June 3, 2008

"Let me make sure I understand. You're calling me back to retract your concession?"

You know what's making me think of that quote — the time George Bush got "snippy" with Al Gore?

It's this.

33 comments:

Simon said...

I suppose it's exactly the same apart from the fact that where Gore conceded, Clinton never actually conceded, and whereas Gore called Bush to retract his concession, Clinton, having never conceded, had no concession to retract. But that aside, the comparison's immediate.

TMink said...

The spin I heard this morning on the radio was that Senator Clinton loaned her campaign 11 million and wants the DNC or Senator Obama's campaign to make sure she gets payed back thos funds. The other part of the deal is what does she get in terms of patronage. VP? Is she looking to run the health care initiatives?

But the story I heard is that she will concede when she gets the money and a position.

Trey

TitusSheBop said...

George Bush was not snippy.

That is the most critical mean spirited posting I have ever read on this blog about the best president we have ever had.

I don't like where this is going.

Simon said...

TMink said...
"Is she looking to run the health care initiatives?"

That would require one of two things: either Obama gives up his healthcare plan and agrees to let her implement her program, or Hillary agrees to administer Obama's healthcare plan, serving for as long as the person who beat her to the Presidency desires (sufferance which, she is surely smart enough to realize, comes to an end the instant that the electoral college crowns Obama). Given that they have each lambasted the other's healthcare plan, are either of these possibilities likely, given that it becomes a propaganda gift for the other side?

Bob said...

The report is from the AP. Anything from them should be labeled "Handle with Glooves" until it can be written in past tense. Still, as long as one can continue to run for popcorn the entertainment the Dems provide is far better than any other reality show.

John Stodder said...

Simon,

It's all about the "snippy."

Everyone's getting snippy in the Obama camp. They've been snippy for weeks, actually.

Perhaps that's the secret HRC strategy. Force Obama into an embarrassing public display of snippiness.

Pogo said...

Indian giver.

former law student said...

Thanks for the gawker link. My favorite comment from there:

"Barack, the 'concession' phone call came from inside the house! Get out, now!"

Roger J. said...

15 yard PC violation for Pogo: "indian giver" is racist.
Recall Jerry Seinfeld's native american girl friend.

Spread Eagle ® said...

One rumor floating around is that the video of Michelle going postal about the evil "whities" from the pulpit at Trinity United is set to be broken at any time, and Hillary wants to keep her options open for that eventuality.

Pogo said...

That's okay. I am absolved because I meant "from India".

And don't be so niggardly with your comments, Rog.

Bruce Hayden said...

I find it humorous that that Catholic priest in Obama's church was getting such a great response when he pointed out that Hillary! considered herself entitled because she is white and it was her turn. Yet, that entitlement mentality is just what we are seeing here with the Obamaites. They seem to think that Obama is entitled to the nomination here because his people were better able to game the caucuses than hers were.

The reality is that both seem to feel that they are entitled, and both have reasons for their belief.

So, I, along with many others who won't vote for either, am going to just sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

john said...

native-american-only-not-really-cause-u-just-came-over-on-the-land-bridge-not-too-long-ago-besides-americus-vespusi-was-italian-and-anyway-u-really-should-be-called-native-amerigo's ... giver

knoxwhirled said...

You don't have to get snippy!

I had forgotten about that. What a womany thing to say.

Triangle Man said...

Oh Titus, typically you're entirely on point (prescient even) now you're just being silly. W is not better than Reagan.

Michael_H said...

So...Barack Obama is ready, willing and able to sit down with Kim Jong-Il, Mahmood Dinnerjacket, et. al., and negotiate with great and strong resolve, but apparently cannot negotiate with Her Thighness to drop her demand for money, a VP slot and her health care agenda?

He's some kinda strong leader, that Barack Obama.

My advice: Just tell her 'sorry, you lost.'

Simon said...

Michael_H said...
"Obama is ready, willing and able to sit down with Kim Jong-Il, Mahmood Dinnerjacket, et. al., and negotiate with great and strong resolve, but apparently cannot negotiate with Her Thighness to drop her demand for money, a VP slot and her health care agenda? He's some kinda strong leader, that Barack Obama."

To be fair, there's an obvious difference between negotiating with Hillary vs. negotiating with "Dinnerjacket, et al": Only about half the Democratic base supports Hillary.

Ralph said...

If Obama's campaign repays Clinton's loan, why isn't that a bribe?

AJ Lynch said...

Polls show Hilary winning big in South Dakota? I thought Obama has been winning all the states with low % of blacks? IA, OR, CO, etc. Why would he lose in SD?

Too many jims said...

Simon said...
To be fair, there's an obvious difference between negotiating with Hillary vs. negotiating with "Dinnerjacket, et al": Only about half the Democratic base supports Hillary.


Oh, I get it because 100% of the democratic base supports Kim Jong Il? That is funny stuff.

One thing you can say for the dems, at least 100% of them aren't fully behind walking hand in hand the House of Saud (you know the people who educated, financed, trained and supported the people who carried out 9/11).

Roger J. said...

AJ: perhaps they have had a chance to take a longer look at Mr. Obama? That would be my guess--will have to wait til the general election to see how well Mr. O stands up to increased scrutiny. I'm guessing he will not do it well.

AJ Lynch said...

Roger:

That is what I was thinking. Should it be referred to as a leading indcators or just plain bad news for Obama?

Simon said...

Too many jims said...
"Oh, I get it because 100% of the democratic base supports Kim Jong Il? That is funny stuff."

I neither said nor implied 100%. I implied more than 50%.

Michael_H said...

Two Many Jims - House of Saud? Do you mean the nice folks who paid for the Clinton Library?

dick said...

Too many Jims,

Additional to the snark vs the House of Saud, you might google up Averell Harriman who ran the blind trust for the Bush family over the years. You will find that the support for the House of Saud came from Harriman, one of the major Democrat financiers along with his widow, the enabler of Clinton. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story if you can get over on it regardless of the truth or not.

Chip Ahoy said...

Snippy. Our vice president said snippy? HaHaHaHa x8 OMG, that is so *snap* gay!

But I like what simon said. I'll agree with him today.

That is all. For my mind puts a limit on how much it's willing to devote to Hillary on any given day. It's a self-control mechanism I have set to autopilot.

Too many jims said...

Simon said...
I neither said nor implied 100%. I implied more than 50%.


Great, thanks for the clarification. Do you have anything to back that up or did you get it from your "Big Book Of Republican Lies and B.S."?

My "Big Book of Democratic Propaganda" says that 88% of Republicans favor eliminating social security and forcing old people to eat cat food.

I have read comments from commenters here (I think including you) decrying that the lefty commenters here are more interested in trolling than actual debate. I wholeheartedly agree that many lefty commenters here seem more interested in flinging poo than engaging. That said, if someone comes here and sees that the "serious" right bloggers are suggesting that more democrats support Kim Jong Il than support Hillary Clinton it is kind of tough to engage in any debate with that "serious" commenter.

Perhaps Prof. Althouse sought to re-create Redstate in her comments section (complete with new and improved lefty trolls). If so, you are doing a great job furthering that enterprise.

You may not be better than reducing yourself to such juvenile arguments, but you are smarter than that.

jeff said...

You tell me, Jim. All the folks that have attended protests against Bush or the war joined forces with ANSWER. What do you suppose their position is on North Korea? If I protested against Clinton with a bunch of Nazi's or Klans men, would you bother to differentiate between me and them?

Too many jims said...

If I protested against Clinton with a bunch of Nazi's or Klans men, would you bother to differentiate between me and them?

It would depend on what you were saying, how you were acting and what you were wearing. But I can affirmatively state that I do not believe that 50.1% (or greater, up to and including 100%) who protest against Clinton (whether Bill or Hillary) are Nazis or KKK.

TMink said...

overabundance of Jims wrote: "My "Big Book of Democratic Propaganda" says that 88% of Republicans favor eliminating social security and forcing old people to eat cat food."

While I get your point, and I can only speak as a conservative, not an R, the BBDP had some interesting assumptions and errors.

First, there is no such thin as Social Security currently, the funds paid in are all part of the regular budget and are spent. There are no investments.

Conservatives do not want to end Social Security, we want to end the charade and empower citizens to take care of themselves.

And only a liberal would think that ending SS would lead to the elderly eating cat food. That is because only liberals think that every good and perfect gift comes from DC. Conservatives actually do charity work and give money to charities, so we know that there are alternatives to the DC teat.

Tret

Too many jims said...

Trey,

I think you missed my point. 88% of Republicans want to end social security (setting aside for the moment the spin that you gave it) and 88% of Republicans want to force seniors to eat cat food. Yes, 88% of Republicans want to pass a law requiring that seniors eat cat food. This would be achieved by converting certain "Recommended Daily Allowances" to "Required Daily Allowances". The reason for this new law is that Halliburton just cornered the market on cat food.

former law student said...

I fixed it for yuh, no problem:

there is no such thin[g] as Social Security currently, the funds paid in are all off the books and are spent on the war in Iraq.

SGT Ted said...

Funny how the lefties go all fiscal conservative when the funding is going towards the military fighting a war.