8,500 words in The New Yorker… [UPDATED: Delaware Dem's Deleted Drunk Diary] 2 March 2008Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, Big Box Blogs, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.
Reuters / UK Telegraph
Yesssssssssssss, I picked the photo for the everlasting godamned lecturing political finger. I am so tired of that finger. No matter the color. Bill excelled at the Lecturing Political Finger. He never brought it down… and I do mean a digit attached to his palm, as in, a FINGER.
Anyhoo, The New Yorker has a longish piece on Michelle O. I am half way thru it, and I must say it is clunky writing. I don’t know the writer, Lauren Collins…. so no way of knowing if s/he is reluctant on the subject or a boring writer. It seems written for the suburban market, esp page 6. Gah.
UPDATED, 2:53 pm
Well I had been hunting for a graph or two or three that stuck out… most sites linking to the article are landing on a dumb (and I do mean dumb) passage of MO’s brother being derisive of Hillary welling up… O bore to me death why don’t you!?? Jesse Jackson jr was already there, give it up!
But here it is… for me anyway… Can she not hear herself? Saying to gays what has been said to blacks… to Obama even, about this very run…
Pox on all their glass houses.
Last month, I attended an Ash Wednesday service at the church. When it was over, I approached Wright and asked him to tell me about Michelle Obama. “She’s from the ’hood,” he said. Within seconds, a minder rushed over to say that I was forbidden to conduct any interviews on the premises.
“We don’t want our church to receive the brunt of this notoriety,” Obama told me. I asked her whether Wright’s statements presented a problem for her or for Barack. “You know, your pastor is like your grandfather, right?” she said. “There are plenty of things he says that I don’t agree with, that Barack doesn’t agree with.” When it comes to absolute doctrinal adherence, she said, “I don’t know that there would be a church in this country that I would be involved in. So, you know, you make choices, and you sort of—you can’t disown yourself from your family because they’ve got things wrong. You try to be a part of expanding the conversation.” (She made a similar argument when I asked if she agreed with her husband in opposing gay marriage. “It’s like you gotta do the baby steps. . . . You don’t start with the hardest, toughest issues when you’re trying to unite a group”
Now you just wait, honeychile, for your turn. Mind momma (pappa, pastor, priest, policeman, teacher, babysitter) and wait patiently. Others know best. Mind your manners, prove to momma you deserve rights and responsibilities… here, have some pudding. And you can stay up a little longer tonight, if you are good.
UPDATED, 3:01 pm Monday…
A kind former commenter at Dkos forwarded me Delaware Dem’s latest quick delete, latest diarying while drunk as a Catholic skunk… with an added note that comments were disappearing as they were posted, so someone was hitting delete all the way.
by Delaware Dem [Subscribe]
Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:23:01 PM CST
You all know how disgusted I have been with her campaign and its tactics. All the while, most of us who oppose Clinton and support Obama have not treated her as her supporters and her campaign itself treats Obama. Hillary, her campaign and her supporters and surrogates have frequently used every smear and potential Republican attack against Obama during this campaign.
- Delaware Dem’s diary :: ::
Indeed, as her campaign stated today, it is ok to raise these issues because the voters need to know what the Republicans are going to throw at Obama in the fall.
Interesting, that point. For we, all throughout this primary season, have choosen not to discuss what the Republicans are going to throw at Hillary in the fall. We have not discussed the volumes of scandals we all endured during the 1990’s. We all know the Obama campaign has not and most likely will not discuss what the Republicans are going to throw at Clinton in the fall. It would be contrary to the new politics approach they are talking.
But if Hillary selfishly decides to continue tearing the party apart for her own vain purposes, and if she decides to make Barack Obama damaged goods in the fall, then the least I can do is return the favor.
We all know the scandals.
We all know the charges.
We all know some of charges leveled against Bill Hillary Clinton were not true. We know that in most cases Bill Hillary Clinton have been vindicated of any wrongdoing.
That matters not.
Truth is not a concern in this game.
Hillary Clinton cares not about the truth of any of the smears her campaign has advanced in recent weeks. Her campaign is just throwing mud, hoping it sticks. Indeed, if Hillary Clinton cared about truth, she would have emphatically answered “No, Obama is a Christian,” last night without offering any tortured qualifications, used no doubt in the hope that ambiguity would feed the smear. Hillary knew that her qualified answer (“I have no basis…;” “I take him at word”) would leave doubt in the minds of many as to whether she believed the smear or not.
Therefore, truth is not a factor. All that counts is how much mud we can throw at any other.
In the Clinton’s past, there is plenty of mud. Mud we know the Republicans will use against her in the fall.
Therefore, using Hillary’s own rationale, is it not wise to use against her now what the Republicans will use against her in the fall?
I don’t care about the propriety of this. If Hillary Clinton is hell bent on doing anything she can to ruin Obama as a candidate in the fall, then so should we.
Read it and LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH.
And try try try to remember, I don’t support Hillary EITHER. Both are a bad bet, the Republicans lie in wait for BOTH.
[the diary was loaded with messy html (likely the result of drunken vomitus) that was screwing up spacing, I tried to clean it up]