Blogroll Me! How This Old Brit Sees It ...: Obama Wins, Clintonites Still In Denial

04 June 2008

Obama Wins, Clintonites Still In Denial

Da Nile is not just a river in Egypt. It's also the default state of mind for a Clintonite.

The Associated Press today confirmed something that's been obvious since early March: Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.

Meanwhile, the Hillraisers continue to live in an alternate reality:

AP Should be sued for propagating this misinformation. Press have become very pathetic and highly unaccountable. If we have unaccountable politician we can recall or no elect them next time. Is there anything can be done with this Press folks. They are so inclined to Declare OBAMA as president. is this democracy... we are going to behind so many countries for democracy... but he have very very big whole in democracy at home itself. Pathetic it is.




Misinforming public for the benefit of certain party should be considered a crime!




Free speech and free press is protected in the Constitution but as long as it is fair and objective. Nothing about the media during the primaries has been fair OR objective.


Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP

Hillary Clinton as a V.P., an asset or a liability to Barack Obama?


The Media is trying to pick our MONINEE.

We shouldn’t be surprised at theses actions by the Media.

Hell, CNN as pushed Obama down our throats this whole primary process.

I say to you now, I will not vote for Obama, as he is the worse candidate this Democratic Party has backed ever and I won’t have any of this with this guy.

Hillary should stay in the hunt for the White House as we need her so badly words can’t describe.

Hillary Please, Please stay in this fight, enter the general election as an INDEPENDENT, you’ve got my vote.


Beth Fouhy wrote the story that broke this morning. Am I just paranoid or does it seem like a conspiracy is afoot? To my knowledge AP has yet to retract the story, but even if they have, the damage is done. How dare someone state the race is over on a day that voters have a last a chance to have their say.


Email both the website that carried the story and AP. Tell them you are filing a complaint with the FCC.

Then email all other news organizations to tell them that the story is untrue and you are filing a complaint with the FCC.


Same here. Hillary or McCain. I wouldn't vote for BO for all the tea in China. If you know it's Tuesday, and the Media says it's Tuesday, folks, best check your calender anyway!


Hillary or McCain. No BHO

I really mean it.


I will not vote for Obama...will vote for McCain and you are right neetabug, Obama will not be able to bring them home.

If it isn't Hillary for President...then I will vote for McCain!!!!!


You've got the popular as an independent, or whatever.....let's just let BO know that she isn't second to anyone. She will win in the fall regardless of the party. Unless her name is first on the ballot, there will be no way I will vote for BHO. I despise him.


This is why we need to Phone everyone in these states so they know that Hillary hasn't given up! Their VOTES COUNT!!! This is our chance! She is so close They have to CHEAT!! Call MONTANA & S DAKOTA! NOW IS OUR TIME! HURRY!!

On and on it goes. Person after person blaming the media for Clinton's loss, demanding a government crackdown on the Associated Press, claiming that Clinton won the popular vote, and pledging support for either John McCain or an independent bid by Clinton.

It just shows you how poisonous Clinton's candidacy has been. So many of her supporters are now completely irrational. Obama has the support of more than half of the pledged delegates and superdelegates. Even if Clinton gets ALL of the remaining delegates, SHE CAN'T WIN. The press coverage for Obama and Clinton has been about equal, and it's been mostly positive. Clinton has not won the popular vote, unless you assume that Obama got zero votes in Michigan and ignore the votes in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, and Wyoming. And Clinton has made it virtually impossible for Obama to pick her as vice president, with her charges that he's not qualified to be president, with her tall tales about sniper fire in Bosnia, and with her appeals to "hard-working Americans, white Americans".

It's just sad that Clinton has led so many people down the garden path. But there's another aspect of this that makes me angry. I'm angry that so many of her supporters say that they'll vote for Obama over McCain.

What they're saying is that they don't care about the war in Iraq, they don't care if we go to war with Iran, they don't are about health care, they don't care about the environment, they don't care about sound economic policy, the don't care about civil liberties, and they don't care about women's rights. The distance between Clinton's and Obama's positions on these issues is slight, and the difference between Clinton's and McCain's positions is vast. So how could any Clinton supporter who really cared about those issues gravitate toward McCain?

Well, they can't. These are people who supported Clinton for another reason. Some may have supported her as part of some sort of personality cult, but I can't think that number is very large. Clinton just isn't very charismatic. So I'm thinking that most are basing their support on identity politics. Either they're willing to put policy matters aside in order to elect a woman, or they're willing to put policy aside to avoid electing a black. Either way, they're a bunch of Ahabs, tossing the whole country overboard as they pursue their narrow minded agenda.

(cross posted at Liberal Avenger and appletree)

Labels: , ,


Blogger ex-pat said...

No nominee can be announced AS the nominee until his/her opponent has conceded and, in spite of the media outrage that Senator Clinton has not conceded, there is no "nominee" until she does. That you cannot summon one iota of respect for Senator Clinton, that's to be expected. That you portray me and the other 18 million people who voted for her as part of of some sort of delusional personality cult is just lazy - straight from the MSNBC and New York Times novel, written for your ongoing and silly bloodlust. Obviously you do not spend much time at Kos or Huffpo or you would a better grasp of what a "personality cult" really is. Pledged delegates and superdelegate can change their minds at any time. Clinton has the popular vote. So, from one old Brit to another - do the work!

1:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm not sure about dear old Hill. Seems to me that she'd be another Dick Cheney if she were Vice-president; she certainly has the political nous and GOP backup to enable her to run rings around Barack Obama, he'd be like a lamb before the wolves. Now there's a horrible thought.

No, keep her well away from the White House, sez I.

Another ex-pat Old Brit aka

5:08 pm  
Blogger ex-pat said...

Your "dear old Hill" remark belies your handle, "sweetoldlady", it's difficult to believe that a woman, in this climate, would say such a thing! It makes me shudder to think what part of your anatomy brought forth the idea that she would "be another Dick Cheney if she were Vice-President". But you do agree, I see, that Obama is the weaker candidate. I don't think for a minute that she has GOP backing, although I believe she has their respect. That This Old Brit seems to genuinely believe that the media has been positive regarding "Clinton's poisenous campaign" (no bias there) is astounding.For sixteen months we have been bombarded, day after miserable day, with the most vile, vicious, sexist attacks on a former First Lady, a two-term Senator from top tier media and so called "liberal" blogs. That you don't like her policies - fine, but to parrot "facts" that you have not personally researched - not so much! Old Brit calls the Clinton campaign "poisenous" taking some so-called "journalist's word for it, in the meantime the hottest selling election season item this year, just flying off the shelves, is the target urinal pad with Clinton's face on it, apparently it gives you better aim when you pee. The nutcrackers and the "C" word tee-shirt also big items - we are a nation of grown-ups are we not? If you, as a woman, somehow missed all this or are not appalled by the lack of attention paid to it by Old Brit; if you, as a human being, are not appalled by how a 40 year advocate for civil rights has been smeared as a racist, and Old Brit's lack of attention to it - regardless of what you think of her policies, then may you live long and healthy on that island of yours. Clinton has been told to get out of the race since February, now she been told to concede when many MEN with far fewer delegates than she has amassed, have taken their fight to the convention and hailed as heroes, fighters, but this woman? How dare she? I personally don't think the VP slot will be offerred, nor will it be accepted, but right now, she has an enormous amount of power (sorry bad word for a woman) Obama needs her supporters for a non-caucus win in the general in spite of what the DNC and the travesty that was the RBC meeting on Saturday says. I want a democrat to win this November, but once the media turns on Obama, which it will, I know that will not happen.

12:46 pm  
Anonymous gordo said...


First of all, I want ot make sure that nobody gets angry at Richard the Old Brit, because I'm the one who put together this post. I'd also like to clear up a couple of things:

1) I didn't call people who voted for Clinton "delusional". I said that about people who still believed that Clinton had a chance, even after Obama secured the majority of the available delegates.

2) Clinton did not win the popular vote. She can only claim she did if none of the voters in caucus states are counted, and if you don't award any votes from Michigan to Obama. That doesn't seem reasonable.

3) Pointing out the racism behind some of the attacks coming from the Clinton campaign isn't smearing her. It's the truth. In dismissing Obama's win in South Carolina, Bill compared him to Jesse Jackson. Why not John Edwards, the guy who won SC in 2004 and failed to win the nomination? Because Bill wanted to portray Obama as the "black" candidate, that's why. And don't get me started on Geraldine Ferraro calling Obama an unqualified quota hire.

4) Clinton supporters attacked the notion that the judgment to make the right decision(e.g., not supporting the invasion of Iraq) was more important than experience. Of course, if she had gotten the nomination, they would have immediately begun saying that McCain's experience was outweighed by Clinton's judgment. In fact, all of her attacks on Obama could have been used effectively by McCain against Clinton. That's the major reason why I don't think she's going to get the vice presidency.

5) There was a lot of unfair coverage of both candidates. But a recent study showed that about 2/3 of the coverage of both candidates was positive. The press didn't cost Clinton this election.

6) You're just blaming the messenger. By now you know that the race really was over when I wrote this post. Clinton lost, and not because of the press, and not because of bloggers like me. She lost because antiwar voters don't trust her to stand up to the warmongers, because blacks were angry at the racist attacks coming from her campaign, and because progressives are sick of DLC politics.


While I think that Clinton would be an incredibly powerful vice president, I wouldn't compare her to Cheney. That would be like comparing Gabriel to Lucifer. Yes, they're both very powerful angels, but there's still a big difference between them.

4:35 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When my family and I first heard of Hill's intention to run for president we all cheered her - go, girl, go - but it didn't take long for our support to sour, namely when she proved over and over again in her speeches that she is just as much of a warmonger as the vile Republican party. Obliterate Iran? No thanks. The Repugs can keep her, she is their Trojan horse anyway. I beg to differ about GOP supporting her. She mouths their policies; no withdrawal from Iraq, no impartial Middle East 'peace' process and let's bomb Iran. I stand by what I have written about her. Shame you don't agree, ex-pat, but you're entitled to your opinions.


1:48 am  
Blogger ex-pat said...

Gordo: Where in the Pew Research Center report you get that two-thirds of the the coverage of both candidates was "positive"was it here?
After weeks of focusing on the prospect of a deadlocked race with no end in sight, the media narrative for the Democratic presidential race shifted dramatically last week, "anointing" a definite frontrunner and an underdog

the media raised serious questions about her campaign's capabilities and her viability. (In some corners of the punditocracy unfriendly to Clinton, her political obit was being prepared" or here:-

"Conversely, Obama -- who ran his post-Super Tuesday winning streak to eight states with the Feb. 12 "Potomac Primary" and established a delegate lead -- rode a wave of positive coverage, depicting him with a real, if not decisive advantage. Obama was a significant or dominant factor in 55.5% of the week's campaign coverage compared with 57% for Clinton -- the highest level of coverage for both since the Campaign Coverage Index began five weeks ago. But when it came to the tone of that coverage, he was a big winner" no, here:-

"Here's one symbolic illustration of those divergent narratives. The front-page Feb. 11 USA Today story began with the news that the Clinton team, after a series of primary and caucus defeats, had replaced campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. The next day, ABC's Good Morning America reported that the famed wax museum, Madame Tussauds, had just unveiled a statue of Obama standing in the Oval Office of the White House. (A Clinton statue had been created a year ago. But in politics, timing and momentum are everything)" no hang on a minute, it must have been here:-

“Hillary Clinton got crushed yesterday. There was not a shred of good news that she could pull out of anything that happened yesterday. How does she soldier on out of this?”

Obama got almost no negative coverage on MSNBC, CNN or C-Span, even the Wright/Pfleger videos were not used as negatively as they could have been, save for Fox and Hannity, shows which liberals don't watch.

In this alternate universe where if 67% of whites in West Virginia vote for Clinton it's racism, but if 92% of blacks in South Carolina vote for Obama, it's "racial identification" what Bill Clinton said is accurate "Jesse Jackson ran a good campaign here in 1988and Obama ran a good campaign this year", and although it is rarely mentioned, Jesse Jackson repudiated the notion that this was a racist statement and so it goes... John Edwards won in South Carolina because he was a good populist, advocate for the poor candidate and a Carolinas' native son and no person of colour ran against him. Geraldine Ferraro said, at a paid event, not representing Clinton, and in answer to a specific question, that no white man or woman of any colour would have made it as far as Obama had with as thin a resume, and likened it to her own appointment as VP candidate in 1984 where she asserted at the time that had her name been "Gerald" Ferraro she would never have been in the place she was. Just as in 1984,(woman) the DNC felt that 2008 was the time for an African American and based on the positive press from Obama's 2004 convention speech, (which impressed the hell out of me), decided that here was the one. It could have been Joyner, Huffman, Brown or an impressive list of experienced and beloved others, but it wasn't. So this life-long champion of civil rights for people of colour, women and the elderly goes down - she is now a "racist" a life time's work wiped out for an accurate observation. There are approximately 39,000 items on the internet that will tell you that Obama did not vote for the war, his own web-site, before they took it down, said the same thing. The fact that no one asked him for his vote on the war in the Illinois State Senate, apparently, not an issue. He made a stirring anti-war speech when the war itself was already unpopular. He said later, that he frankly did not know how he would have voted. If you had been in New York at the time of the AUMF vote, especially in the upper New York area, you would know that the drumbeat for payback was palpable, I doubt any sitting Senator from the State of New York, with the mood of their constituency, could have not voted yes along with most democrats, afterall that vote was for military force should Iraq block further inspections and after a UN resolution. Did anyone imagine that Bush would bring the inspectors home and that Bush would use the AUMF to by-pass any further resolutions? I don't know. What I do know is that Senator Obama has voted yes on every subsequent funding for that war. Gordo, check out some of the blogs and read, even in victory, enough "F%@k Hillary with a pitchfork" comments to fill a sewer. And denial IS a form of delusion. Sweetoldlady, methinks your cheering was not so heartfelt. Rational people don't go from cheering on a candidate to "war monger" in a "soon sour" space of time. Sorry this post is so long. PS: if Senator Clinton "suspends" and not "ends" her campaign on Saturday she CAN take it to Denver, it's her right, just like Jackson, Reagan, Ted Kennedy, Jerry Brown and host of others with less delegates before her, super delegates can change their minds. Now about that popular vote thing......another time, thought I would leave you with a "in denial" moment. Thank you for your indulgence, I have always enjoyed your posts - well except for that one. Goodnight

8:10 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see why; this is politics we're discussing, not a life together forever pact. Of course it is possible to sour towards a political figure one previously supported; to suggest that this reversal of opinion is 'irrational' is, in its turn, either disingenuous or intentionally offensive. Which is it with you, I wonder?


2:48 pm  
Anonymous gordo said...


Here's the overview
of the Pew report, and here's the full report.

And before you accuse 90% of African-Americans of being racist, consider the fact that a majority of African-Americans supported Hillary until she, Bill, and Geraldine Ferraro started in with the race-baiting.

And yes, it was race-baiting when Ferraro accused Obama of being the equivalent of an unqualified quota hire. And it wasn't at all accurate. I don't see how anyone can believe that a white candidate as talented and, yes, as qualified as Barack Obama would not have been taken seriously. I think that it does take some amount of racism to overlook Obama's record before being elected senator, and his initiatives on things like nuclear non-proliferation, regulating lead and other hazardous materials, protecting mortgage holders, alternative fuels, FDA revitalization, greenhouse gasses, campaign finance reform, veteran's benefits, voting rights, global poverty, etc.

As for Hillary, time and again she's shown that she wants to follow in Bill's footsteps, capitulating at the slightest hint of resistance and selling out large pieces of the liberal agenda. Bill gave us 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', welfare reform, the Telecom reform act, deregulation of the banks and mortgage industry, welfare reform, and a paring back of government oversight in fields as diverse as consumer safety, food safety, worker safety, securities, and tax cheats. Hillary voted to authorize the war, unlike most congressional Democrats, and voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus giving Bush the justification he would need to invade Iran. She goes out of her way to be as hawkish as possible, going so far as to adopt the Bush/McCain stance on negotiating with Iran and other unfriendly regimes. She even went so far as to embrace McCain's senseless giveaway to the oil industry.

This year, the Democrats will take a big majority in the House, and may even get a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It's a great opportunity for an aggressive, truly liberal president. It would really be a shame to waste that opportunity on a DLCer who owes favors to every lobbyist in Washington.

Even so, I was all ready to support Clinton back in the fall, when it seemed certain she would win. I was rooting for Obama, but I knew that any of the Republicans running would turn out to be a major disaster. I would have been the first to say that Obama should drop out, if he had been the one who needed to get 75% of the remaining delegates after the Texas/Ohio primaries. I would have been the first to cry foul if she had won the majority of the pledged delegates and the superdelegates handed the nomination to Obama.

But as you said, Clinton has a perfect right to contest the nomination all the way to the convention. That has virtually no impact when a candidate with limited support does it, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown, or Jesse Jackson. But it has a huge impact when the race is close, and many analysts say that Reagan and Kennedy cost Ford and Carter the election. I'm certain that Clinton cares enough about the causes she's championed in the Senate to put up a united front against McCain instead of dividing the party and hurting Obama's chances.

1:58 pm  

Post a Comment

COMMENTS and Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home