Meet our new Secretary of State.

From the Guardian: Hillary Clinton to accept Obama's offer of secretary of state job

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned. Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

Honestly? I like the choice. Hillary has instant name recognition, and foreign respect. For an incoming President, who needs to rebuild our foreign relationships, that goes a long way. There won't be the long awkward time period where foreign leaders slowly get to know the new Secretary of State, because a lot of them will already know her well, both from her time in the senate and presidential bid, and also as the former first lady.

I'm hoping we'll get some stateside confirmation on this soon, the Guardian's usually pretty reliable, but another source would be great.

An Open Letter

Dear American Female Voters...

Or, more specifically, "Hillary supporters who plan to vote for McCain just because of Sarah Palin."

I have a newsflash for you. If you don't like it, tough, this is LIFE.

But if you vote for McCain JUST because he picked a woman for a running mate... JUST because of Sarah Palin... then you were NEVER a Hillary supporter to begin with. Why do I say that, you ask? Oh, reasons, let me enumerate thee.

1. This is a desperation move by McCain, as well as one of complete arrogance. He thinks you're STUPID - SO stupid, in fact, that you'll overlook his promise to continue the Bush Administration's tactics, in favor of fawning over the boobs on his running mate.

2. Palin has even less political experience than Obama. Not to mention she's the POLAR OPPOSITE of EVERYTHING Hillary Clinton ever stood for - she's extremely conservative, anti-choice, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-big oil (her husband is an oil exec, for crying out loud!) and pro-big business - which means she would have no problem with outsourcing even MORE of our jobs, thus costing YOU money, in order to pad her buddies' bottom lines.

3. Did I mention that she's the exact polar opposite of EVERYTHING Clinton stood for?

4. Oh, yeah - and she kills puppies, too. That's right. Earlier this year, Palin allowed the Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife to ILLEGALLY kill 14 young wolf pups in their dens (Alaskan state law - Regulation 5AAC 92.110(i) - prohibits the killing of pups in the den as part of "predator reduction" efforts.) And she supports the brutal and inhumane practice of aerial hunting, defeating an initiative that would have banned the practice with help from the "trophy hunting" club, Safari Club International. There's a reason she's called the "Panderbear," no doubt.

SO WAKE THE FUCK UP. Stop fixating on a politician's chest and using that as your basis for voting. It's their BRAIN that allows them to make decisions, not their BOOBS.

Attention PUMAtards

I read an interesting quote by one of you. "The fact that Barack ignored half the democrats and didn't choose Hillary as the VP is insulting."

If Hillary had won, would you expect her to make Barack the VP? Since half the democrats voted for him as well?

Be honest.

A few thoughts post-convention.

Garry Trudeau, you were way off base this week. Yes, I know that strips are made several days in advance, but you really blew it this week. The Clinton jokes just fell flat with the way things went at the convention.

I was lucky enough to be on break when Hillary asked for the nomination of Obama by acclamation. I was amazed to see it happen. Between that, her speech, Bill's speech, and Obama's acceptance, there should be no doubt as to where people's loyalties lie: Anyone who claims to be a "Clinton voter for McCain" is one of McCain's trolls, period. There are no PUMAs. There are only McCain's disunity operatives.

Good on McCain for waiting to announce his VP today. That's a very respectful decision.

Farewell, Senator Clinton

Clinton officially suspends campaigns, vows to help get Senator Obama elected.

"The way, the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passions, our strengths and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States," she said of her former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I've been hard on Senator Clinton, to say the least - and the fact is, I stand by what I've said. She went a very dark route in this campaign, and I feel it is a stain on her character. That said... I had an opportunity to catch this speech on TV, and it was very powerful and moving. And from what I saw, very sincere. So thank you, Hillary, for your dedication and work over the many, many years - this isn't the end for you, merely the beginning of a new role, I'm sure. I hope we see more of the woman I saw in the speech today, and less of what we saw on the campaign trail as we move forward.

This nomination has been very polarizing to the party, it's been very aggressive from both sides, neither wanting to give in the least, and understandably so. There have been hurt feelings, and anger from many involved. Now however, we have an important goal ahead, we must work together, we must hold together, to stop the downward spiral our country has been forced into.

Let us progress together.

Clinton shows a glimmer of hope.

"Clinton Expects Superdelegates to Decide Next Week."

She's still touting the "COME ON SUPERDELEGATES! LET ME WIN!" mentality, but at least she's realized that yes, it is coming to an end, at this point, I'd say it almost seems she's simply trying to look like a fighter, and knows that her shot at the nomination is gone.

This is good, once this is finally resolved, and it's been accepted, as it sounds like she'll finally DO come next week when the superdelegates start weighing in, in big ways - we can finally get behind a single candidate (some of have been for a while now...) and start getting things together for November. Barack's numbers against McCain are looking better every day, and things are starting to fall in line as they should.

Mrs. Clinton, I'd thank you for your role in this nomination, but you gave up that honor when you started in with your kitchen sink style campaigning. So instead, I'll simply thank you for finally showing some reason.

That scraping sound? That's the bottom of the barrel.

Hillary references Robert Kennedy Assassination as reason to press on.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,"

I... what? I can understand the historical significance, I can almost give her the benefit of the doubt here, say "Oh, what a horribly inappropriate analogy..." but then I think about who I'm talking about, and the tone she's taken in the campaign, and it's not hard to go from that point and use the thought process of "I'll get the nomination if he's assassinated."

And I hate that I think that, I hate that she's driven this contest to a point where I actually HAVE to consider that. When the process started, I remember standing in Burger King and talking with Damian, talking about who was going to get the nomination. I was hoping (Ha) for Obama, and he felt Hillary was more likely to get it - at that point we decided either way wasn't going to be so bad at all.

Now I look at what Senator Clinton has done, I look at the lengths she'll go to, to try and secure the nomination and I'm saddened. I'm absolutely shocked at the campaign shes ran, and with that fact in mind, is it any wonder that she says something like this, and our first thoughts aren't "she said the wrong thing" but, "She's trying to plant a seed" or "Is that really what she's hoping for?"

The fact is the way one news site worded it was true. "Hillary apologizes... ...to stay in the race." Or the fact that she's having to apologize on almost a weekly basis now, having to pull back some comment her, or her people have made in this contest.

At this point, I almost do wish she'd run third party, just because I frankly have trouble calling her a Democrat anymore.

The results of Tuesday's Primary, and Hillary's... Comments.

So the Oregon and Kentucky Primary came and went, the result came down about like expected, Hillary taking Kentucky 65% to 30% over Obama, with 3% uncommited.

In Oregon, Obama came away with the V, 59% over Hillary's 41%. Overall big numbers for both candidates. However as each day goes on, it becomes steadily appearant that Obama will be the nominee, as he is now within around 65 delegates of locking this up. Of course, Hillary continues to demand that Michigan and Florida be seated, with the count being as it is now, despite them breaking the rules.

I really can't understand how people in those states are rallying behind her as their 'voice' considering she was fine with the decision not to seat them, until she needed them to have a chance. That's opportunistic at best - and rather telling of her.

Speaking of Hillary, you all have a chance to see one of her newest verbal explosions?

Check it out.

As Sen. Hillary Clinton has raced toward the end of what appears to be a losing bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has voiced what her most fervent supports have been saying -- her campaign has been dissed and damaged by people "who are nothing but misogynists."

Now, I am not one to deny that I've seen Sexism leveled at Mrs. Clinton and her campaign. I frankly don't think it's been anywhere NEAR as damning as she's insinuating - however I'd give her the point... if she didn't follow up with this gem:

Clinton, the first woman to make a serious bid for a major party's presidential nomination, said she did not think that racism was a factor in her bruising battle with Sen. Barack Obama.

Wait. Wut.

I'm sorry, she's claiming racism hasn't been a factor in this election? WHAT?! I'm at a loss, a noticable LOSS. Perhaps Senator Clinton is simply... unfamiliar?

With things like this?

Of course that means she's a candidate who's willfully ignorant. Once again she shows us another reason she shouldn't be president.

Allow me to explain, Senator Clinton. It has NOTHING to do with your gender, at least for many of us, myself in that number, and EVERYTHING to do with how horribly you've mismanaged your campaign, you're 20 million in debt, you've resorted to Republican style fear attacks, and outright lies and deception.

Please, just stop already.

Desperation sets in... again.

Fight still on, Clinton asserts in Florida

As Obama trekked through central Florida, Clinton was 200 miles to the south, at the epicenter of the bitter recount battle that ended the 2000 election, summoning memories of the Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court decision as she argued for full representation for delegate slates from Florida and Michigan at August's Democratic convention in Denver.

Florida voters "learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she told a crowd in Boca Raton in Palm Beach County, a key site in the recount fight between Al Gore and George W. Bush that ended with a Supreme Court decision halting the recount.

"The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal-clear: If any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished," Clinton said.

Uh-huh. Right. So Florida's situation now, where they voted despite knowing that the rules said it wouldn't matter and Clinton only cares because they mostly voted for her, is the same as the Right stealing Florida's cast-by-the-rules votes. Exactly the same.

Somebody's desperate, I see.

There's That Flushing Sound Again!

Clinton makes case for wide appeal

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

BWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH-GLUK-GLUK-GLUK-GLUK-GLUK. Hear that, Hil? That's the sound of the last shreds of your dignity, your chances, and what little respect I had left for you, all being flushed away.

Notice how very proud she is that she's big with "hard working" "white" people. You know, because the two are related, right, Hil?

Her biggest demographics are old people, conservatives, and uneducated white people. I wonder why?

Well, then...

So Clinton won. Barely.

I figured she'd win by a lot more - my guess was about 10 percent. Not a "squeeker". Not about 2%.

Maybe this state isn't so far gone, even with the WOWO crowd dragging their knuckles all the way to the polls to tamper with democracy.

Too close to call

As I type this, the margin between Clinton and Obama here in Indiana is just too damn close to really call. The way it's looking, Obama just might win.

Time to hope.

What matters?

From Countdown with Keith Olbermann: "What matters most in the elections"



I'm wondering: if Hillary loses NC, will it suddenly "not matter"? If, by some amazing chance, she loses Indiana (with people like these in this godforsaken state, it's unlikely), will we "not matter"?

Hillary Clinton needs to just stop. She's pretty much unrecoverably behind, and each day she refuses to bow out gracefully is another day that John McSameasBush has to lie about everything he's going to continue fucking up. This, though? This is just plain sad. This is what we call "being a sore loser". This is what we call "being in denial".

This is what we call "being a lot like Bush".

A belated note of congratulation.

I admit it's a day late, but I had browser troubles last night. I ended up downloading Opera, since Firefox has been utterly crippled by broken, worthless "updates". Unfortunately, Opera users can't log in to Blogger, and their solution? "DUR GET FIREFOX HUR HUR". Thanks loads.

Anyway, I'd like to congratulate Hillary Clinton for winning in Pennsylvania's primary last night. You beat Barack Obama by ten percent, and all it cost you was all your money and your dignity:


You won, though, and isn't that what's important? Not trying to keep yourself out of the hole, or trying to avoid Rove-like tactics in campaigning, or trying to keep your principles. Nope, just winning.

Right-Wing Mailbag, "Why I Don't Read the News-Sentinel Anymore" Edition

N-S Letters Page, 03/03/2008

Yesterday's News-Sentinel letters page reminds me why I don't read that far-right rag anymore:

Ronald G. Ross in his letter of Feb. 22 takes me to task for stating what the law is, as I understand the law to be, from the results of a U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the Grutter v. Bollinger case. The decision given in that case on June 23, 2003 was that an open position should go to a black male who had less opportunity than a white woman who had more opportunities. I did not make that ruling. It was the U.S. Supreme Court that made that ruling. If Mr. Ross wants to make the case that Mrs. Bill Clinton, as First Lady of the United States had less opportunities than a senator from Illinois, have at it.

Mrs. Bill Clinton is making every effort that she can to become the president. of the United States, the Chief executive of The United States and, just as important, the chief law enforcement officer of The United StatesShould a person who does not accept the letter or the spirit of the law be elected the chief law enforcement officer? Should a person who brings trumped-up charges against people in the White House travel office be our chief law enforcement Officer? Should a person who illegally orders 1,200 to 1,500 raw FBI files be delivered to her in the White House? Should a person who was co-president at the time that our nuclear secrets were transferred to China for campaign cash ever be allowed any where near the White House again?

Fremont Stewart
Rome City

Kookery of the highest order. Granted, it's what this guy does - remember any of his other letters? He's outright psycho-kooky-nutso.

First, notice he never refers to Hillary Clinton by her actual name, only as "Mrs. Bill Clinton". This is employed in his letter for two reasons: First, it marginalizes her as a "man's property", nothing more than a footnote of a man's existence; second, it reminds everyone that she the wife of Bill Clinton, a person that Mr. Stewart outright hates with a vitriol most of us reserve for child molestors and terrorists.
Secondly, his argument is utterly unsound. He tries to argue that, since one case shows that affirmative action would prefer an African-American man over a Caucasian woman in the case of being given a job, that this must apply to being President. This makes absolutely no sense, but I don't expect better from someone looking for a straws to grab.
Third, he keeps making wild, unfounded accusations about Hillary Clinton with no basis in facts. My guess is that these were claims spewed by the hate-talkers of right-wing radio, and Mr. Stewart is faithfully parroting them into the media.
Fourth, and most importantly, he asks, "Should a person who does not accept the letter or the spirit of the law be elected the chief law enforcement officer?" Of course not - which is why George W. Bush, a man who has spit upon the law and the country himself and through his many, many cronies, should be brought to justice.
I hope Mr. Stewart is proud of his insane, indefensible letter. To me, it proves two things: That he is completely detached from reality, as are all those who follow his so-called logic, and that the News-Sentinel is more interested in hateful, mindless screeds than any actual thought. I will continue to not read the News-Sentinel because it's a far-right rag created to serve the interests of the WOWO crowd.

Coulter: "Hillary Before McCain" (NO, SERIOUSLY!)

Ann Coulter: McCain nomination would make me a 'Hillary girl'

It seems as though the latest game among some conservative pundits is to play "can you top this" in seeing how far they can go to proclaim their distaste for Senator John McCain.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh drew media attention to himself last week when he suggested he might not support McCain if he became the Republican nominee. Now Ann Coulter has upped the ante, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity that if John McCain is the Republican nominee, she's supporting Hillary Clinton.

"If he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl," Coulter asserted. "Because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism. ... I absolutely believe that. ... I will campaign for her if it's McCain."

You bet I was flabbergasted when I heard this. It's a strange sort of day when you've got Ann Coulter saying she'd support a Clinton before a particular Republican.

Of course, when my initial shock wore off, I figured it out pretty quickly - it's backlash, though I'm not sure in which way. There are two schools of thought on this: She's willing to support Hillary because the far right's favored candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has dropped out and thus will have no chance to enact the destructive policies he forced on NYC on the nation; She's doing it solely to try and sabotage Hillary.

I'm leaning towards the latter, mostly because I know beyond all doubt that the rabid Hillary-haters and the raving Paul Cultists would jump on this as a reason to hate her all the more, screaming that it proves she's not liberal and whatnot.

Obama takes S.C. - Here's hoping it continues.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/sc.primary/index.html?iref=24hours

The Illinois senator earned more than twice the vote that rival Sen. Hillary Clinton did, 55 percent to 27 percent, unofficial returns showed.

A good sign indeed, myself (Phage) very much supports Obama over Clinton - mind you if she gets the nomination, I still plan on voting Democrat this year, however I've encountered a substantial number who will not vote for Hillary, that would vote for Obama or another Democract. Rather deserved or not Hillary has established a reputation of being a 'bitch', this reputation by this point seems to be unshakable, as I said, rather deserved or not. The Democratic party really needs to look at the independent voter here, and I fear running Hillary will lessen the chance for presidency this election. ESPECIALLY if McCain gets the Republican nomination, despite his many screw-ups over the last few years, he's maintained a healthy following with independant voters.

Phage, signing off and looking forward to Super Tuesday with anticipation.

It's Always Clinton...

...especially when the comparison is actually correct. From Crooks & Liars: Tweety Slams “Incoherent” Conservatives

After Terry Jeffrey called Hillary Clinton's Iraq position "completely incoherent" on Hardball yesterday, Chris Matthews slammed him and other traditional conservatives, calling their views even more incoherent because they've gotten stuck supporting and defending a war they otherwise wouldn't have.

Full transcript at MSNBC:

JEFFREY: Hillary‘s position is completely incoherent for a number of reasons.

MATTHEWS: You know what is more incoherent? The views of people like you and other traditional conservatives, who never liked this war, but went along with it because the leader, Bush, supported it. You don‘t like this war, Terry. Pat doesn‘t like this war. Bill Buckley doesn‘t like this war. Traditional conservatives don‘t like this war. And yet you went along with it. If this was Clinton‘s war, you wouldn‘t have fought it.

This is a rare instance when the Clinton comparison actually proves something. There's simply no way in hell this country's most prominent war cheerleaders would support the war if Clinton was waging it. Glenn Greenwald compiled an extensive list of GOP pooh-poohing of Clinton's foreign policy and it ain't pretty.

Usually, when someone brings up Bill Clinton, it's a right-wing moron trying to justify something this administration has done - or just trying to throw a red herring into the conversation. I've seen it a lot, even in mindless, disjointed, rambling, baseless, jabbering letters to the editor. This time, it's actually accurate - the Congressional Republicans during the Somalia conflict wanted to cut and run, and Clinton and a few supporters wanted to stay. (The exception to this, from what Glenn's posts tell me, is Sen. Feingold, who wanted us out in both of these cases. Consistency is actually important to some people in Congress - who knew?)

Now the Republicans, many of them still in Congress, want our troops to stay in a place where more people are being killed for far less, and anyone saying we should leave is being painted as an unpatriotic terrorist. Worse yet, they're trying to counter the will of both the Congress and the people by saying that Congress has no power to control the progress of military action, despite doing just that while Clinton was president.

I'd wager none but a few (like Matthews) in the so-called "liberal media" are even willing to bring up this flip-flopping. And I'd wager even more than the few who do dare to bring it up will be smeared.

Caffeine-Induced Ramblings Are Always Fun

After working all night and drinking enough coffee to kill most small mammals, I'm ready to take note of a few things.

First off, Fa-loofah-l O'Lielly (both parts of the scumbag's name are links to separate pages, if you can't tell), Michael Weiner, Mann C*nter, Rev. Sunstroke Meathead, and all the other lying, cheating, shameless, spineless, hateful, dirt-eating pieces of reptilian shit who are busying themselves with out-and-out lies: EAT ME. That is all.

Second, people, stop bitching about Barack Obama "not having enough experience". I'd rather have someone with no experience than someone who ran everything he ever did into the ground.

Third, stop with trying to ruin every single person who says they're running for a presidential nomination, or is thinking about it, or is rumored to be thinking about it, or whatever. Enough about the bitching over Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Dean, all of them - if all you're going to do is find fault, it's going to be just like 2004.

Fourth, when did Ft. Wayne become so full of health experts who apparently have nothing better to do than write fact-free diatribes to the newspapers? You'd think, as knowledgable as they are about the human body and its reactions to harmful chemicals, they'd be making money hand over grubby fist in the exciting world of medicine.

Fifth, if you honestly want to believe the lie about a minimum wage increase being bad for everyone, try living on $6 an hour when you don't have any kind of steady schedule.

That should be it.