Thursday, June 8

Please do not think about Katherine Harris's panties...

B0002MOCH8.01-A2H2AYTJFCST9E._AA280_SCLZZZZZZZ_

...while you read this post.

Is it just me, or is everyone just a little tired of Media Matters rabid defense of Hillary Clinton? I mean, sure, the "Clinton marriage" story is even more tired. We all wish Chris Mathews would stick a sock in it, on a regular basis, no matter what the issue.

But if Hillary Clinton were elected, what about Bill? I mean, his numbers will always be higher than hers, and there are questions we all need to think about: What would his role be? What does it mean to have a former two-term popularly elected President returning to the White House as first spouse? These are not sexist questions, folks. Curious voters want to know, and they deserve the right to ask.

I don't give a rat's behind how their marriage "is," that's personal, and actually the fact that Hillary and Bill kept their marriage together is about the only plus sign I put in her column. Hillary clearly puts "family values" in the forefront of her personal life. Good for her.

But I still don't like Hillary. I don't trust her. I'm a woman, a dead-dog Democrat, a blogger, and I just won't support her candidacy for President.

The New York Frickin' Time's Frank Rich says it far better than I (5/28):

Mrs. Clinton does look like a weak candidate--not so much because of her marriage, her gender, or her liberalism, but because of her eagerness to fudge her stands on anything and everything to appeal to any and all potential voters. Where once she inspired passions pro and con, now she often induces apathy. Her most excited constituency seems to bee the right-wing pundits who still hope to make a killing with books excoriating her.


Kinda reminds me of Katherine Harris. Sorry about the panties visual. That was overkill.

But back for a minute to Media Matters, which I love. I use it all the time, post their newsfeed on my sidebar, consider what they are doing an essential blogosphere service. We need to call the right wing media on their bullshit. That's not going to happen by appearing shrill. Enough with the Clinton marriage story. Let it die. It's okay, we can drop it first, even if Chris A-hole Matthews wants to question it twenty times daily until Christmas. Oh, and about that Glenn Beck. It's obvious to me that guy gets a $2500 bonus every time Media Matters mentions him. So don't. Without MM, I would have never heard of him. He's there to drive up CNN's hit parade, by using words like Hitler and Antichrist around the Democrats. Don't make it so fun to make us outraged. Only we lefty bloggers are allowed to do that, to Republicans and conservative Christian wingnuts.

By the way, I realize I haven't been too topical this week, neglecting to mention that Ten Commandments Judge Roy Moore LOST the Alabama Republican Primary. See? There is a God after all.

17 comments:

  1. i think that is one thing that peeves me about us on the left- the shrill thing. that and we jump on absolutely everything so nothing ends up accomplished- need to prioritize. as for hillary- she is fine here as senator from new york. she would be committing political suicide if she runs for pres. i truly don't think that she is that stupid-and if she is bill isn't. now is not time for her- maybe never will be. the only 'people' who are saying that she will run are speaking from wishful thinking- the right wingnuts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh- yeah- i used to like the florida state seminoles thank you very much. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't like Hillary either, Blue Gal.

    All politicians, to some degree or another, compromise their actual viewpoints and political convictions to win elected office. However, I don't really know what Hillary stands for in the first place.

    Does she know? Who is Hillary Clinton? Is she, along the same lines as George Wallace, whatever will get her elected?

    I don't Hillary is stupid. Far from it. But she has zero charisma. Bill oozed charisma. Hillary comes across as icy, forced, and dull.

    Have you ever tried to sit through a solid minute of one of her speeches? It's absolute torture.

    However, let me pose this scenario to you.

    If, in November 2008 we are facing a McCain versus Clinton situation, for whom would you vote for?

    ReplyDelete
  4. DDT Kevin, DDT! (Don't do that.) It will never come to that, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  5. He's there to drive up CNN's hit parade, by using words like Hitler and Antichrist around the Democrats. Don't make it so fun to make us outraged.

    They. Are. All. Trolls.


    As for Hillary, I am completely fed up with capitulating, triangulating DLC pseudo-dems. Give me a straight-shooter like Dean, Hackett, or Gore, someone who *knows* that the media is their enemy and isn't afraid to call them on it.

    They'll alienate the Republican voters, but so fucking what? They're gonna turn out in droves to vote for whatever creep the Republicans trot out, so what difference does it make? The moderate "swing" voters hate the Republicans almost as much as we do, so calling an incompetent crook and incompetent crook isn't gonna scare them off.

    If the Democratic candidate employs the Hackett Mantra of "I said it, I meant it, I stand behind it", they will get the voters' respect, even if they don't agree with him on all the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All that being said, Joementum is probably the only Democratic candidate I would stay home for. If he went up against Hagel, I might actually go and vote for Hagel.

    Which is not to say that I like Hagel - I just hate him less than Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I couldn't get past the title. What was the post about again?

    Geez, I'll have nightmares for weeks with that image stuck in my head.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yep, I find it hard to wrap my mind around a Hillary 08 run.

    And there is something *wrong*..but tis about her politics - not her marriage (Like WHO really give a rat's patootie).

    It's like Zebra in Paisley Pajamas...something just ain't Right! and is Oh-so-WRONG in that picture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's the thing that worries me about a Hillary Clinton campaign: she'll lose. She is the ideal candidate for a Republican to run against because at best, she illicits apathy among Democrats. Most of us just don't trust her. But I can see the Republicans manipulating primaries so that she winds up winning the nomination.

    Possible scenarios: Clinton vs. McCain; Clinton vs. Jeb Bush; Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani.

    Now that's really scary, kids.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've said it before; I'll say it again. Running Hillary for President is a guaranteed loss. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Guaranteed loss indeed, but put her up against Frist or McCain, and you'd have to vote for her ...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't think Hillary Clinton will lose to any of the Republican Fascist candidates in '08. She is much more electable than people think, especially when positioned against such losers as Jeb Bush and John McCain. My problem with her is that she is an uninspiring candidate--even the fact that she may be the first female nominee for President is something she will in all probability downplay. What bothers me about her is her mysterious tango with the forces of corporate opression and media propaganda. She is a cautious and superficial politician in a time in our history that demands a real, substantive candidate for the office of the President.

    She is a smart and capable person who demonstrated much more respect for the US Constitution than any of her opponents; certainly more so than Rudy Giuliani (AKA the Cancerous Philanderer) ever did as prosecutor and US Attorney. Her biggest fault is her desire to be liked by everybody--after 14 years in the American public's eye she still doesn't realize what a polarizing figure she is in politics. This flaw prevents her from being the radical firebrand that her country and her party both need.

    Again, after the criminal chicanery of the '00 and '04 elections, does anybody REALLY think there will be an honest election in '08?

    Lastly, I did not need to think about Katherine Harris' panties. I cannot say this strongly enough.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eegads! I don't want to think about Katherine Harris's anything, thank you very much. Esp. anything having to do with her tighty whities...

    You all have us here in the Philadelphia area for Glen Beck. His been doing his drunken Limbaugh impression round these parts for quite a while.

    As for Hillary, obviously if she were pitted against McPander or Allen or any of those clowns, she'd get our votes, no matter how much we claim (me included) to be disgusted by her. I think she has all the charisma of a garter snake, but she's the DLC's pick and that seems to give her the top spot by default.

    Oh, how I miss Paul Wellstone...

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, BG. I think everytime you post a picture of panties (and wonderful commentary, I might add) that I am going to post a link to my new panty design. Plus, there's a contest. September Sucks is ours. But feel free to vote for someone else! I think.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tried commenting on Dora the Explorer post, but blogger wouldn't have it so went for a few Tequila Sunrises instead.

    Must admit Hilary (bless her) rouses pretty much the same enthusiasm in me, as you feel.

    Man, Blue Gal, I just know I'd have to move and 'register' to vote, if you were running. Laters...Q

    ReplyDelete
  16. You Democrats must be kidding. Hillary leans almost as far right as I do. I would go so far as to say she is more right-wing than I when it comes to free speech...I think we should keep the first ammendment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great comments, guys. Herman! How's your son? Kicked the hillbilly heroin yet? Glad CFAV's back. I think that's what got Fafblog back on the internets, too. You aren't Fafnir, too, are you? Nah.

    ReplyDelete

I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!