Sunday, June 01, 2008

Sunday Morning Comin’ Down


All Your Narrative Are Belong To Me” edition

In which I learn, to my great surprise, that after nine long months, every single fracking Democratic operative (whether I agree with them or not) has mysteriously and simultaneously adopted the Driftglass Recommended Standard Answer to Stoopid Questions:

To wit (from August 2007): I Reject the Premise of Your Question

And at today’s Mouse Circus?

On "Meet the Press" --

Harold Ickes (on what happens if Obama wins): We do not accept the premise of your question.


On FauxNews

Howard Wolfson (on what happens if Obama wins the delegate race): I reject the premise of your question.

And then...

David Bonior (on what happens if Obama loses the popular vote): I reject the premise of your question
.

On “This Week” --

Terry McAuliffe (on what happens if Obama wins the delegate race): I reject the premise of the question.


So can I haz DNC Credentials and Skyboxes now?

No?

Meh.


On “Fox News Sunday” Howard Wolfson, Clinton campaign adviser and, later, David Bonior, Obama guy.

Wolfson: The Democratic Race is not over. We’re going to continue to argue that we have won the popular vote. That the states we won mattered. Blah Blah Blah electoral college

Wallace: Yeah, but essentially you’re going to keep the process going over two delegate votes?

Wolfson: Key states!

Wallace: Two votes.

Wolfson: Principle!

Wallace: Two votes.

Wolfson: Let’s look at how we’ve done since late February.

Wallace: Yeah, but this started in early January.

Wolfson: Every vote should count. We’re cool with Florida, but Michigan was a travesty.

Wallace: But what happens if Obama wins?

Wolfson: I reject the premise of your question.

Then, Bonior:

Wallace: What if you lose the popular vote? Doesn’t that make every Democrat a terrible hypocrite ‘cause of Al Gore and stuff.

David Bonior: The popular vote is very close; it all depends on whether or not you buy into the fucked up way Clinton Dead Enders selectively exclude inconvenient states where they lost, and include states where we all agreed the vote wouldn’t count.

Wallace: But what if you lose the popular vote?

Bonior: I reject the premise of your question

Boo Ya!


Then, the kerfuffle over the idiotic remarks made by one Father Michael Pfleger.

Stupid ass remarks.

By the way, it is weird than no one on the teevee machine seemed to notice that Father Mike is a priest.

A Catholic priest.

A two-fisted, activist, loud Catholic priest with a long history in Chicago. Who has said and done a whole lot of very controversial things over the years (Including defying Cardinal John Patrick Cody in 1981 to adopt an eight-year-old son; a move over which the cardinal had threatened to fire him.), and has been a pain the in ass (or thorn in the scalp) of three Chicago archbishops in a row.

And yet he continues to thunder from the pulpit at Saint Sabina’s Catholic Church every Sunday?

So…can I assume we may now expect a tsunami of outraged Catholics like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly -- people who sat passively in the pews during decade after decade of one Catholic child-rape and cover up scandal after another -- to finally leave the Holy Mother Church?

Developing...

On “Meet the Press”

Whole nations rose and fell as Punkin Haid Russert auditioned for the job of narrating the “Books on Tape” version of Scott McClellans’s “What Happened” by reading chapter after chapter after chapter of Scott Dog’s midden pile.

Punkin Haid’s sonorous recitations were interrupted intermittently as he strapped Scotty Dog over the barrel and flogged him with a switch of fresh-cut Bob Dole:


"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

"When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' " Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years."

"I have no intention of reading your 'exposé' because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively."

"You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"



And with Scotty Dog’s own quotes from 2004 where he threw Richard Clarke under the bus for (not actual quotes) “writing some faggy book” and “not resigning like a man if he though everyone was so evil and douchy”:

(OK, here's an "actual quote" from 2004 for you fucking pedants)

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made.



Later, Russert talked to Harold Ickes, Senator Clinton’s oily little pet ferret.

Russert: Here’s what baffles me: In Michigan, Hillary said in October it would not count for anything. Now you say it counts for everything.

Attempting to distract attention away from his weaselhood, Ickes then sets fire to his hair and runs in circles singing “Oh, Canada”.

driftglass: What baffles me is why pundits keep asking Clinton Dead Enders really, really basic, factual questions like “What is 2 + 2?” and acting shocked when the answer is “A zillion” or “zero’ or “It all depends on what ‘Two’ means” or “Well, in October the answer was ‘4’ and now the answer is…mangos!”

Ickes: Michigan decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our party!

Russert: What principle?

Ickes: That Clintons must always win. Like we’re doing in the popular vote.

Russert: But you’re not winning the popular vote. You’re math is ridiculous. I mean, Michigan wasn’t a real primary.

Ickes: Michigan was a real primary.

Russert: Then why did Senator Clinton say is didn’t count.

Ickes: Bark! BarkBarkBark!

Russert: What?

Ickes: Brrrroooorrrwrrrr.

Russert: What?

Ickes: Boo! Hehehehehe.

Russert: Are you having a seizure?

Ickes: Allow me to translate:
“We’re Clintons, dumbass. Rules Don’t Apply To Clintons!”

We rewrite the metrics of upness and downitude right before your very eyes.

Swear mighty oaths.

Set iron-clad rules.

Then reverse ourselves.

Then re-reverse ourselves.

Delegates are Almighty, except now they aren’t.

Whole states do or do not count depending on whether it’s Double-Secret-Invalidation-Tuesday or not.

The popular vote is all-important, except when we said it wasn’t four months ago, and only as long as you buy our fucked up math.


However there was this:
Russert: So what happens if Barack Obama wins?

Harold Ickes: We do not accept the premise of your question.


So I’ve got that going for me.



On “This Week” Terry McAuliffe repeats -- virtually verbatim -- exactly what Howard Wolfson said on Fox.

McAuliffe: People keep counting us out!

McAuliffe: Hillary Clinton easily beats John McCain. And Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t.

Stephanopoulos: But if Obama hits the magic number of delegates, will you get out of the race.

Terry McAuliffe: I reject the premise of the question.



Then, Howard Dean…

Dean (On sexism): There absolutely has been a lot of sexism in the media. If the comments had been reversed and they had been comments about race, the people who made them would have been fired.


And he's right.

Dean: I think the key to this election will be with the person who wins 49%, not 51%.

Stephanopoulos: So do you think Hillary will step up and campaign for Evil Secret Muslim Guy when he wins?

Dean: I do. Having lost the nomination myself, I understand this; you not only have to say healing things, but you have to campaign for the winner. And I believe that Senator Clinton will work like hell to get Senator Obama elected if she loses. And vice versa. They both value their country. Both are extraordinary people. Both are professionals.



On ”The Chris Matthews Show”

Nuthin'.


And finally, on “Face the Nation” , Ed Rendell informs us that: “Polls show that we’ll lose more Clinton voters if Obama wins than Obama voters if Hillary wins."

Translation: The Democratic Party needs to pander more to this lady.

(h/t Jane Hamsher and Firedoglake)


Because if these last five months has taught us anything, it's that rage, entitlement, victimhood and mad public-school-dropout math skillz are the Little Chocolate Donuts

of the hard core Clinton Dead Enders.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks, DG, for doing what I couldn't do today: watch more bullshit being spun by Clinton operatives. I was wondering if I missed anything. The answer: no.

- mac

Anonymous said...

Drifty,

Wonderful rant! My hatz off!

But, calling Ickes an oily ferret is an insult against all ferrets worldwide. And I think Athenae might have something to say 'bout that!

Perhaps a better description is "slimy Clinton snake" Ickes...

ServingPatriot

Anonymous said...

That Clinton supporter reminds me of Mayella Ewell. That or a 5 yr old who didn't get two scoops of cream.

thanks for watching that for us DG

Anonymous said...

I am a Clinton dead ender.... I will support the winner, when there is a winner , until then stop insulting me for supporting this strong , accomplished woman instead of the cool hip guy with the thin resume ,( yea , I know Im racist too )

Anonymous said...

Mayella Ewell. Ha. That's hilarious.

Ah asked him to chop up the chiffarobe.

driftglass said...

Thanks, all.

Mayella Ewell :-) Bravo, pwapvt

driftglass said...

Anon,

To clarify:

Supporting Senator Clinton no more makes a person racist, that did supporting Edwards or Special K or Dodd over Obama.

Supporting Senator Obama does not makes a person a misogynist.

Stating or implying that one will categorically refuse to vote for his/her Party's nominee because he is black...is racist.

People who imply that Senator Clinton is losing ergo she having the election stolen from her reek of entitlement.

And people who refuse to admit that, yes, Senator Clinton's campaign staff have repeatedly and overtly re-written the math, the rules and the definition of "win" when it is On Fucking Tape and right in front of everyone to see invite suspicion of either their motives or their sanity.

I, like you, have my preference based on weighing of virtues versus defects.

I, like you, will support my Party's nominee, as imperfect as he or she may be.

And then I will spend the next several years doing my small part holding his or her feet to the fire to advance a Progressive agenda, because neither candidate is what you would call a firebrand Liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

Miss Cellania said...

I'm so glad I don't have to watch all those Sunday morning shows. I know all the good parts will be here pretty soon.

Anonymous said...

Of some interest, is the question of:

Did Jane Hamsher post that at FDL, because she thinks the woman was speaking with righteous indignation because Hillary is being savaged by the cossacks at the DNC?

or did she put it up because she wanted to show she was out of her rabid-assed mind?

Or, did Jane just want to illustrate the depth of feeling from some Clinton supporters, as a kind of warning?

Because, there are some bloggers, including Jane and Digby, who are now saying:

"Hillary's going to lose. Be gentle with her...Be gentle with her...Be gentle with her..."

And, I would just point out that the democratic party does not need concession speeches from Jane Hamsher and Digby; we need them from Hillary Clinton.

When that happens, we can talk about fence-mending, but in point of fact, most of the carpentry work needs to be done by Hillary and her supporters, since they have been so diligently tearing them down.

Until then, nothing has changed. She and her supporters have long overrated her political power and her attraction as a candidate, since well before Iowa, when Obama started to knock the train off the tracks.
And now, in their threats, they are overrating it even worse, as Obama is on the verge of becoming our nominee, and taking over the custody of the party.

I would suggest to her supporters, those in AND out of the blog-closet, that they spend more time reminding Hillary Clinton of the political facts of life for losers in nomination contests, than in alternately threatening and begging Barack Obama to back off, while Hillary and her staff, as Driftglass so acutely noted on this thread, is showing not the slightest sign of doing it.

Arguing that we need to handle Hillary with kid gloves, at the same time she continues "Marching Through Georgia" exposing the party to her Shermanesque pyromania, is the same kind of time-distortion that we get from the bush administration on Iraq.

Which, considering Hillary's track record, is not a surprise.

WereBear said...

Senator Obama is human, and thus, neither a deity nor a demon.

Yes, I would love to see a fire-breathing progressive get out there and do well in the Democratic primaries.

But that didn't happen. What we did get is, by some amazing alignment of uncertainty particles, an intelligent person who I think is sincere in his declared intentions to help get us out of the mess we are in.

Who has the simple ability that has eluded everyone else up to this point: that he can both handle and deflect right wing attacks, and even make people realize how ridiculous they are.

People, people, people. If policy was enough, Kucinich would be our nominee. If brass gonads, connections, and money were enough, Clinton would be our nominee. If your aunt had wheels, she'd be a go cart.

Instead, we've had to settle for a Constitutional Law Professor who can move crowds, organize, and raise buckets of cash from ordinary human beings.

We're doodly-doodly-DOOMED!

Myrtle June said...

Fuck 'um. Fuck the people who act like that "lady" did on that tape. And Fuck anyone who saying to "be gentle". Fuck 'um. Hillary HAD her chance to exit with grace but she chose another way. She, nor a damn one of her current supporters, deserve anything. Not one ounce of our life force should be spent on these energy vampires. The exploitation of women in the manner that hillary has chosen is the WORST possible thing for women in this country. Yes, let's just find every woman with an axe to grind and put her to work grinding them axes. Yes. What a great fucking plan to dispell the stereotypical "woman". Great plan hillary. Thank you and your fucked up supporters who want it both ways.... who want to be tough but can't take the lumps that come with that and expect some special treatment BECAUSE she's a woman. You cannot have this both ways. That fucks us all up. Have some dignity, will ya. Thanks bunches. She has so fucking blown this for women who seek office .... .or even a job for years to come.

Probably be on some list of hiring interview questions "Determine if she was a Hillary supporter"..... and then place it in the "fucking batshit crazy" discard pile.

Being batshit crazy is not being tough.... its being batshit crazy.

Thanks Hill.

Anonymous said...

All I see is vitriol , all I hear are insults , what makes all you Obama supporters think we can unite after this ???
I feel only red hot rage from Obama supporters , ( from day one its been that way )
its useless to say that it is in some way deserved , that " this woman " has somehow brought all this on herself . Just imagine for a moment if it was the other way round ... how would you all feel about it ???

Anonymous said...

Anon,

I reject the premise of the question.

Myrtle June said...

Anony- Please change out of victim gear. There was a time for Obama supporters to work with you on that, but that time has past. Now its all on you. You decide to get off the Crazy Talk Express and get about getting OUR party candidate elected with no further whine about it. The decision is on you.

There is no one that can say or do anything to help you with your decision. It's up to you what you do but we're moving on here, with you or without you. We're moving on.

Anonymous said...

Okay, here's the state of play. Barack Obama has won. Hillary Clinton knows it but she has to pretend that she doesn't in order not to be forced to withdraw or render pointless the last two state primaries -- two state primaries which she is going to lose by the way.

So it's over.

The calls to be gentle are well to take seriously, because Hillary Clinton is going to withdraw by June 4, or else there is no further reason to be gentle, and she would want us to be gentle. Does that seem fair?

Anonymous said...

The more I think about the Mayella Ewell, the more parallels I start to see. Scary.

Anonymous said...

"Does that seem fair?"

Not really Michael.

And, keep in mind, that Obama IS being fair; more than, in fact. He's praising her to the heavens, at the same time she's still beating he AND the party, over the head with her denial-queen tiara.

How "fair" is it for a candidate who has NO chance of catching Obama to drag this out and give John McCain and the republicans one hell of a free ride, simply because her gigantic, entitled, ego refuses to admit that it's over?

How "fair" was her little Sioux Falls assassination contingency plan, when she so blithely and wistfully spiked the american political punchbowl with that particular Ebola shot?

While I'm at it, the notion that "misogynism" is somehow responsible for her losing the nomination, is horseshit. She lost this when she threw the progressive wing of the party under the bus and went haring off after support from republicans and independents who wouldn't vote for her if she were running against Jane Fonda.

Every time I read about how "politically savvy" she is, I feel like making a finger-down-throat gesture. She and her handlers have pulled one bonehead move after the other.

The idea that she MIGHT have had the chance to demonstrate her "savvy" in the general election, is frightening.

Now that she's $20 million dollars in debt, and with her campaign, from the top down, STILL showing that she and they, could fuck up an anvil, the superdelegates are wiping the sweat from their brows and thinking:

"We're supposed to hitch the democratic wagon to THAT mule?"

One of the great blessings about having her out of the political picture, is that we won't have to talk about her anymore.

The Minstrel Boy said...

somewhere gilly is smiling. or, at least a lot of those who loved him are smiling.

fuck the fucking yankees.

Anonymous said...

Tanbark, I think Barack Obama is doing the right thing by praising Hillary Clinton, it serves no purpose for him to diminish her, since he is going to win anyhow. It is good to be magnanimous.

You're absolutely correct in your criticisms of Hillary Clinton, she has not always been fair or honest, but I'm glad that we can be better than that.

Anonymous said...

Relative to Obama, I agree, Michael. For now.

It is now de riguer for HIM to praise her, and spout off blather like "She's run a magnificent campaign".

But the rank and file; the groundpounders in the progessive movement; with the "O3" MOS's...we get to speak the truth.

We get to point out what she has done, and about her "electability", and all the other bullshit that has been slathered around to try salvage her triangulation trainwreck.

And, it's this simple: As long as she is still pounding on Barack and on the party, we are going to speak it.

I say again: the people arguing for kid-glove treatment of her NOW, are putting the cart before the horse. I, personally, have no intention of cutting her one inch of slack, until she has unequivocally withdrawn as a candidate for the democratic nomination.

Let Obama (as he is doing :o) ) hit her with the kindness sledge. For "us" grunts, there is not the slightest reason to be "better than that."

In fact, I'm still thinking of ways to be worse. :o)

Anonymous said...

Some Clinton supporters will support Obama, the way quite a few former Kucinich supporters, Edwards supporters, Biden supporters, etc. are now supporting Obama, because he is the closest, of those still in the race, to the kind of person they want to see in the White House. I supported Edwards, voted for him in the CA primary (absentee, which is why my vote went that way despite Edwards' folding a few days before). But now I support Obama, because it's the obvious thing to do. Even some who haven't yet jumped off HRC's bankrupt bandwagon may rediscover their inner realist.

Some HRC supporters may truly think McCain is better than Obama, and there's not a whole lot to reason with there, but Obama has as much ability as anyone to persuade those people. As for those who shriek like hysterical infants who've just had their dummies snatched from their little baby lips, it would take one of those crisis-team negotiators several hours to talk each one of them off of the roof, and about half of them would probably jump anyway.

As someone said earlier, screw 'um. Or something.

Anonymous said...

Drifty,

Once again, thanks for the rants.

A little thing, maybe...but Hulu vids are restricted to viewing in the US, so the overseas portion of the last-throes democrat party can't see them.

Youtube is better if you can swing it.

Thanks,
Falafel Boy