the kitchen sink strategy

first, a bit of news to get out of the way: john mccain beat mike huckabee in all 4 states that voted today: vermont, ohio, texas, and rhode island, and now has enough delegates to win the republican nomination, officially. mike huckabee conceded the election and endorsed john mccain, and john mccain had a big victory speech. whoop-dee-doo! who cares? we already knew john mccain had this thing wrapped up weeks ago, after super tuesday.

anyway, let’s talk about the contest between hillary clinton and barack obama for the democratic nomination. barack obama has a significant lead in delegates as well as the popular vote among people who have voted so far, and he won 11 contests in a row, every primary or caucus held after super tuesday but before not-so-super tuesday (march 4). he has won more than twice as many states as her. and lately he has even been catching up among superdelegates, and has almost as many as her now. but tonight, she beat him in rhode island and ohio, and he beat her in vermont. nobody knows yet who won in texas, because of the convoluted system there, the “texas two-step” of a primary and then a caucus on the same day. how did she win? fearmongering: her campaign ad about what would happen if someone called the president at 3 a.m. with a crisis, and who would answer the phone. check out this parody of her ridiculous fearmongering ad, featuring msnbc host keith olbermann:



or here is another remix of that ad, showing real clips of her from the past that seem to contradict her message in this fearmongering ad:



barack obama swiftly responded to that ad with one of his own, but the damage had already been done, because negative attacks work. and she also won based on nafta: although hillary clinton was once a supporter of nafta, she managed to use bullshit, by producing a memo that supposedly proved that barack obama had told ohio voters he was opposed to nafta and would renegotiate it, while someone in the barack obama campaign had secretly met with someone in the canadian government and privately assured them that this was just empty rhetoric and that barack obama would not do anything to change nafta. but guess what? the memo was a lie! someone from the barack obama campaign did indeed meet with someone from the canadian government, and they did discuss nafta, but the obama representative told the canadian official the exact same thing that barack obama told the people of ohio about obama’s position on nafta. check out this video to see how the canadian parliament got the canadian prime minister to apologize to barack obama for participating in hillary clinton’s smear campaign:



so the leaders of both major political parties in canada agree that canada’s government inadvertently became involved in a smear campaign by hillary clinton against barack obama over the issue of nafta, over a false claim that barack obama said one thing to people in ohio but told another thing to the canadian government. now, maybe the people in the clinton campaign believed that memo was genuine, or maybe they forged the document themselves. either way, it is a lie.

and what about the issue of plagiarism? hillary clinton accused barack obama of plagiarizing lines from massachusetts governor duval patrick. well, for a response to that argument, look at this video to find out the truth:



and remember the “shame on you, barack obama” outburst by hillary clinton recently? during that outburst, she was full of lies. look at this video for proof that she was a complete liar, and also proving herself to be emotionally unbalanced or having multiple personality disorder:



and hillary clinton says that both she and john mccain are more experienced and more qualified to be president than barack obama, showing her complete disloyalty to the democratic party, and the following video also gives an example of how her experience has guided her decisions in the past:



and remember how someone in the hillary clinton campaign released a photo of barack obama dressed in traditional somali garb when he was visiting somalia, and had it posted on the drudge report? here is a video from fox news (i can’t believe i am actually showing a video from fox news, but apparently the other news networks may have been smart enough not to cover this bullshit from the hillary campaign):



and the chain email about barack obama being a muslim continues to circulate, and many people believe it to be true, and are voting for hillary clinton because they have been deceived. look at this (very different) video from fox news, back when this accusation of him being muslim first came out last year, and fox news totally bought into the idea of him being a muslim (or at least raised as a muslim), and also mentioned him doing cocaine:



and remember the attacks on barack obama by hillary clinton, about his association with the slumlord tony rezko, a big campaign contributor to many politicians (especially chicago democrats) who is now on trial for being a criminal? look at this video from the today show on nbc, where you hear a lot of doublespeak from hillary clinton and also see a picture of her with tony rezko along with her husband bill clinton:



and back in early january, remember the attack bill clinton made on obama, the whole “fairy tale” incident? bill clinton was actually talking about how it was a fairy tale that barack obama opposed the iraq war from the beginning and continues to oppose it. that is actually a lie, and bill clinton was mischaracterizing barack obama’s words from 2004, which were actually barack obama trying to justify john kerry’s position on iraq, because barack obama, as a loyal democrat, was trying to get john kerry elected president, and barack obama was defending john kerry, not george w. bush. but anyway, here is the bullshit from bill clinton back in january:



here is some more bill clinton, later in january, after barack obama won south carolina, where bill clinton compares barack obama to jesse jackson, trying to pigeonhole barack obama as “the black candidate” and stoke up racism among voters, so that white people will not vote for barack obama:



one last example of a patently dishonest attack: hillary clinton’s campaign in new hampshire convinced pro-choice activist groups to attack barack obama for not supporting a woman’s right to choose, claiming that he was not a reliable defender of the right to have an abortion and hillary clinton was. this was dishonest on 2 counts: firstly, barack obama has always been a staunch defender of abortion, and never wavered in this position, and he worked closely with abortion rights groups while a state senator in illinois to help win legislative victories for them. he even supports late-term abortion, and opposes requiring parental notification. secondly, hillary clinton has at times publicly wavered in her support for abortion, and a few years ago made some statements where she waffled on the issue and said she respected the position of religious-right zealots who want to eliminate abortion completely, and wanted to work together with them to help reduce the number of abortions in this country to be as close to zero as possible. so, on abortion: barack obama says “yes we can!” and hillary clinton says we that abortion should be done seldom if ever. and she accuses barack obama of being the one who wavers on the issue of abortion when really it is her? what a liar.

and so we have many, many instances of hillary clinton or surrogates such as her husband bill clinton making scurrilous and baseless attacks against an honorable and decent man, barack obama. they are basically throwing “everything but the kitchen sink” at obama and seeing what sticks. they do not care whether their attacks are truthful or not, only that they work, and get voters to vote for hillary clinton instead of barack obama. this is why hillary clinton is a divisive figure. it is because she actively tries to divide people and turn them against each other, inside the democratic party. bill clinton does it too. and so do other people in their campaign. hillary clinton cares more about winning the democratic nomination for herself than about having a democrat elected president in november, and she has shown that time and time again with her repeated nasty attacks on barack obama, attacks that john mccain and his supporters will be sure to repeat.

what makes barack obama any better than hillary clinton? well, for starters, he does not run a negative campaign based on fearmongering and lies and vicious rumors. his campaign is positive and he inspires people and gives great speeches. and tonight on national public radio’s “all things considered” news show, i heard some book reviews by people who had read the books written by barack obama, hillary clinton, and john mccain. they all thought barack obama’s books were the best, and that the first book by john mccain was also pretty good, but that hillary clinton’s books were boring and had nothing interesting in them, and were not written very well, and the 2nd book by hillary clinton, living history, was mostly focused on burnishing the legacy of the clintons, rather than actually opening up as a human being. and they also mentioned that all of john mccain’s books had been written by the same ghostwriter, who worked with john mccain to put his ideas into prose, whereas both barack obama and hillary clinton wrote their own books without any help from others. and that turned out to be a bad decision for hillary clinton, since both her books pretty much sucked, according to these professional book reviewers who had read all of the books by these 3 candidates.

so, okay, hillary clinton is nasty and divisive and does not care about the democrats winning in november unless she is the candidate, and she is not a gifted author, you say. but so what? maybe she would still be the best president. she is the most experienced, or so she claims, with her 35 years of experience. but “35 years of experience” is complete bullshit! it includes being first lady of the united states and first lady of arkansas, and sitting on the board of wal-mart, and having jobs outside the government, that were not elected office, not appointed office, not in the government at all! how many years of experience does she actually have in elected politics? seven. she was first elected to office in 2000 and took office in 2001 as a united states senator from new york. and i have watched her closely for those 7 years and been sorely disappointed, again and again, by her voting record. she voted in favor of the u.s.a. patriot act, in favor of invading iraq, in favor of using cluster bombs and land mines, and on many other issues she has voted the same way as conservative republicans, instead of voting the same way as a liberal/progressive democrat and true american hero, senator russ feingold of wisconsin, who has a far better voting record than any other senator. hillary clinton’s voting record closely matches the voting record of senator joe lieberman of connecticut, who was the 2nd most conservative democrat in the senate until zell miller left, and then he was the most conservative democrat in the senate, and then he got kicked out of the democratic party and became a member of the newly formed “connecticut for lieberman party”. many times, liberal bloggers have said she is just like joe lieberman except in a pantsuit, and i think there is a lot of truth to that; she is from the centrist, corporate wing of the party, the democratic leadership council wing of the party. contrast that with barack obama. according to the national journal, barack obama is the most liberal member of the senate. as a liberal, i think that is awesome! now i am not exactly sure the national journal is correct about its rankings, since either russ feingold or the self-proclaimed socialist from vermont, bernie sanders, would obviously be the most liberal, if the rankings were done in an even remotely sensible way. prior to the 2004 election, the national journal said that john kerry was the most liberal member of the senate, which seems odd for someone who voted for the iraq war, when russ feingold was in the senate at the time, googolplexes of times more liberal than john kerry. anyway, hillary clinton’s voting record is pretty lousy for a democrat, but republicans are glad to have people like her vote the same way they do on important issues. and what the fuck is up with the following video, where hillary clinton claims that based on her interpretation of the book of genesis, she has decided to become a white supremacist?



now ok, maybe her comments in the last video were taken out of context, but still... jeez. anyway, i would like to close with the now classic youtube video “vote different”, showing hillary clinton to be a 1984-style propagandist.



and the message at the end is clear. vote for barack obama. unless you want another candidate for the general election who flip-flopped on the war in iraq like john kerry. remember what happened to john kerry and why he lost. the same thing will happen to hillary clinton if she is the nominee. and you know what is funny? who is doing the swift-boating now? hillary clinton is swift-boating barack obama, right out of the karl rove-style mark penn playbook. she is trying to destroy barack obama politically, so that if he does end up as the nominee, he will be so damaged by all of her relentless negative attacks that republican john mccain will be able to win just by replaying the attacks hillary clinton used against barack obama. that is how michael dukakis lost to george bush sr. in 1998. bush senior just replayed the same attacks against dukakis that had been used against him in the democratic primary: the case of willie horton. bill and hillary clinton are part of the self-destructive wing of the democratic party, the wing that either wants everything for themselves or else wants to help the other party win. they do not care that barack obama will very likely be the democratic nominee and that any attacks they do against him will help john mccain win. so, in a sense, the clintons are john mccain’s ultimate weapon to defeat barack obama in the general election. the clintons are basically traitors to the party, like joe lieberman and zell miller. they may pretend to be loyal democrats, but after all that the clintons have said and done in this election, why the hell would anyone trust them? i have no problem attacking the clintons now, because i am confident they will lose. barack obama is way ahead in delegates, and texas and ohio will not change that very much, nor will any future primaries or caucuses. it’s over, both for the clintons, and for the quixotic campaign of mike huckabee. too bad the clintons refuse to admit it is over, and will continue to trash barack obama harder and harder, and do everything they can to ruin the democratic party’s chances of winning back the white house. these pyrrhic victories for hillary clinton in the march 4 primaries will not get her many delegates, and barack obama will remain way ahead in delegates, all the way until he is nominated. and then, i assume the clintons will openly campaign for john mccain, since they have already said he is more experienced and qualified than barack obama. i am sure the republican party will be happy to welcome the clintons onboard as its newest high-profile members. because how on earth could they remain democrats and support barack obama, after all the bad things they have said about him? that would make no sense whatsoever. but then again, hardly anything the clintons do makes any sense.

oh, and one last thing: fuck saturday night live. seriously. i am so pissed, i would rather watch mad tv on fox than watch saturday night live on nbc, after what they just did. saturday night live recently did 2 parodies of the 2 most recent debates between hillary clinton and barack obama, and both sketches were completely biased in favor of hillary clinton and against barack obama. and tina fey and amy poehler both offered their support to hillary clinton. hillary clinton even came on the show after the 2nd debate parody, alongside amy poehler, and they had some girl talk about what a great impression amy poehler does, and how wonderfully hillary clinton’s campaign is doing. and on weekend update, tina fey said, in support of hillary clinton, “bitch is the new black”, basically saying that bitches are awesome, bitches get shit done, we need a bitch in the white house as president. and on monday, the day before the 4 states voted, hillary clinton came on the daily show with john stewart, and half of the show was devoted to an interview of her, where jon stewart just lobbed her softball questions the whole time. hillary clinton is trying to win the votes of young people who watch comedy shows. as a young person who watches comedy shows, i refuse to go along with what my comedy overlords command me to do through their political humor and parodies! i will not obey the dictates of stephen colbert, no matter how much i would love to be a part of “the colbert bump”! stephen colbert made mike huckabee, and mike huckabee promised to make stephen colbert vice president if he got to be president, thanks to the colbert bump. now mike huckabee is out of the race, all thanks to conan o’brien at nbc, whose late night comedy show claimed to have made stephen colbert, and jon stewart, who claimed to have created conan o’brien. the 3 late-night hosts ended up settling their dispute over which one of them created mike huckabee through good old-fashioned violence, and what happened? mike huckabee lost the nomination to john mccain, thanks to those jackasses. enough of this madness! i blame it all on the comedy writers, for going on strike, and then recently coming back to work all disgruntled and full of venom towards a news media they considered to be biased in favor of barack obama. i hope the news media gets back at these comedy writers, by doing news reports on how they are losers and still live with their parents and have never had any girlfriends and are stuck in dead-end jobs. oh wait, that’s me. whoops.