Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Home

Charges of 'Hillary-bashing' Do a Disservice to Hillary

Submitted by pmcarpenter on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 6:51am.

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Yesterday, in a network interview, Barack Obama's chief strategist said in response to a question about Bill Clinton's truly odd resurrection of the "sniper fire" story: Hey, we're not bringing this up. But what I don't understand is why they are bringing this up.

Why, indeed. Plus the who, the what, the where and the when. Those are the questions that abound, because these days the Clinton campaign is less a campaign than it is some genre of journalistic mystery novel.

Who said what? Now why in God's name would he -- or she -- say that? Once the offending surveillance tape hits the airwaves, hordes of political analysts turn therapeutic sleuth and try to do determine why in hell the Clinton campaign insists on shooting itself in the foot.

The Clintons' blanket retort, of course, is that they're doing no such thing. Instead, they say, all the brouhaha over ... insert your pick of missteps here ... is merely the outcrop of the media's misogyny, which grimly materializes as "Hillary-bashing."

Occasionally husband Bill does offer alternative theories of these campaign screw-ups, such as what he alone seems to regard as his wife's superannuation that is already revealing a creeping dementia. Poor ol' gal. Just you wait till you're her age and see if you think it's funny.

But mostly, as noted, the campaign belittles the media coverage as nothing more than just more misogynistic Hillary-bashing. Most recently Mrs. Clinton herself, for instance, lashed out at a (female) National Public Radio interviewer for asking, in effect, why she was still wasting her and everyone else's time by doggedly staying in this race.

"What I want to know is, why do I get these questions?" -- presumably as a woman -- was Hillary's curt comeback.

In three little words: Because it's over. Because you've virtually no chance of winning. Because with every passing day fewer and fewer analysts see any hope of any path to your nomination. Because the harm you're doing to your party's unity far outweighs whatever dimmest chance you may in fact have of pulling this out. That's why. Why would any journalist ask that of the candidate in the indestructible lead?

Was NPR's question Hillary-bashing? Was it (male) Huckabee-bashing when the media and large slices of the Republican Party were asking Mike why he was staying in the race when -- despite John McCain's shortage of the necessary delegates votes to secure the nomination -- he had virtually no chance of winning?

Thursday, when Bill Clinton bizarrely revived the "sniper-fire" fiasco by spraying his audience with at least eight inaccuracies, he did say manage to say one thing that packed some truth for us all: "You know, I got tickled the other day. A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me."

It has indeed been amusing; as was Bill's observation, but only because of what Bill in typical fashion turned on its head. In a moment of even rarer truthfulness, what he would have said is, A lot of the way this coverage has been campaigned on has amused me -- and us.

But whether you find it amusing or not, a postmortem consensus on Hillary's campaign is finally taking shape. And it has nothing to do with Hillary-bashing or media frenzy or even politically commonplace "misstatements" of late. Instead, it has to do with everyday incompetence, as summarized this week by The Politico:

Clinton has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months. She has left a trail of unpaid bills and unhappy vendors and had to loan her own campaign $5 million to keep it afloat in January. Her campaign badly underestimated her main adversary, Barack Obama, miscalculated the importance of organizing caucus states and was caught flat-footed after failing to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday. It would be easy to dismiss all of this as fairly conventional political stumbling — if she hadn’t made her supreme readiness and managerial competence the central issue of her presidential campaign.

But since she has, a growing number of Democrats are comparing the Clinton and Obama campaigns — their first real exercise in executive leadership — and rendering harsh assessments of her stewardship.

The article went on to note that "in twin columns in Tuesday’s Washington Post, left-of-center columnists Peter Beinart and E.J. Dionne Jr. condemned Clinton’s overall management of the campaign and inability to build a durable message and infrastructure." Not external misogyny, but internal management -- bad management. In short, just plain and simple incompetence.

The Politico's own analysis was equally brutal -- peppered, as it was, by phrases such as "strategic missteps ... financial uncertainty ... personnel drama ... factionalized staff ... spendthrift approach ... chronically improvisational ... unable to run a tight ship" -- yet I have read, as have you, I'm sure, quite similar analyses in application to many a masculine pol's presidential campaign.

So let's put the misogyny, Hillary-bashing charge to bed, along with Elton John. I can assure you that Hillary, in her own mind, has, because as she gears up for another run in 2012 or '16, what she most wants and needs -- as she well knows -- is an accurate, objective and coldly honest analysis of what went wrong this time around.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


»

your petty Hillary hatred is envy of her superior intelligence

Submitted by cooler on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 7:07pm.
The war in Bosnia ended mysteriously suddenly. I would not be surprised if Hillary partook in some excursions that were not totally covered by the media. In other words I think so much of her I imagine her as some sort of secret agent dodging bullets and then having the professionalism to take the media hit rather than reveal things she can't reveal. Obama not so much. Either that or I can fully understand how Hillary might have subconsciously imagined herself under enemy sniper fire and come to confuse it with real life because of all the shit that is thrown at her ever minute of every day from every corner. She fully deserves to perceive herself as having come under enemy sniper fire because she has, often. the cooler
»

..And Proof of Your Lack of the Same---

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 8:36pm.

Cooler----the band on that greasey ball-cap of yours is not only suffocating the lice in your hair, but its also, SEVERELY choking your thought processes. You sound like the racist, idiot hick that you are. BTW, how did that swastika tattoo work out? Did your pregnant sister kick you out the trailer yet for violating her?

If you could get your hand out of your dingy, dung-laden, blue-jeans long enough to stop your fantasizing "wet-dreams" about "agent 007-Hillary"--you'd come to the sensible conclusion that THE REASON your 'secret agent heroine' HAS to duck so much in-coming "enemy-fire" is because SHE can't stop her own pathological lying; nor can she stop her delusional, execrable, despicable husband.

The reason this so-called debate is still at play within Dem ranks is because fools like you, (and Neva Stoltz), still want to mentally and emotionally masturbate yourself with forlorn dreams of psycho-porn, and comic text illusions----quite similar to the self perceptions (delusions), that Hillary has ensnared herself with; contrary to the cold glare of reality. And are, in truth, at the base of Hillarys own self-created difficulties (and lies).

You need to go back to reading your Hitler-youth comics, and remedial-level issues of "Mein Kampf", because its the obstacles your wet-dreams present that prevent us from moving forward with the very real work that needs to be done between now and November. By the way, heres some tissue.

»

Managerial competence! lulz!

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 4:22pm.
The overseer of the 1993 healthcare plan debacle is running on her "managerial competence"? Someone is trying to kid us. In at least one of the debates, the Texas one, I think, Obama made the point (in different words) that it didn't matter as much as one might suppose what Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan said on paper, because her track record was not just of spectacular failure, but also of leaving a trail of people angry at the treatment they had gotten. Who cares what the plan is, of a person who is no good at making plans materialize? When someone like Hillary Clinton runs on her "managerial competence", it doesn't mean she has managerial competence, it means only that she wishes you to believe she has it. Really she's pointing at her primary weakness, pretending it is a strength; it worked for Bush, after all. Perhaps she believes herself that she is "managerially competent", although I wouldn't bet money on that, given her frequent and to me genuine-seeming resort to "victimhood"; I think she is anxious about her inferiority to other candidates, particularly Barack Obama. But, as Brent Budowsky predicts, Hillary will drop out before the month is over and already is in the process of dropping out with maximum stature recovery. Bill has (to me surprisingly) poor self-control and so strays from the plan, which is to go through the motions of campaigning while not doing anything headline-making.
»

How About A Moritorium On The He Says She Says Stuff?

Submitted by crackerjack on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 3:30pm.
"Why?" "We have to go all out to elect a president who'll end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home." "And what makes this so?" "The fact that we either end the Iraq War or it'll be the end of us."
»

Hilary Bashing

Submitted by Neva Stoltz on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 2:53pm.
The bashing of Hilary has been going on since she announced her run for president. Not only did she have the news networks but the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party decided to take her down. Really sorry state of affair! That is the reason the Democrats have shown they are losers and will continue to be losers. There is no longer any room for true Democrats to vote for this party and it's new agenda. Being a Democrat doesn't make one obligated to support the left wings choice and I know over a hundred voters just in my area that will not vote the party ticket. No it isn't because Obama is black but because he has not been asked the questions nor has he been asked to explain some of his comments and actions. He has a lot of explaining to do about his ties with Rezko and his continued support for his church! Even his published book is full of lies but the media and left wing ignore the facts. John McCain will be the next president and the Democrats can blame themselves-not Hilary.
»

Here We Go Again....

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Sun, 04/13/2008 - 12:24am.

When I first read saw the title of this article by P.M., I must admit,... I thought of YOU. I'll even go so far as to say---I momentarily chuckled at the idea of YOU writing it---after coming to some long-hoped for sense of 'enlightenment' on your part. But, alas, it was not to be....

You are still the totally self-deluded, self-indulgent, narcissicistic imbecile you always were. You keep holding yourself out as some kind of "true democrat", when in truth, you know not the deceptiveness of your base screeds, nor, the historical inaccuracies with which you profess them.

You wrote: "There is no longer any room for "true Democrats" to vote for this party and it's new agenda."

Thankfully---you are correct. I've already stated before---when the party was "truer"--by your standards--what did it get us? Bush appeasements and acquiescences; countless right-wing extremist Federal and Appeal Court appointees; a sexist, racist, bigoted right-wing supreme court; Bastardization and neutering of the Justice Dept; rampant, inept, crony patronage; imbalanced taxation and favoritism; and scores and scores more of concessions, and "ass-kissing" accommodations by you ---"true Democrats", who WERE NEVER more than cowardly, anti-progressive, racist, faux-Dems--who simply lacked the courage to switch sides and don the colors of the master and party you privately revered---Bush and the Repugs. When OUR DEM party found its inevitable footing, and righted itself in necessary opposition, (and indignation), to the many, many, many, crimes accrued by this regime---you cry: its a "new agenda"--as if there is something wrong with it. The REAL question is: WHAT "TRULY" BOTHERS YOU----with this "new agenda"?---You need to check YOUR priorities and reflect on where the deficiencies lie within YOUR thinking.

You wrote: "This year it all changed! I have become an Independent and no longer feel that the Democratic Party is the way to save America. Being extreme right wing or being extreme left will not make America better. Nothing will change and it will remain as it is, until Americans get real. Obama may convince you that he is for change but he doesn't convince me."

I have come to the conclusion---you are no Independent, nor are you an advocate for Nader--its just your bull-shit excuse to afford you mere access to the debate. Because, read your own writings---no "true Democrat" feels that way. The "middle" has proved to be a losing proposition...so you prefer the "extreme right"?---We have seen the repercussions of this too. That is one among several reasons, I find it hard to believe you.

You wrote: "Do you really believe Obama is going to change one thing?......He is just another politician that will do the same! He needs to answer questions instead of making speeches that sound good but puts everyone one off track ...."

You see THIS rather common lament is standard "FOX"-fare, repetitively recited as the msg of the day. Its not hard to see where you derive your arguments. HE WILL NOT CHANGE ONE THING--no, not one....as long as the camp is infested with carping, defeatists like you hanging around; whining every day; pretending your true purpose here is to rebuff the Hillary bashing, even when, its sometimes justified, as pointed out by sound thinking like JohnHarris below. You argue the same argument--even when the subject of 'unfairness to Hillary' is not on the table; also, shes NOT who you claim you're voting for; you seem to feel her slights with the greatest of ease, yet, looking back, I cannot find ONE INSTANCE where you addressed inequities suffered by Obama. By your thinking...he hasn't had any--has he??---so, the question still remains---what is your real.....agenda?

Simply put, if you were either a Indie OR a Dem--you would know what WE ALL already know: IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT OBAMA---IT IS ABOUT US AND WHAT WE DEMAND!! Support for Obama---is merely to put in place a WILLING advocate, or agent of the people (as Presidents are suppose to be), ONE who will address OUR concerns as we ACTIVELY ENFORCE them to MAKE THESE NECESSARY CHANGES. Then, it truly becomes a government of, for, and by---THE PEOPLE. As a 'true dem'--how does this offend you?? But if, by some chance, this does not happen with Obama---well, we have already SEEN what YOUR MODERATE stances have provided and it will ONLY be----MORE OF THE SAME---this, at Obama's worse!! Hillary, on the other hand, offers only more of the same---you seem unable to understand this.

It was NEVER about a re-hashing of old lobbyists interests, nor, the stubborn, obstinate, cowboy-mentality of Bush, and financial debts and obligations to unseen 'big-daddys'--who, to quote Don Corleone---"held the strings to all these pezzonovantes". This, Hillary NEVER grasped---with all her proclamations of "experience". This is the abominable, aberrant "off-spring" of----being in the middle-of-the-party--with you self-serving, hypocritical losers. You all lacked courage and conviction...and expected THEM (the Repugs)....to RESPECT YOU for your weakness; That alone, professes your ridiculous insanity just as clearly as the predictable results did---and now, YOU can't stand...the new...agenda.

Doc Prodny figured it out about you and your kind, when he wrote below: "through two Ronnie Raygun, one George I, two Clinstone Rethug Lite "Centrist", and Two Traitor Bush Fascist Regimes - while people like YOU bent over backwards to the Right at every opportunity until this country resembles nothing so much as Nazi Germany in the late 1930s."

...and to this, I say, HELL YEAH! You are the cowards of THIS generation that sought compromise through appeasement--and now, hopefully,....WE...(WITH OR WITHOUT YOU)---along with Obama; and OUR NECESSARY SUPPORT AND INVOLVEMENT (which you NEVER seem to grasp)--we will right this ship and set it on its proper course. Just as soon as your kind figures it out that you'd better serve your own (moderate-Repug) interests, by expressing them over on their sites---where you all can reminisce about the "good ol' days" of accommodation and "Triangularist" thinking----there you might find a more appreciative ear.

And when this is accomplished---you want to know the funny thing about all this, Neva??......wimpy, pseudo-intellectual, Moderate, gutless-wonders like you------craving for co-opted compromise that will never come---at your high-brow dinner affairs, self-righteous group meetings and country-clubs will be the first of the "TRUE DEMOCRATS" about 5 to 8 years from now----who will swear---that you all knew all the time, that Obama would get the job done, (but not with YOUR assistance)...and thats why, with your revisionist thinking (isn't that all you people EVER do) .....you'll all be SO glad..................you "supported" him.

»

Wimpy pseudo-intellectual-Who me???

Submitted by Neva Stoltz on Sun, 04/13/2008 - 7:27am.
I like how you can judge others and call them your names of choice, whenever they state their opinion. It is people like you that have driven others away from the Democrats. The tactics of a good army is to divide the troops and you will eventually defeat the enemy. The Republicans didn't need to use that tactic in this election year. The Democrats did it to themselves! You are one of the dividers. You trash and burn anyone or anything that goes against your views. You and many like you are the reason loyal middle class voters are going away. The anger and twisted editorials against another candidate is a disgusting way to win, when it is one of your own. The Democratic Party can have people of your type, seems you fit it well. "THE NEW DEMOCRATS-FILLED WITH HATE AND RETRIBUTION FOR ANYONE OUTSIDE THEIR VIEWS"
»

What? Do you realize what

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 4:40pm.
What? Do you realize what you are saying? "People like my acquaintances and I, who ultimately don't vote Democratic, are why the Democratic Party is a loser party." Okay, but nevertheless we would welcome all your votes in November, should you change your non-partisan minds.
»

The Democratic Party

Submitted by Neva Stoltz on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 5:14pm.
Sorry but I have voted Democrat all my life even though I was not obligated to so. The choice was mine. I have also supported and donated money to the Democratic Party. This year it all changed! I have become an Independent and no longer feel that the Democratic Party is the way to save America. Being extreme right wing or being extreme left will not make America better. Nothing will change and it will remain as it is, until Americans get real. Obama may convince you that he is for change but he doesn't convince me. The so called no lobbyist money is bundled and if you think he won't have to pay the piper, then you are sadly mistaken. He is just another Bush that is promising anything and everything just to get the job. Not on my vote!
»

It's the LEFT that carried the Dimcracks on Our Bleeding Backs

Submitted by drprodny on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 3:27pm.
through two Ronnie Raygun, one George I, two Clinstone Rethug Lite "Centrist", and Two Traitor Bush Fascist Regimes - while people like YOU bent over backwards to the Right at every opportunity until this country resembles nothing so much as Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. "Go along to get along" Is Not Working for either Left or Center - so it's Past Time to try "Kick The Right's Asses, Kick 'em Hard - and When They Whine Call 'em 'Goddamn Mommas Boys' and Kick 'em Some MORE!"
»

The Left

Submitted by Neva Stoltz on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 5:20pm.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is no better than the extreme right wing. Get a life. Read up on how the presidency was stolen during the 2000 and 2004 elections. Did Kerry fight for the votes? No and he is a supporter of Obama and also a fellow scull and bones from Harvard, along with Bush. Pelosi and Reed are total failures. Do you really believe Obama is going to change one thing? He is belonging to the guys that are promoting him and he owes them and owes them a lot. He is just another politician that will do the same! He needs to answer questions instead of making speeches that sound good but puts everyone one off track, since they are so busy praising him!
»

Left wing in America? You are mistaken.

Submitted by DaveClearly on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 3:56pm.
There is no left wing in America. You can like NAFTA, Plan Columbia and other pro-corporate things that Clinton regime has done (now don't say that this is only about Hillary not bill when she runs on the basis of the "accomplishments" of Clinton the 1st). Opposition to the DLC and their candidates is not left wing. Left wing is "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "the workers should own the means of production". That is far away from what Edwards, Nader, and Obama stand for- they are the center. Read a book, inform yourself on political history and get over your girls club mentality. You will have a woman executive eventually in this country but not this one named Hillary. Dave
»

why does she get all these questions?

Submitted by tommyjonq on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 12:54pm.
because she's pretending to run for president, that's why. i understand hillary's pain, though. i'm also an embittered sore loser who doesn't know when to quit and whose biggest regret in life is marrying a national embarassment. she spent years eating a trainload of crap and cackling her way through one degrading episode after another just so she could run for president. she came within an eyelash of pulling it off. but now, she's not just losing this nomination race, she's not just blowing a lead of john kerry proportions, she's not just getting gethsemane'd at superbowl parties, but she and bill are flat out losing their entire monarchy over the party. and all because she counted her chickens before they hatched. in other words, she has no one to blame but herself. and for an embittered sore loser who doesn't know when to quit, that's the worst torture of all. she CAN'T quit. she and bill would lose everything. and the terrible, horrible, awful, disgusting truth is, there's at least a ten percent chance that something bad—a plane crash, a "lone gunman," a rancid philly cheesesteak sandwich—could happen to obama, and bingo! she could finally put her hands on all that money that raised and can't touch. unless she wins the nomination. see more at http://politiqs.tommyjonq.com
»

Since Super Tuesday

Submitted by Fnygy on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 12:47pm.
I've been making this basic argument since super tuesday. She blew it, plain and simple. Her big state/big donor strategy was Titanic to Obama's 50 state/smaller donor iceberg. It was her own poor judgment and lack of political instincts that proved her undoing, not the press' shoddy and uneven coverage. Having said that, I do believe that gender stereotypes are stronger than racial ones - if only because they cross all races and cultures. Most of us carry deeply felt gender biases whether we are aware of them or not. A woman candidate has burdens male candidates do not and it's not fair. But, it's life. And the first woman president, whoever she ends up being, will have to deal with it.
»

Hillary bashing

Submitted by Oldwoman on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 8:55am.
I am weary of every form of media telling us what to believe and presenting their various versions of events to make them fit their pre-formed opinions. Let the election process be what it is, rather than continually remaking it into what you think, feel, and want. All of you are truly tiresome.
»

Good Article

Submitted by tommy paine on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 9:35am.

Thanks P.M. for a good article. Logical, unemotional. I am sending it to some of my (male) friends. These are people whom I formerly thought were really intelligent, yet they insist on ignoring facts, and embracing memes: prefab opinions that portray any criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton or of her campaign, as personal attacks, which they insist can only be rooted in the hatred or fear of women. "She's really smart," they say. "She's wonderful in a one-on-one situation," they say. "Well that is great, but those aren't the only qualities we must seek in a President," I try to reply.

I feel that intelligence (or even better, wisdom) is the most important, but as P.M's article points out and documents with quotes, both management ability and good judgement are utterly essential qualities in a President, qualities which, unfortunately, Clinton's campaign has not exactly excelled in this year.

And to reply to "Oldwoman" with all due respect, I think this here *is* the place for many of us to voice what we think. Are we experts? Maybe not. . . But who can witness the state of affairs today, and not have interpretations, feelings and ideas of how things might be improved? Though it may be tiresome to you, I myself find it encouraging: encouraging that after all of our mistreatment at the hands of the current administration, there are many who still have the heart and energy to try to push things in the right direction. I just felt that calling us 'tiresome' was unfair and not kind at all.

And if you, Oldwoman, are referring to calls for Hillary to end her unwinnable campaign that may be sacrificing the Democratic Party's chances to win the Presidency in November, when you council us to 'let the election process be what it is," as you put it. . . you are certainly entitled to YOUR opinion, but mine is, that a view of the Bigger Picture (which as an Oldwoman, you no doubt see more clearly than most) would lead you to indeed call for her to drop out, rather than stand on ceremony, and risk a much greater loss for us all in November.

»

Hillary bashing

Submitted by Oldwoman on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 12:35pm.
This is Oldwoman. You misunderstand. All the comments are interesting and worthwhile, and it is good that we readers are given the opportunity to express our opinions. It is what I see and hear from the so-called professionals that annoys me, for their mouthings and writings for the most part seem to be leading both the process and the thoughts of the citizenry. I do not care to be carefully and purposefully manipulated in all facets of my life. As an old woman, I find I become more and more aware of how much we are led to not believe in ourselves but, rather, in what we are told to believe in. Hence the incessant calls to improve this and that, buy these and those, and take on another's new way of thinking-- all to supposedly deepen our happiness and fulfillment when, in fact, those come from within us. The din without drowns out the wisdom within. The reason behind the din is profit making, and only the wise catch on. Frequently that takes many years of living. Additionally, I was not pushing for or against Hillary or anyone else. I was urging less involvement in our elections by the press. They should report facts, not make them. And while there properly are many op-ed articles, they should be clearly labeled thus and taken as one person's opinion only. This is the crux of my argument: Op-ed pieces or a radio/TV talker's words are presented as truth and the majority take them as such, while ignoring their own inner thought processes. That makes for distorted results that can only in the end take us all down. So I'll do my own interpreting and suggest others do also.
»

Thanks for the Clarification

Submitted by tommy paine on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 4:17pm.
Now that I 'get' what you were saying, I can say I agree with you wholeheartedly, Oldwoman. The Corporate controlled Mainstream Media are making a cesspool of the election. As you rightly said, in their fiendish pursuit of ratings/advertising dollars and control of the collective electorate, the Media "din without drowns out (our) wisdom within."
»

Bashing and criticizing

Submitted by JohnHarris on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 7:53am.
There is a big difference between unbased bashing, name calling, and unfounded predictions and honest statements critical of a candidate. To call a candidate a female canine is not exactly enlightening, but to counter a demand that a person should be a Supreme Court Justice by saying that she was a poor law student and was unable to pass the DC bar exam is to give relevant information worth considering. To misquote a person ot take something out of context is not fair practice, but to quote them accurately when they make false statements is quite reasonable. We should know if our projected leaders are honest with us. To use a false statement by someone else is just as unfair as to create the lie oneself. But to ask if a staterment made by a person might show them to be delusional is certainly legitimate. If a person says repeaatedly that they were shot at when that did not happen, do you want such a person answering the red phone at 3 AM? I am sure that this comment will be labeled bashing by some. But I don't see that it is. Sometimes an unflattering portrait of someone does give us a true picture.
»

Something that gets me is

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 4:56pm.
Something that gets me is Wes Clark going out there and excusing Hillary Clinton's lying by saying there was still violence going on in Bosnia. Has anyone asked Wes the seemingly obvious question: If it were you who had lied about ducking and running, and that you therefore had not met with a little girl on the tarmac, would you want some supporter of yours to go out there and make lame excuses for your pathetic lie? Not that Wes Clark would get himself in this situation, but let him just suppose he had done so; wouldn't he hate having supporters lamely defend his continuation and ongoing augmentation of the lie.
»