Hillary Clinton: Desperate and pathetic

While I already have a special post ready for when Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) officially pulls out of the race, you can stick a fork in her now; she’s done, toast, kaput. Just how freaking desperate do you have to be to pull a stunt like this?

    CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE ‘DRESSED’ OBAMA
    Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET

    With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a “dressed” Barack Obama.

    The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.

    The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.

    “Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?” questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

    In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of ‘shameful offensive fear-mongering’ for circulating the snap.

    Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.”

Really? Then what were y’all trying to do with the picture? Only an idiot would think that the Clinton campaign is somehow trying to help Senator Obama.

This is just hilarious: the oh-so-politically-correct Clinton campaign was playing the race card, the Muslim Card, the effeminate card, the weird card, the nativist card, and maybe the gay card, all at once, trying to find something, anything, that would work.

Mr Drudge noted that some other political leaders had worn native costumes and cultural regalia when visiting foreign lands, including Senator Clinton, her loyal and dutiful husband, and even their daughter (though I don’t mean to imply that Chelsea Clinton is a political leader):

The Obama campaign, as Allah wrote on Hot Air, has rubbed Mrs Clinton’s face in it:

“On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Mrs Clinton has been campaigning on her supposedly great “experience,” how she’d be trained and ready to be president at noon on January 20, 2009. So far, she’s been doing an excellent job in proving that she can’t even pick a competent campaign staff.

Allah added:

    Hillary’s problem has always been how similar she and the Messiah are on policy; with no substantive differences to swing voters her way, they’re left to choose on the basis of personality and political skill. That’s where her advisors screwed up — thinking that with policy arguments off the table that Democrats would resort to the safe, inevitable, established choice. Not this year, with this guy this good on the stump.

Uhhh, here’s where I think Allah missed it: if it’s supposed to be a choice between personality and political skill, Mrs Clinton could never beat Mr Obama on the basis of personality — and she’s doing her damnedest to prove that she is sorely lacking in political skills as well.

9 Comments

  1. When you consider that before primary season started many pundits said that Hillary was, by far, the most polarizing candidate out there, it’s not surprising that she’d pull a stunt like this. Either you love her or you hate her and I’d say by now that most of America has spoken that they not only hate her, but wishes that she’d just drop out and go away.

  2. Karma is a Sanskrit term that explains the law of consequences. Karma is a law of never-failing justice. It is the Clintons’ inevitable Karma that is bringing down not only Hillary’s campaign, but also Bill’s careful efforts to reconstruct his badly damaged presidential legacy.

    Bill and Hillary Clinton have employed scorched earth policies to enhance their own political fortunes. Alas, they are now facing the consequences of decades of destroying all those who have dared to attempt to block the path to what they have deemed their destiny. Since it is in keeping with a pattern set long ago by the Clintons, Bill and Hillary see themselves as the victims of a persuasive speaker with the gift to lure his listeners into a near frenzy with his empty words. In that, they are only partially correct. More to the point, Bill and Hillary Clinton are finally facing justice for the dirty tricks they have heaped on their enemies for years. It is the Clintons’ Karma that is bringing them down. Barack Obama is merely the agent of the inevitable justice that is finally being meted out to the well-deserving couple.

  3. The Clintons were popular, regardless of how they walked all over people, as long as they were winning elections for the Democrats. Once they stopped winning elections, they’re about to feel the love they had for oter people, returned to them.

  4. Pingback: Iowa Liberal » Blog Archive » If we were only allowed to cheat, Hillary would have a chance!

  5. Jeromy: the point was that the Clintons wore local regalia when the situation called for it, just as much as Barack Obama did. The picture of President Bush in the Albus Dumbledore robes wouldn’t have added anything. Maybe I should have used John Kerry’s bunny suit or Mike Dukakis as Captain Tank Commander! :)

  6. #

    It is the Clintons’ Karma that is bringing them down. Barack Obama is merely the agent of the inevitable justice that is finally being meted out to the well-deserving couple.

    Well said! Whatever we might think of Obama (more “hype” than “hope”?), it is sweet indeed to watch what he is doing to Hillary. The World’s Smartest Woman seems to be running a pretty dumb, or at least error prone, campaign. She inspires no one, offers no “hope” beyond bureacratic schemes and mind-numbing policy wonkery, and just seems to radiate a smug, smarmy persona that reminds most voters of their least favorite teacher from grade school.

  7. In the world of politics, “smart” is not always synonymous with “brilliant”. Sometimes the skills essential to win elections are not the same that assure success in governance. Glibness and oratorical skill mean more than deep and analytical thinking.

    Some of our most brilliant and accomplished elected officials are almost unknown. How many can identify John Quincy Adams? One tragedy was the early demise of James Garfield. He was reluctant to leave the men under his command after being elected to Congress. He was a brilliant scholar who supposedly could write in Latin with one hand and Greek the other. His plans for sweeping reform were partially thwarted by his assassination.

  8. Glibness and oratorical skill mean more than deep and analytical thinking.

    What really counts (at the presidential level) is leadership. “Deep” thinking can be left to the policy wonks. And oratory and rhetoric are important aspects of a leader. If you can’t rally people, inspire them, then the rest is largely irrelevant. The great presidents have, to a man. possessed these qualities. One can argue whether FDR’s policies helped, or merely prolonged, the Great Depression, but he did rally and inspire. A line like “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” was exactly the right choice of words for the times, helping to calm a very jittery nation at a time when it was needed most. Lincoln possessed the same qualities, and so did Kennedy and Reagan. Carter did not. He was a micro-manager, meddling in policy matters that should have been delegated to underlings. LBJ’s approach to fighting in Vietnam was similar, you read reports of him and MacNamara personally poring over maps of North Vietnam, picking out the next day’s bombing targets. Bush, in contrast, basically told Gen. Petraeus to just “Go in there and win”.

    Speaking of the latter, I’ve been arguing over on Pandagon that Iraq could be Obama’s downfall, especially if he is seen as “weak” or in some way in favor of surrender there. This is where he and McCain differ the most, inasmuch as the Arizona Senator pretty much bet his campaign on the Surge, a bet that has paid off handsomely, never mind the risk he took in supporting it initially. That’s leadership.

Comments are closed.