply put: There’s nothing left for her to do other than tear down Obama at every juncture.  If the election were not primed for a Democratic victory this fall, I believe Clinton would have withdrawn by now or would  be running a much different campaign.  She knows that barring some unexpected and unlikely occurrence, either she or Obama will be the next president.  In other words, 2008 is it for HRC.  Combine that knowledge with the cognitive dissonance she must be experiencing from finding herself losing to Obama  and every day must be a fresh hell for her.

Obama By 3

Burnt Orange Report has the final Texas delegate count as Obama 98, Clinton 93.

The Acorn, the Tree, and Laundry

Bill Safire once called Hillary Clinton a congenital liar.  I wonder if he was right.  Most recently, Hillary was caught out in an elaborate lie about a visit to Bosnia.  It was an astounding incident because Clinton surely new she was lying, yet she repeated the story on several occasions.  I don’t know whether there is a single word for what incidents like these say about Clinton’s character.  Certainly, she shares some of Bill’s recklessness.  After all, this story was easily and conclusively disproved.  Short-sided: the brief benefit to her experience argument was drowned by the days’ long negative publicity the incident received and continued to receive.  Self-centered and delusional: the display of pique at having to address the issue and her excuse of sleep deprivation and being human was both entertaining and painful to watch.

Back to Bill Safire’s diagnosis.   On television this morning, I saw a clip of a talk Chelsea Clinton gave to a Young Democrats group.  In it she decried the sexism that her mother has faced while on the campaign trail.  She had a couple examples of other women expressing  sexist views.   It was her description of the iron my shirt guys that caught my attention: “a couple of young men said with all seriousness, ‘iron my shirt.’”  The victim theme is one the Clinton campaign pushes when it doesn’t have anything else to say, so it is not surprising that Chelsea Clinton would argue that her mother, a woman whose achievements are inextricably bound up with her husband’s political advancement (but not vice versa), is the victim of sexism.   It is her description of the iron my shirt incident that makes me believe she is every bit as delusional as her mother.  “A couple of young men said with all seriousness, ‘iron my shirt.’”  Can she even believe that comment for one second–with all seriousness?  Did these young men specify how much starch or when they needed their shirts back?  Are we really to believe that these guys thought the junior senator from New York was going to do their laundry?  These young men were crude, rude, and, yes, sexist.  What they weren’t were serious.  Like her mother, Chelsea Clinton just couldn’t stick with the truth, she just had to paint the lily.

A Gentle Denial from the Speaker; Hillary Agonistes

It wasn’t the “pound sand” response they deserve, but Nancy Pelosi responded to the Clinton donors’ blackmail by repeating her position that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters.  The response came through her spokesman, Brendan Daily:

“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August,” Daly said. “That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

All-in-all, this is about as strong of a response as could be expected.  Pelosi refused to back down from her comment that instigated the letter and even used the occasion to repeat it.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton sat down for an interview with Greta Van Susteren, one of the oddest looking people on television.  Hillary says she’s in it to win (sort of like W is in Iraq to win).

“Nobody should be writing obituaries on this race, because it is a long way from being over,” [Clinton] said. “What I’ve seen in my last 14 months on the campaign trail is that every time people count me out — you know, pundits say it’s over, it should be over — the voters bring me back… because they believe that I will actually get up every day in that White House and work my heart out for all of our people.”

“Our people?”  WTF?  She went on to desribe the primary season as a long job interview:

“Because, you know, when you’ve been on a campaign for 14 months, you know, there’s all other kinds of distractions, but at the end of the day this is like a hiring decision. Who will people hire to get this country moving in the direction it should move in?”

There’s no indication in the article as to whether Clinton’s demeanor showed any recognition of the irony in this statement.  You see, Clinton’s comparison of the primary season to a job interview came in response to a question about  her Bosnia lies; lies she put forward to embellish her experience.   I’ve had the chance to make a few hiring decisions and I would never consider hiring someone who lies about their experience.

It’s Our Party, We Bought It

The Hillary Clinton campaign continues to hunt for a viable rationale for her being the nominee.  At the start of the primary season, she was Hillary!, elect me I’m the inevitable nominee.  The inevitable nominee morphed into HRH Hillary, the elect me, the nominee by divine right.  That didn’t gain traction, so she became Hillary , help me, I’m a victim.  That did pay dividends and she occasionally reprises the role when she thinks it will gain her a couple of votes.  After Hillary , she became the conscience of the nation, Shame on you Barack!  Hillary as the nation’s conscience was just laughable, and Hillary the fearless war-time diplomat was discredited about as fast as the lies came out of her mouth.  Lately her rationale is a bit baser: elect me I’m white!  At least that’s true.

Her supporters, no doubt in close coordination with the campaign, have a new one: We Own this Party.  Nancy Pelosi recently said this: “If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party.”  Pelosi didn’t mention either candidate in connection with the remark, which seems to me to be nothing more than a blinding glimpse of the obvious.  Pelosi did not opine that the superdelegates were bound to vote in accordance with the primary results, she just stated the effect of a candidate overcoming a pledged delegate deficit, i.e., losing the primary race, by way of superdelegates.   That didn’t sit well with the Clinton campaign.  A number of her supporters wrote Pelosi and essentially threatened to withhold their financial support if she didn’t toe the Clinton line of “the superdelegates should exercise their independent judgment,” a Clinton euphamism for “vote for me.”  (Lost on the Clinton team is the notion that a superdelegate’s independent judgment might agree with Pelosi’s sentiment).  The putative owners of the Democratic party wrote:

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.

They’re not even coy about why Pelosi should take the action they seek: “We’ve been strong supporters of the DCCC.  We therefore urge. . .”  Moreover,  these ersatz Daddy Warbucks not only demand Pelosi retract her comments about he superdelegates, they demand she endorse the current Clinton talking point that all delegates–pledged or super– are free to vote for whichever candidate they choose.

I suppose it would be asking too much for Pelosi to basically say “fuck you” to these fat cats and endorse Obama at the same time, but she should.  I’m sure these folks have contributed lots of cash to the Democratic party but I doubt it’s as much as Obama’s donors have raised and in the end analysis, they only get to cast one vote each.    There are thousands of people across this country who devote countless hours to the Democratic party.  I believe they are far more responsible for any success the party has than are the donors like these,  who act like high maintenance dogs, in constant need of attention and affirmation.  Sometimes a dog needs a pop on the nose.  Here’s hoping Pelosi gives them one.

Hello Hill, It’s Texas, You Lost

 Not that anyone is paying much attention to the week-old vote in Texas, but CNN has declared Obama the winner:

Sen. Barack Obama will win Mississippi’s Democratic primary, CNN projects. Sen. Barack Obama leads in the overall delegate count, according to CNN calculations. Obama will also finish first in the Texas Democratic caucuses, which were held last week. He will get more delegates out of the state than rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s primary.

Of course we all know that the Democratic party doesn’t want a candidate whose voters are willing to spend  hours to cast their vote; whose voters, in Texas at least, are willing to vote twice (at different hours of the day) in order to provide as much support as possible; whose voters  revel in the opportunity to try to sway other voters to their cause; whose voters have contributed unprecedented amounts of money, largely in small donations; whose voters have provided an organized, enthusiastic grassroots effort that has astounded the nation.  No, why would the Democratic party want a candidate like that?

Earl Butts In a Pantsuit

Geraldine Ferraro, failed vice presidential candidate, failed senatorial candidate twice over, failed television host, Hillary Clinton for President finance committee member, had this to say about Barack Obama:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

In general you’d have to go to a Klan rally to meet someone of this caliber.  You’d think that upon sober reflection–Ferraro wasn’t literally drunk or high when she made that comment (as far as I know)–Ferraro would at least try to walk her remarks back some.  You’d be wrong.  Today, Ferraro stood by her remarks, even going so far as to accuse those who disapprove of being racist:

” Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

 You’d have to be mentally unhinged to believe this garbage.  It’s really not out of character for Ferraro, who in the past  has blamed her negative press on anti-Italian bias, sexism, or both.  It’s also not out of character for Hillary Clinton to refuse to take a strong stand against these bigoted, ignorant comments.  After all, she is running the say anything, do anything campaign.  She truly is a monster.

The Super Delegate System At Work

One of the refrains the Clinton camp has been hitting is the notion that the super delegates represent the party elders who know what is best for the party.  It’s the prelude to Clinton trying to steal the nomination: “yes, I was behind in pledged delegates; yes, I was behind in the number of states won; and yes, I was behind in the popular vote total, but the super delegates know best.”  Well, Eliot Spitzer is a super delegate (for the time being anyway).  He’s also fond of prostitutes.  I don’t believe prostitution should be illegal, but it is and if you’re the governor of New York, you should probably try to control those urges.

One possible silver lining: if Spitzer resigns, Clinton faces the possibility of losing another super delegate vote.