The Clinton Nastiness Donation Game
O.k., here's the basic idea:
Obama folk set up something like a drinking game, but it's a donation game. Participants send like $5 every time Clinton says something nasty about Obama.
If we were going to be really evenhanded about this, participants would just donate to whoever had been nastied against.
But I'm too pissed for that now.
Any ideas about this idea?
O.k., here's the basic idea:
Obama folk set up something like a drinking game, but it's a donation game. Participants send like $5 every time Clinton says something nasty about Obama.
If we were going to be really evenhanded about this, participants would just donate to whoever had been nastied against.
But I'm too pissed for that now.
Any ideas about this idea?
posted by Winston Smith at
8:42 PM
13 Comments:
At the rate Clinton's been going since Super Tuesday, I'd be broke by lunch tomorrow, if not sooner. No bet.
I'm super broke, but like I was telling Mystic earlier, I'm superpissed about the Ken Starr thing (after being a Clinton supporter during their years in the White House) and am definitely thinking about making some sort of contribution.
Enough is enough.
Hillary's at a disadvantage. When she lies about herself, everyone can see through it because they already know her.
Actually, we liked that about Bill, because he knew it was a game and so did we. Nod nod, wink wink.
When Sen. Obama lies about himself---OK, OK, let's call it self-hagiography---we have no idea if any of it's true, or worse, he actually believes in his own self-generated image.
So, if Miz Hillary pops an Obama bubble, it's "nasty."
My thoughtful Democrat [an apparent oxymoron, but true in this case] friend at the office sees her as slightly behind the 8-ball in calling him out. Like me, he's a bit of a feminist.
We think she'd have an easier time of it if she weren't a woman, which she putatively is. She's nasty or bitchy, but when a man shoots and scores, we spectators throw our hats and yell
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
From The Scotsman [that's a newspaper, and Europe seems to be the best place to get around the American media gatekeepers who decide and determine what you should and should not know]:
Hillary Clinton has been branded a "monster" by one of Barack Obama's top advisers, as the gloves come off in the race to win the Democrat nomination.
In recent TV appearances Mrs Clinton had looked desperate and on the back foot.
In an unguarded moment during an interview with The Scotsman, Samantha Power, his key foreign policy aide, let slip the camp's true feelings about the former First Lady.
Now, the Obama campaign has, to its credit, disavowed Ms. Powers' remarks, but as we all know, we discussed her status as Sen. Obama's primary educator on foreign policy and the ways of the world.
No? Oh, of course you do:
http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2007/08/samantha-power-on-obama-on-pakistan.html
No mere functionary is Samantha Powers, then.
Is this what we think?
Apologies again for posting twice in a row. As previously noted, dang, but ain't the situation, um, fluid. Not day by day, but minute to minute.
A little too much drama for me for the next 4 years, but be that as it may:
Unguarded moments happen even in the best of families, and campaigns. That's what honesty gets you.
["The back foot" is a term from cricket, the English equivalent of baseball. It's like the pitcher throws one at your eyebrows and next paints the outside corner and then throws a changeup; the batsman has no idea if he's coming or going, so instead of attacking the ball, he's defending his wicket instead of scoring runs.]
Look, Tom, everybody knows that either you have no sense of proportion in such matters, or you just enjoy spinning for your favored candidate. One can always work hard to minimize the badness of one side and to exaggerate that of the other, until the better seems the worse, or the worse seems roughly equal, or whatever. It's *always* possible to do so. You've become a master of this where Bush is concerned, and you've now decided to do the same thing with Clinton/Obama.
I mean, I'm real glad one of your friends thinks your a feminist and all that. Really I am. But nothing you write here changes anything. We've all seen the Power quote. I could explain to you that there's a difference between something said in the heat of the moment and a concerted smear strategy, but no amount of explaining will change your mind, will it? I mean, let's be honest. Nobody has said that the Obama camp's perfect; only better than the godawful Hillary camp.
But, again, when matters of proportion are at issue, spinning things into some kind of equivalence is always possible. You'll forgive me if I'm getting a little tired of wasting my time trying to have a serious conversation with a brick wall.
I think she gets a tougher time because she's female, yes. Is she "nasty?" How?
It's just the media narrative and people buy into it.
I'm a woman and I am disgusted with Hillary's kamikaze tactics against Obama.
It's actually a little insulting to think that I'm somehow giving Obama a free ride because he's a dude and she's not, or I'm somehow buying into the media narrative. Please.
It would be awesome to have a woman in the White House. Do I want that woman to be Hillary Clinton? No.
Why? Because of how she's been campaigning. If she's going to be this bad when campaigning against someone in her own party with a very similar ideologically, then I can imagine what would happen in the White House. That is not a future I would vote for.
A little insulting? Welcome to my world, ma'am. A friend looked at this blog the other day and was appalled at the rudeness I'm subjected to for my disagreements. Read what WS just wrote to me. By the standards around here, taking umbrage at a remark I made---that wasn't directed at you---seems a little, I dunno, Obamaish.
To the substance, I'd just like to examine exactly how she's "nasty." I think it's oversold.
Not saying you're giving him a pass so much, but Obama's just slicker about it, and keeps his hands clean. He let Donna Brazile and James Clyburn pretty much call Bill Clinton a racist for a very legitimate criticism [the "fairy tale"] remark.
I'm just not buying it. The difference between the candidates is cosmetic.
A haiku:
I wrote a response
But it was to Tom Van Dyke
"Why?", I thought. *Delete*
Because you knew I'd make mincemeat of it.
But it's the thought that counts. Love you, too. I know I'm always on your mind.
Lucky you, Mystic! You barely avoided Tom making mincemeat of you like all those other times....uh, wait...
But I'm not responding to Tom's trolling anymore. I almost forgot...
Yeah, right on, Tracie. I'd freakin' LOVE to have a woman in the White House. Up until a couple of weeks ago, I'd have been pretty damn happy for it to be HRC.
Until she showed her true colors.
Currently, it's very unlikely that I'd even vote for her. That could change, but that's probably what'd happen if the election were held today.
Her negatives were already sky-high--for unfair reasons, IMHO. Now, though, many good reasons have been added to the bad reasons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom, how is she nasty?
This article gives more of a laundry list type of rundown (and additional explanation of why these things are nastier than the usual), but I think this blog has been doing an adequate job of mentioning the major things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08herbert.html?em&ex=1205211600&en=49f897b042a12122&ei=5087%0A
Spelling out of why these things are nasty can be found here:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c
I promise I am not usually this link crazy, but it's convenient having what I've been thinking already written out for me.
Additionally, I took "umbrage" with your false dichotomy: either people don't have a problem with Hillary because they're smart enough to not be taken in by the media, or they buy into whatever the media says about her and think she's being underhanded because they're spoonfed that information. There is no chance that some of us exercise our own judgment and critical examination of evidence and decide she's doing far more harm than good, and on a much larger scale than Obama. Dismissing this third and very valid option, that was what was mildly insulting. The rest of us around here are big boys and big girls too, not just you.
I could do much worse than be compared to Obama. So thanks, I guess?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home