i’ll say it

by twit

she’s a devil-bitch.

Now that Hillary Clinton is predicted to lose the Texas primary to Obama, we get treated to this chatter from the internets:

The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an “imminent” lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.

Nice how the lawsuit talk starts when they are behind in the polls.

Texas party officials said they believed Cecil was threatening legal action and wrote a letter to him and to Obama senior strategist Steve Hildebrand reflecting that concern.

… The letter also noted that many of Clinton’s senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state’s caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state’s caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules.

UPDATE! Not to be outdone by its own incompetence, the Clinton campaign has launched its latest attack, um, on itself.

From the Associated Press via My Way News:

Democrat Barack Obama accused rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday of trying to “play on people’s fears to scare up votes” with a television ad showing sleeping children and asking who would be more qualified to answer a national security emergency call at 3 a.m.

“The question is not about picking up the phone. The question is: What kind of judgment will you make when you answer?” Obama said as he campaigned in Texas ahead of crucial contests here and in Ohio on Tuesday.

“We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer,” Obama said.

Obama’s response to his Democratic rival’s ad – which began airing in Texas on Friday morning – was a double-barreled swipe at both Clinton and the likely Republican presidential nominee.

UPDATE! Obama’s ad in response to the Hillary ‘red phone’ attack.

and via drudge and Breitbart, Bubba weighs in, not to put too fine a point on it:

Oct. 2004: “One of Clinton’s laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.”

UPDATE! Now it is time to attack men, hooray!

lestro notes Hillary Clinton is peddling the idea that if a chick had Obama’s qualifications, she’d never have a chance at the nomination. and the twit calls bullshit on that bit of devil-bitchery, to wit:

First, the nomination process, as much as it often appears otherwise, is not a game. Some might say that the stakes have never been higher, and then there is Hillary’s take on the battle for the nomination:

“Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,” she said, “but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.”

And she’s talking about being a woman, blaming that characteristic on the difficulties her campaign has had in the nomination process. Within the idea of Obama theoretically being unable to win the nomination if he was a woman, she glosses over the critical qualifications that Obama brings as a candidate: his ability to lead a fractured and divided coalition, his ability to use language to inspire, his ‘newness,’ his overall family man image complete with a non-sham marriage. You know, all those little things that gathered together make Obama the candidate he is.

Gender has nothing to do with Hillary losing the nomination. It has been every nauseating, divisive and ugly aspect of her campaign, including this last ditch dig at the ‘male establishment’ holding her back. There has been plenty to work with when figuring out reasons why Hillary isn’t the leading candidate for the nomination. Obama has been a transcendent candidate, and he’s achieved frontrunner status despite the theoretically impossible color of his skin. With that kind of success, it does seem possible that he could do the same as a chick. Hillary conveniently forgets that she was the frontrunner for a long time – if the ‘male establishment’ was so nefarious, how did it let that happen?

UPDATE! Besides, Barack would be a good-looking woman, at least according to these mashups c/o Wonkette, and then Hillary would have to complain that it is our culture’s worship of youth and prettiness that is to blame, and maybe she’d have a point, if she was capable of effectively leading her campaign, which seems like a prerequisite before complaining that the system is rigged against her.

Nothing says ‘elect me’ like ‘I can’t win.’


FINAL UPDATE! There’s a fire sale at Clinton HQ – everything must go! And for the low, low price of $170,000, even crocodile tears shed over sexism are up for grabs! Deals this great can’t last forever, so hurry on over to the Clinton campaign for low-priced devil-bitchery, while supplies last…

From MSNBC on Feb 29, 2008:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including “sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language” and “obscene suggestions.”

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years.

Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.

Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA’s donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.

Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.

“The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women’s issues and women,” says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. “I don’t think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked.”

3 Responses to i’ll say it

  1. zquark says:

    Hillary has proven herself to be as unpincipled as the current vice president…she will sacrifice anyone and everyone in her quest for power…she may even be as bad as ol’ Richard Milhaus himself.
    So take your pick and spread the word: Hillary is merely
    A) Dickless Cheney
    B) Dickless Nixon

  2. Pingback: The Resurrection of Hillary Clinton « The Church of the Apocalyptic Kiwi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: