January 13, 2008

"I haven’t paid much attention to [the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'] for about 10 years."

Said Hillary Clinton, today on "Meet the Press." Well, does it exist? " I really don’t have any idea. ... I’m just too busy to worry about that.”

ADDED: Here is the transcript of the show. There's plenty in it to chew over. Let me highlight the last question, which has emotional impact — I think — even though she absolutely walls us out of her private world:
MR. RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin said, "What's the biggest public adversity a person has ever faced?" What's yours?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think we all know that, we lived through it, didn't we, and it's something that was very painful and very hurtful.

MR. RUSSERT: What did you learn from it?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, first of all, it is who I am as a person. I believe that you have to withstand whatever problems come your way. You have to make the decisions that are best for you. You're going to get a lot of advice coming from many different quarters to do things that don't feel right to you, that don't reflect who you are and what your values are. So you have to be grounded in who you are and what you believe. And you're not always going to make the right decisions, but you have to be guided by what you think is important, and that's what I've done.
She couldn't say "I have always deeply loved my husband" or "I believe marriage is 'til death do us part."

IN THE COMMENTS: Reader_Iam says:
She couldn't say "I have always deeply loved my husband" or "I believe marriage is 'til death do us part."

I don't think she should have to.

The former is none of our business, and as for the latter--well, so far her choices are demonstrating what she believes with regard to her own marriage; of course, only time will tell if that turns out to be the case in the long run. As is, of course, true of all marriages.
I don't think she owes us that look into her private feelings. I'm just saying she's the kind of person who chooses not to see that question as an opportunity to show warmth and intimacy or to pontificate about family values. It wasn't meant as a criticism.
What did you learn from it?

Frankly, I have to hand it to Hillary, because I'm not sure I could have bitten back my gut response to that question, which is, "Oh, f*** you."
That would have been one of the all-time great TV moments. #1 on some VH-1 "100 most outrageous TV moments" list. It'd be better than this:

89 comments:

rhhardin said...

On the King remarks, a controversy blew up after Clinton told Fox News: “Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.”

Some liberal critics have charged in blogs and interviews that the comments diminished King’s contribution.


If you listen to King's speech, the uplifting part is that _blacks_ will move beyond racism.

That somehow gets left out of the modern recounting.

He's the prophet of the opposite today.

Old Dad said...

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, I'll sell you.

Jason said...

I just want to focus on my salad.

Robert said...

She's running for President. She has to take responsibility for the things she has said in the past, and not try to hide behind "oh, I'm too busy with new things to worry about the old incendiary charges I threw around".

The vast right-wing conspiracy turned out to be telling the truth. She and her husband turned out to be lying. She needs to be held to account for that.

Meade said...

She probably is right about claiming that the Obama campaign is "deliberately distorting" what she said about LBJ, MLK, Jr., and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I mean, who but a Clinton would better be able to detect deliberate distortion of the truth.

SteveR said...

Her answer requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

vnjagvet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vnjagvet said...

Her performance this morning was professional, but lacked the warmth she is said to want to project.

I had a pretty strong impression that her "explanations" for the past week's gaffes had been scripted (i.e., either rehearsed or at least blocked out beforehand) and that she was not about to let Russert get her off message and wasn't shy about letting him know that.

But her explanations, while not as blatanty evasive as parsing what "is" means, were highly technical. I suspect they were not persuasive to anyone but committed Hillary! supporters.

The Drill SGT said...

I think Tim let her walk on him. She talked about her experience and wanting an "more open and transparent government". He changed the subject to the VRWC as I recall. I would have taken her open and transparent remark and asked her to release her papers from her first 8 years in the White House rather than in 12 more years.

titushoots said...

I am not a big fan of hers but I thought she was quite good today on MTP

titushoots said...

I have been referred to as a pig, anti-gay, bigot, and other awful things on this site.

If I had some feelings I might be hurt.

Blake said...

Meade,

Ah but how do you know when they've actually detected a distortion versus when they're just saying they did! Ha ha!

Blake said...

By the way, any word as to whether Monica was a Manchurian Pepperpot?

peter hoh said...

Well of course she hasn't been paying attention to the VRWC, she's been too busy looking for her voice.

reader_iam said...

See! If you ignore something, it DOES go away!

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Reader: I hear that approach works for husbands and waistlines, too.

George said...

For the dirt, go to Hillaryis44.com

Very interesting...

AJ Lynch said...

Manchurian pepperpot... good one Blake but Monica was more like a Manchurian side of beef.

Anyone else notice that Hillary was constantly glancing down? I assume to check off her standard talking points. I guess she was playing reverse Bingo.

Meade said...

Blake, dammit, are you deliberately making my brain hurt?

If Russert had been on the ball, he would have asked Hillary, if LBJ was such a hero to the civil rights cause in 1964, why did she then support Barry Goldwater (who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

Blake said...

Meh. Tagging someone for something they believed over 40 years ago seems -- well, it's like digging up a kindergarten essay entitled "I Want To Be President".

Meade said...

Maybe, but Hillary was no kindergartner in 1964.

Tim said...

It would be a tremendous favor for the Republic if the Democrats could nominate anyone but Hillary! so that this long running national nightmare of a Arkansas roadhouse soap opera could just go away, once and for all.

Mortimer Brezny said...

I suspect they were not persuasive to anyone but committed Hillary! supporters.

Agreed. No warmth, almost all negative attacks, and a focus on accusations of bad things she's done.

On Fox News Sunday, the debate question was: "Are the Clintons playing the race card against Barack Obama?" Of the four person panel, two seemed sincerely to agree.

reader_iam said...

She couldn't say "I have always deeply loved my husband" or "I believe marriage is 'til death do us part."

I don't think she should have to.

The former is none of our business, and as for the latter--well, so far her choices are demonstrating what she believes with regard to her own marriage; of course, only time will tell if that turns out to be the case in the long run. As is, of course, true of all marriages.

Chip Ahoy said...

As presented here, her answers to the emotional impacty question seems perfectly reasonable to me.

... adversity a person has ever faced?" What's yours?

(Oh, bite me) Well, I think we all know that, we lived through it, didn't we, and it's something that was very painful and very hurtful.

[fantastic answer.]

What did you learn from it?

(for crying out loud. what next -- what kind of tree am I?) Well, you know, first of all, it is who I am as a person. I believe that you have to withstand whatever problems come your way. You have to make the decisions that are best for you. You're going to get a lot of advice coming from many different quarters to do things that don't feel right to you, that don't reflect who you are and what your values are. So you have to be grounded in who you are and what you believe ...

[very presidential, all that, when you sense her impulse to push his wheelchair into the orchestra pit which suddenly appeared for that purpose, for dragging out that line of questioning once again. but perhaps i'm projecting. ]

AJ Lynch said...

What would be the right tact to take if you were running against Obama?

Not the race card but the "inexperience card" and the "bad judgment card" re his real estate deal and perhaps the "prototypical deal-cutting Chicago pol" card or the "there is nothing there" card ?

What else is there to grab onto?

Verso said...

I know this thread is about Hillary's famous reference to the VRWC, so this is a bit off topic. But I'm watching Meet the Press right now, and I am amazed that apparently she is not allowed to make ANY criticism at all of Barack Obama. Tim asks her "are you saying Obama is not ready to be president" as if it would be a scandal if she said "yes." And it probably would be a scandal. This is a remarkable double standard. Obama can attack her, and all the Republicans are attacking one another. But apparently Hillary cannot attack Obama.

I'm not referring to the drug deal or Muslim allegations; those are clearly over the line. But just routine contrasts are treated like a massive scandal. It's just weird.

reader_iam said...

I mean, I and my husband, for example, can say that we believe "marriage is 'til death do us part" until the cows come home, but in the end, the proof will come only when either my husband or I die, while still married to each other.

reader_iam said...

What did you learn from it?

Frankly, I have to hand it to Hillary, because I'm not sure I could have bitten back my gut response to that question, which is, "Oh, f*** you."

Meade said...

reader_i am, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that if, while waiting for the cows to come home, you found out your husband had been serially hitting on subordinates in his workplace, there would be a pause in your popular and highly enjoyed blog-commenting while you spent a little time and money consulting with a divorce attorney. True?

Middle Class Guy said...

Typical Clinton. She never answered the question.

Middle Class Guy said...

"If Russert had been on the ball"

Oh, Rusert was on the ball. It has been reproted that if you push Hillary or try to corner her, the Clinton campaign will cut off your access to them and Hillary.

Rusert was doing what he was told. He does not want to be responsible for the network not having access to their Queen.

Verso said...

The vast right-wing conspiracy turned out to be telling the truth. She and her husband turned out to be lying.

The word conspiracy was a bit inapt, but she was basically correct. There was a relentless campaign to destroy Hillary and her husband that started before they even got to the White House. We could argue about whether the word "conspiracy" is an accurate characterization of the Arkansas Project, et al.

I am not a big fan of hers but I thought she was quite good today on MTP

I agree. She is not my first choice for president, but she is incredibly impressive.

Monica was more like a Manchurian side of beef.

Nice. Pity for Monica that you didn't find her sexually appealing, and therefore it's OK for you to attack her appearance.

I had a pretty strong impression that her "explanations" for the past week's gaffes had been scripted

I would call that "being prepared." She'd be foolish not to be prepared. All candidates make preparations to answer the questions they anticipate. Why wouldn't they?

she was not about to let Russert get her off message and wasn't shy about letting him know that.

All politicians do this. And how can you criticize it? She's running for president.

Anyone else notice that Hillary was constantly glancing down? I assume to check off her standard talking points.

Oh come on. She was not constantly looking down, and was obviously not referring to notes. It's amazing how people can fault her even for the scandal of having notes (which in this case, it appears to me she did not).

If Russert had been on the ball, he would have asked Hillary, if LBJ was such a hero to the civil rights cause in 1964, why did she then support Barry Goldwater (who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

A 43 year old gotcha going back to when she was 17 years old? Good Lord.

Hillary was no kindergartner in 1964

What she thought of Goldwater when she was 17 is of no importance. I can't imagine why you'd have wanted to see the subject raised.

Meade said...

Verso, It was Hillary herself who played the LBJ card. She is the one who brought up what you refer to as a 43 year-old gotcha. Secondly, many of us baby boomers became politicized during our teens. Hillary is no exception. (from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia: Raised in a politically conservative household,[11] at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon,[12] and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[13] Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, like her father a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.)

She's running for president. It's legitimate for us to want to know how her political philosophy has developed. In the interview, she claims, at least twice, that she has worked for civil rights "her entire life." My question would be an opportunity for her to enlighten us about her entire record.

Ann Althouse said...

She was for Goldwater in 1964 because it was entirely natural for her to take on the political opinions of her family. This is before much of Vietnam had taken place. I was for Goldwater in 1964 too (at age 13).

rhhardin said...

Maybe young Hillary heard this

Verso said...

I, too, was a Republican when I was a teenager. My big brother (six years older than me), who I admired greatly, was a big Ronald Reagan fan and his enthusiasm rubbed off on me. From the time I was 12 or 13 until I was 19, I identified as a conservative Republican.

vnjagvet said...

Verso:

I was not criticizing her preparation. I was pointing out that she came across to me as somewhat less spontaneous and warm as her campaign managers might have wished.

Of course a presidential candidate must be well prepared for public appearances. But, as it has been said, if you can fake sincerety, you've got it made. Bill was a pro at that. Hillary is a rank amateur when compared with him, and compared with Senator Obama.

That might prove to be a problem to those that are not wholly devoted to her candidacy.

You understant, Verso, that pointing out strengths and weaknesses is what objective people do when making electoral decisions, don't you?

George said...

She is tightly wrapped.

She knows Russert's upscale viewers are not interested a soap opera answer to the last question. So she answers the question the way a corporate atty or CEO would.

Answers like "I have always deeply loved my husband" or "I believe marriage is 'til death do us part" work for the Myrtle Beach News at 5....

Meade said...

It isn't like Barry Goldwater was a racist and I don't remember anyone at the time supporting him because they thought he was. He saw it as primarily the state's duty rather than the federal government's to protect all citizens' civil rights, as demonstrated by his record as an Arizona politician.

reader_iam said...

because it was entirely natural for her to take on the political opinions of her family

LOL. Well, that explains reader_iam's problem! Too damn many political opinions within the same family unit...and her mother simply would not buy into the "if you vote differently from your husband you're canceling each other out" argument.

***

Speaking of LOL, I am oh, so, VERY glad that, one one of the rare occasions I committed the f-word to print, I at least did not spell it all the way out!

Heh! ; )

reader_iam said...

Classic example: in 1980, the three members of my immediate family who were eligible to vote all cast their ballots for different presidential candidates. Jeez. What a mess.

Not sure I ever thought it about this way before.

AJ Lynch said...

Verso:

suggest you watch it again and then tell me she was not looking down to her right almost avery 10 seconds or so.

It's my observation; I am not accusing her of a crime.

Verso said...

I was not criticizing her preparation. I was pointing out that she came across to me as somewhat less spontaneous and warm as her campaign managers might have wished.

OK, it's a fair point that her managers may have wanted her to be more spontaneous and "warm," though these qualities rank fairly low on my list of qualifications. But you did sound critical, to my ear, when you said, "I had a pretty strong impression that her 'explanations' for the past week's gaffes had been scripted ... and that she was not about to let Russert get her off message and wasn't shy about letting him know that."

There is nothing wrong with being scripted or trying to stay on message. All politicians do it.

Also: I don't really find her so "cold" and unspontaneous. I think she's fine. I personally can't understand why there is so much hostility for Hillary, but I guess it probably has something to do with the years of relentless bashing from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. We all talk about "derangement syndromes" as they apply to various personalities, but the Clintons were the subject of the original and most pathological examples of derangement syndrome.

Verso said...

AJ Lynch:
I was watching it while commenting here, and as soon as I read your comment, I rewound the video and started watching again. I did not see anything that looked like she was looking at notes. I saw her lower her gaze to a few degress below the level of horizon, but not low enough to see notes directly in front of her. There were no pauses in her speaking. Hillary has been repeating these points on the campaign trail for months and months; she has them memorized, she probably hears herself repeating them in her sleep. She begins speaking them at her first interview at 7:00 am and probably recites them at least 20 times a day.

Ralph said...

you found out your husband had been serially hitting on subordinates in his workplace

But she'd known about that for years and even had it thrown in her face publicly more than once. Perhaps she thinks she's French and not a feminist lawyer.

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said...
"She was for Goldwater in 1964 because it was entirely natural for her to take on the political opinions of her family. This is before much of Vietnam had taken place. I was for Goldwater in 1964 too (at age 13)."

Looking back, do you think Goldwater was sincerely opposed to the Civil Rights Act for the reasons he gave, or do you think he was actually opposed to its substantive aims?

Meade said...
"'at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon....'"

Meade, that's ridiculous. We all know there is no vote fraud.

Simon said...

I'd add that it's not uncommon for people to change their early political views as they get older. Robert Bork and I were both socialists until well after we were old enough to know better (the attraction wore off for both of us in college). I've always found appealing something Jon Chait said on BHTV about McCain: "Everyone's allowed one genuine intellectual conversion experience [in life], but after that number goes above one, people start assuming the person's either crazy or extremely politically expedient."

Middle Class Guy said...

Meade said...
"'at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon....'"

Is there any documentation of this, a way to verify it, and method to fact check it or investigate it. Google and Wiki are not valid research and fact checking methods. I live in Chicago and have my whole life. Hillary was a suburbanite. White suburban teenagers did not canvas the Southside of the city looking for vote fraud. It did not happen. White adults did not canvas the Southside of the city. The Southside of the city was a very dangerous place up until a few years ago- gentrification- and white parents would not allow Hillary to just go willy nilly in the belly of the beast. It was 1964.

Verso said:
I personally can't understand why there is so much hostility for Hillary

Could it be she is secretive, dishonest, and refuses to give us specifics about what exactly she has accomplished in her so called thirty five years of public service? Could it be that she never directly answers a question? Could it be that she is just not very likable? Or could it be that people do not want a repeat of the Clinton years?

Meade said...

"We all know there is no vote fraud."

Simon, it said South Side Chicago. I'm thinking, you know, if you go far enough to the south side of Chicago, you find yourself in...

Indiana.

Middle Class Guy said...

As to the vast right wing conspiracy;

Why is it that people on the right who claim there are conspiracies are considered lunatics and progressives who claim conspiracies are embraced, enabled, and believed?

Middle Class Guy said...

Robert said...
She's running for President. She has to take responsibility for the things she has said in the past, and not try to hide behind "oh, I'm too busy with new things to worry about the old incendiary charges I threw around".

Wrong! She is Hillary Clinton. She does not have to take respnsibility for anything she says or claims she has done in the past. She can hide behind anything she wants. She has been doing it for thirty five years.

Simon said...

Meade - LOL, good point.

Trooper York said...

Laura Norman knew that she would win the Masters this year. Although Tiger Woods was the heavy favorite, she had learned so much by the being the wife of a great golfer that she had to win the tournament. So what if Greg had started screwing Chris Evert and had publicly humiliated her. It would just mean that the judges would sympathize with her even more. Maybe she could cry on camera. After all the score doesn’t really matter. She would win because she was entitled. All the announcers said so. Except for that racist Bryant Gumbel.

George said...

Hillary and Ruth Buzzi: Separated at Birth?

reader_iam said...

Meade, I just noticed your 3:18 comment (lol):

Technically speaking, because my husband is a telecommuter, the only one around to hit on--serially or otherwise--is me, and, as you can imagine, it's in his best interests to keep any thoughts of my being "subordinate" to himself.

; )

Verso said...

Middle Class Guy did inquire: Why is it that people on the right who claim there are conspiracies are considered lunatics...?

You must have some specific examples in mind. Care to share?

Which conspiracies are getting the short shrift? And which conspiracies are "embraced, enabled and believed"? (Besides the VRWC.)

Trooper York said...

Laura Norman knew that the only way she could beat Tiger Woods was if she rattled him. So she started passing rumors to her friends in the media. Especially the female reporters. So she told them Tiger’s middle name was Sirhan Sirhan. She let it slip that he had drawn and colored naked pictures of white girls when he was in kindergarten. She even had her estranged husband Greg call him a fairy. But she couldn’t put a dent in his popularity. So the Masters would be decided by talent and performance. A scary thought.

former law student said...

Russert should have asked: "If your husband doesn't respect you enough not to screw young women under the same roof, why should we or anyone else take you seriously?

althouse too said...

It is only a conspiracy when done surreptitiously. All questions about the Clintons were quite public. People were just following the slime trail and it kept leading back to them.

althouse too said...

The Civil Rights Act was passed on the strength of Republican votes. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it in each house. Democrats in each house attempted to procedurally block it. Since that day it was signed into law, not one democratic presidential candidate has carried a southern state.

Middle Class Guy said...

Trooper York,
Are you saying what I think you are saying?

It was a VLPGA conspiracy?

Simon said...

former law student said...
"Russert should have asked: 'If your husband doesn't respect you enough not to screw young women under the same roof, why should we or anyone else take you seriously?'"

Blaming the victim is pretty contemptible.

Meade said...

"Since that day it was signed into law, not one democratic presidential candidate has carried a southern state."

Except for Virginia, Jimmy Carter swept the South in 1976.

Meade said...

Hillary: Sister Soldya

reader_iam said...

Hey, Meade, glad to see you back here--because I did, finally, a few hours ago, upthread, respond to your 3:18 comment, having missed it earlier.

; )

Meade said...

Ha! Good one, reader.
Lucky guy, that husband of yours, to have such a fun and funny boss - uh, I mean, co-worker.

hdhouse said...

althouse too said...
The Civil Rights Act was passed on the strength of Republican votes. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it in each house."

That is, in a nutshell - and I might add, nutshell being quite appropos - the reason that the right wing goons will be further swept from office this year. You say incredibly stupid things and you believe them.

I suppose you never heard of Dixiecrats right? and those southern senators and representatives who jumped from the democratic party because of this and became - drum roll please - republicans! wow.

then we have middleclass guy who says dumb things generally and george with his hillary44 sites...ohmygod people. give it up. you sound like morons. at the very least realize that your band of candidates look so trite and foolish next to her and obama and edwards as to be laughable.

rossi said...

Lots of studies have been done on what part of the brain one is accessing when they are looking down vs. looking up. And many people use it to analyze whether someone is being truthful in what they are saying.

I found her answers very impressive, however, and I think she did a fine job today beating off the accusations, fair or not.

I'm not voting for HRC, but I'm willing to be open to saying when someone I don't agree with performed. It's much more adult and objective than, say, hdhouse's trashing of anyone who dare challenge Clinton.

Sadly, that's been her campaign and the Hillaristas modus operandi for months now. It's all too familiar.

andthenblammo! said...

althouse too said:

A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it in each house

hdhouse said:

You say incredibly stupid things and you believe them.

wikipedia said:

Breakdown of 1964 Civil Rights act voting by party:

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

Ooopsie.

Middle Class Guy said...

hdhouse said:
then we have middleclass guy who says dumb things generally and george with his hillary44 sites...ohmygod people. give it up. you sound like morons. at the very least realize that your band of candidates look so trite and foolish next to her and obama and edwards as to be laughable.

11:10 PM

Dear Mr. Stupid Putz,
Who do you think you are? Do you really think that you are the only over educated intellectual idiot who trolls this site? Who are you to say anyone says dumb things generally? Who are you to state that others opinions are trite? I at least never signed my name on a comment as Stupid Putz- no it did not go over my head. I had a real education- versus one steeped in self esteem- and learned how and where to properly to sign things; right where you did. You are Mr. Stupid Putz.

There is a problem with people like you. When you cannot participate in an intelligent, logical argument, you resort to the locker room mentality of teenage boys, just like Kriminal Kos, MyDD, and Democratic Underground; vulgar, obscene, profane, insulting and low. Your method of intelligent argument is to demean and humiliate people to cover for your lack of intelligence and your inability to think critically. You are a Mensa moron. You lack ideas and intelligence. You equate intellectual capacity with your penis size. You suffer from LDS, the reason for your crepuscular thinking.

I warned you before. I asked nicely. Please do not insult me. Now, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Mr. Putz, you have unleashed something you will regret and all hell will follow. Prepare yourself. Steal yourself. Arm yourself. All of you teenage cretins are alike. You insult but cannot accept it; that is what PC is all about. Oh, and as far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred anymore. I will call a spade a spade- if you get my drift. I care not for your sensitive feelings, your past, or the history of your pathetic family and ancestors.

You, sir, are living proof that we should legalize post natal abortion. I care not for you. As of now, you are like dog excrement. You will be stepped on, scraped off, and blown in the wind.

When I get through with you, you will stoop so low, you will beg tituslut for sex. I hope he turns you down in the most humiliating and demeaning manner possible.

If Ann Althouse blocks me, it will be well worth it.

You, sir, are a sniveling coward, a cad, a scallywag, and a rapscallion. You are a charlatan and a fraud. I will spend all my time proving it to the world.

This is war. I am a firm believer that war is all out, no holds barred, inhumane, and pure unadulterated hell.

Have a nice day, Mr. Putz.

PVB

M. Simon said...

Gee hd,

Why were the Dixiecrats so comfortable with the Dems for a century? Could it be that the Dems wanted to give up the Civil War before it was won?

Why were blacks Republicans for such a long time? Could it have been because of Massa Abraham?

And where are blacks now?

They are the Uniters.

reader_iam said...

I just want to state, for the record, that I am decidedly under-educated (formally speaking). Really and truly.

I've been feeling guilty about not confessing that much earlier.

What a relief!

reader_iam said...

And yet--fancy this! a true conundrum!--I am, yet again, in the midst of doing some editing work in connection with the serious work of serious scholars & etc. What an abomination. How can that be so? I mean, isn't that even more shocking than the idea that people with advanced degrees aren't inherently stupid, venal, subversive and contemptible (which latter idea I embrace, despite my utter lack of starry eyes)?

Sheesh. More and more I think that what we need is a universal issuing of knee-braces--you know, to help control those uncontrollable jerks.

reader_iam said...

Oh, by the way, I "lied":

I don't feel guilty.

M. Simon said...

Simon (almost like talking to myself),

I remember Chicago 1960. I was listening to WLS on my radio in Omaha.

I remember ballot boxes getting lost when it looked like JFK might lose. And them miraculously they were found.

The Kennedy's owned Chicago then.

rhhardin said...

Are you saying what I think you are saying?

It was a VLPGA conspiracy?


Caller to Limbaugh recently observes that there's no senior LPGA tour.

Another recent caller reports his response to a news bunny on the street asking about the tough economic times ; you'll know times are tough when women stop buying cosmetics.

Two good calls in one week. Usually they're just for Limbaugh to bounce off of.

hdhouse said...

M. Simon said...
"I remember Chicago 1960. I was listening to WLS on my radio in Omaha. I remember ballot boxes getting lost when it looked like JFK might lose. And them miraculously they were found.The Kennedy's owned Chicago then."

...and Nixon not asking for the recount because he knew the stuff the GOP pulled in downstate was of an equal.

smitty1e said...

WRT 'vast right-wing conspiracy', I have the following question:
at what level of vastness does 'conspiracy'=='popular opinion'?
I respect the lady's intellect, and I daresay she'd do well if elected, but I simply disagree categorically with her ideas. Socialism is the antithesis of what the US Constitution is about.
So, am I then a 'conspirator'?

Middle Class Guy said...

hdlouse,
Were you born with a mental hadicap or were you dropped on your head as a child. Your all consuming hatred for all things Republican- past and present- blinds you to historical fact.

Both Republicans and your beloved Democrats have used various frauds since the implementation of this ridiculous two party system. it is called politics. It is only bad when one gets caught.

Jack Kennedy and his amoral father never got caught, until later and then it was too late. Your beloved Saint JFK, bow you head if you must, stole that election nation wide, not just in Chicago.

Of course in your decrepitude, the only election ever stolen was in 2000.

Butterbred said...

I think HIllary would be OK in terms of believability and character if she could say that Bill and I have a daughter and we have our shared interest and work in politics. These being the top values in my life, I stuck with him.

It's the "unsaid" that keeps many people unable to trust her. And because she can't say what's so in the matter, she is always dodgin' and weavin' around that unstated center.

Simon said...

Sidebar: I do know about mid-century Chicago. I made light of it here: “It seems truistic to point out that a recount can’t take place before the votes are counted in the first place, and outside of Tammany Hall or mid-century Chicago, the votes can’t be counted until the election’s happened. But if one applies Burke’s reasoning to [the facts of] Bentz, we would presumably have to hold that Bentz missed his filing window (if the window was ever open): like IC 3-12-8 § 5, IC 3-12-6 § 2 says that a candidate can petition for a recount, but when Bentz filed for a recount, of necessity the election was over. He had been declared the loser. As such, he was no longer a candidate, and would not have fallen within the scope of § 2’s 'candidacy requirement.'”

LiberTexian said...

Frankly, I have to hand it to Hillary, because I'm not sure I could have bitten back my gut response to that question, which is, "Oh, f*** you."

Because after all, it was the first Clinton Prez campaign that coined the phrase "You can't legislate morality".

AlphaLiberal said...

Yes, the VRWC exists. But it has been hoist upon it's own petard of greed and lies.

M. Simon said...

China has changed from an economy based on altruism to one based on greed.

Under which philosophy were they more prosperous?

DADvocate said...

Funny, Hillar was complaining about the vast right wing conspiracy less than a year ago while visiting New Hampshire. We don't need a president with such a poor memory. She may be developing Alzheimer's or senility.

Middle Class Guy said...

She is suffering from a chronic or acute condition prevalent among progressives. It is called selective revisionist memory. Its symptoms include delusional thinking, associating oneself with fairy tale characters, living a fairytale life, and recreating fact and history to match your fairy tale view of the world.

former law student said...

Blaming the victim is pretty contemptible.

Interesting. How will people see Hillary as a victor when they see her as a victim? Personally I think a victim who stays with her abuser is contemptible, unless she has no way to make an adequate living.

From Inwood said...

Middle Class Guy

You ask

Why is it that people on the right who claim there are conspiracies are considered lunatics and progressives who claim conspiracies are embraced, enabled, and believed?

Um, maybe 'cause there's a conspiracy among the MSM, The
Chattering Class & assorted guardians of "conventional wisdom". Nah. Saying that is per se lunacy on my part, I guess.

Hey, you say "progressives" vs. "people on the right"? Falling into their trap, are we?

Verso you say:

which conspiracies are getting the short shrift? And which conspiracies are "embraced, enabled and believed"? (Besides the VRWC.)

Um, except for that unfortunate incident, Mrs. Lincoln....

BTW, where have you been for certified, bona-fide conspiracies like the one about the Neo-cons? (You are aware of the jingle: “Bush lied & people died”, no?) And the GOP conspiracy to deny many Democrats their sacred right to vote thru demanding voter ID....