rikoriki

Thank you, Erica, for stepping aside. That was appreciated. You needn't fret too much about the repugs's predictable attacks. If Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary's old mudslinger, could not come up with usable facts (and he scoured the worst repug sources) against Obama, there should not be anything to fear. What's more, the electorate has shown that they are looking for substance this time around and are able to discount lies and dirty tricks for what they are. They are smarter than you think. posted 05/16/2008 at 13:56:16

Your pessimistic conclusion, which Hillary is only to happy to seize on, is quite without support. WV is the only state that is entirely in Appalachia, and is unique in all the demographic factors that coincide there: low income, low educational achievement, moribund business climate, backwater culture, lack of vibrant liberal tradition, lack of diversity, etc. If this were typical of the working class in the US, I would hate to even belong to this society, but it represents a unique, very small fraction of the electorate that will be balanced out by states with the opposite attributes: good education, decent standard of living, vibrant business development, proud liberal tradition, enlightened leadership, etc. To select the nominee that fits the lowest possible demographic profile makes no sense politically or intellectually. And shame on Hillary for advocating it. posted 05/15/2008 at 17:08:54

"Obama and Clinton have sufficient regard for each other to work effectively together" . . . .

That's the most naive and ill-judged statement I've ever heard. If you know anything about Hillary's history as First Lady, you would know that even without official standing, she overreached constantly and outrageously (think health care reform, Travel Office, FBI files, Vince Foster papers, law billing reports, vetoing settlement of various scandals) with disastrous results. With the title of VP, imagine how much more entitled and controlling she will be. And since she will never relinquish her goal for the top spot, which she will feel was rightly hers, we can expect a constant barrage of undermining and sabotaging antics out of her. What kind of idiot would wish such a calamity on our nation?

And I don't want to even think what Bill would be up to meanwhile. posted 05/14/2008 at 18:16:41

I'm really disappointed by Edwards, and I voted for him in the CA primaries by mail before he dropped out. I can understand his pussy-footing only as an attempt to stay neutral so that he could possibly be drafted as a unifier in the event of a hopelessly split convention. Not exactly disinterested.

As for Hillary having chosen her words poorly, that's balderdash. What's ill-chosen about "white"? That's exactly what she meant, in fact she used it twice in one sentence just to be sure no one missed the point. I think she was in part signalling to the superdelegates that Obama could not win the general election without this micro demographic (patently false) and in part it was a signal to the WV voters that voting on the basis of race was to be encouraged.

I can't believe that Edwards is so naive as he sounds. He has lost my support. posted 05/11/2008 at 17:20:10

I agree that Obama supporters should show some compassion for Hillary when reality finally breaks through to her, but she is making it awfully difficult, don't you think? It would help if she would just depart with some dignity and grace and do some soul searching for a good long spell. The rest of the party will be too busy working for Obama to be bending backwards to placate her wounded feelings. We've catered to her delusions long enough. It's time to get real. posted 05/10/2008 at 01:04:42

"her need to be precise."? "trying to be accurate"? That's a joke, right?.



This woman has no use for precision or accuracy unless it can be bent to further her goals. In the last couple of months I have read a half-dozen reputable biographies of Hillary. The words "precise" and "accurate" are the about the last that comes to mind in describing her lifelong behavior. What does come to mind are: scheming, Jesuitical, parsing, paranoid, denial, attack, lying, Machivellian, and that's just for starters.

No, her statement was more an attempt to convince the SD that they must overturn the primary results and hand her the prize due to the supposed intractible anti-black sentiments of this demographic segment. Obviously she delights in this supposed fact and intends to exploit it as her last hope.

It is this assumption (that the Dems cannot win without the majority of the white blue-color vote) that is flawed and needs to be corrected. I believe that a charismatic leader like Obama and bring them into the fold where they belong, and where they would be today in greater numbers were it not for the work of unscrupulous politicians like Hillary, who uses negative ads to stir up fears and prejudice to stampede easily manipulated voters into her corner. If Hillary would simply leave the scene and refrain from spilling her poison, I have every confidence that Obama is capable of winning on his own merits. posted 05/09/2008 at 20:06:09

I don't believe that these Hillary supporters who vow that they would vote for McCain over Obama do so because the latter is too liberal. It can be argued endlessly which of the Dem candidates is the more liberal. (And don't forget that Hillary's Yale years are marked by support for far-left and radical causes). My take is that they are fervent supporters of Hillary based solely on the feminist issue. Not only is she female, which would have truly historic significance in itself, but she further symbolizes the archetypal wronged woman -- heroic, long-suffering, endlessly supportive, misunderstood, abused, etc., etc. It is a powerful icon, expecially for women whose life stories resonate with HIllary's. For such people, to vote against Hillary is unforgivable, just like being done wrong again, and must be punished, regardless of politics. As you might guess, my background is in psychology, but that is the way I interpret the behavior. posted 05/09/2008 at 18:15:44

The truth is probably much simpler than that. Remember, Hillary has now invested 11+ Millions of her own money in her campaign. If she quits now, there is no way she is going to recoup that money. Despite all her Saint Hillary posturing, it was not intended as a gift to the noble cause. She intends to get that money back before bowing out, if you don't mind.

Limbaughers have a different reason for trying to trip up Obama: They are fully aware that Hillary will be by far the easiest to shoot down in the GE. They are fully armed and itching to use their ammunition to tear into the one they really hate. posted 05/07/2008 at 17:49:36

Bitter? Maybe that's not exactly the right word. How about outraged, pissed-off, riled, resentful, insulted, offended . . . I could go on and on, but they all apply to you, Hillary and Bill, for how you have used the American public to further your ignoble lusts. Come to think of it, bitter comes pretty damn close. posted 04/15/2008 at 11:13:07

She is not just a woman. She is, more importantly, a human being who:

1. Has a narcissistic personality; hence the extreme ambition and habitual lying.
2. Has proven her political ineptness by setting back health care reform 15 years.
3. Has a history of conflicts between liberal and conservative positions.
4. Has a co-dependent relationship with Bill. All biographers attest to this.
5. Has no compunction against using Carl Rove and Dick Morris tactics.
6. Has shown ineptness in managing her present campaign.
7. Has an indefensible history on Iraq.

Does gender override all of this? If you say yes, I would say you are sexist to a monstrous degree. posted 04/12/2008 at 14:53:40

I think a lot of people here are missing the point of making a distinction between preventive and preemptive attacks. Preventive war is actually a sanitized term for what is universally agreed to be the SUPREME crime: wars of aggression and imperialism. Like someone already said, all wars are self-described as preemptive by the party starting it. But the most morally indefensible ones, such as the Pearl Harbor attack, the 6-days war, and including, I would argue, the Vietnam and Iraq wars, are actually preventive, in that there is no imminent attack to defend against.

The problem with letting McCain get away with calling the Iraq war preemptive is that it begs the question that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the US at the time, which it emphatically did not. Furthermore, we need to be aware that the neoconservatives are stealthily trying to confuse the difference so that they can make preventive war acceptable for the US to engage in. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:44:06

At first I thought this was a boorish excercise, but as I perused the record, it struck me that there is something distinctly abnormal about the behavior. In abnormal psychology there is a term for it: reaction formation, where an awareness that is too threatening to a narcissistic personality is converted into its exact opposite. In every case described, a normal person would have used the word -- regret, disappointed, sorry, ashamed, embarrassed, chagrinned, but these people automatically substitute the word "proud". They exist in a bubble of their own making. Once it is burst, I fear the implosion will be awful to behold. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:48:27

In Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary, he uses the term "jesuitical" several times to describe her style of reasoning. Here is another example of it, alongside her tortured reasoning for counting the votes in FL. Some other synonyms are apt as well: cunning, deceitful, specious, sophistical, disingenuous. Lord spare us from the likes of her.. posted 04/08/2008 at 11:45:14

What it indicates is that Clinton's campaign puts a very high stock in manipulating the public's opinion by telling emotionally gripping stories. It doesn't matter if the stories are true or false; it's only the effect that matters. Truth is simply not a priority. It also indicates that she has so little factual accomplishments to point to she is reduced to making up stories. The fact is that Hillary's experience in health care reform is a story of unmitigated blunders and failure.

When I first heard Hillary say she heard it from a sheriff, I naturally assumed that the story must be true because it came from a first-hand witness who was actually involved in the affair, although it seemed very unlikely that the hospital would demand a $100 up front payment. I have never known a hospital to do that, and I have many years experience in the health insurance business and as a patient. It turns out the patient had health insurance, so the point of the story was bogus.

What disturbs me is the fervent, almost religious zeal which which Hillary told the story, like a scamming backwoods preacher. What a bunco artist. posted 04/07/2008 at 16:02:53

As they say about the missionaries who came to Hawaii in the 19th century: they came to do good; they stayed to do well. posted 04/04/2008 at 18:13:13

It's YOU who is missing the point. Walmart did rightly pay the claims initially because they promised the benefits to employees. This is an obligation, if not entitlement. When the injured party won a settlement from the truck company, THEN Walmart sued the patient for return of the benefit payments. No one is saying that Walmart didn't have the RIGHT to sue. The question is whether it was the right thing to do. Belatedly, Walmart realized that it was very wrong and stupid, even from a purely business standpoint. posted 04/02/2008 at 17:09:58

You are right in that in insured plans with a subrogation clause, the insurer has the RIGHT to sue for recovery, but there is no legal obligation to do so. It is an administrative rule. Since the WalMart plan was self-insured, there is even less of a legal requirement to sue for recovery, since there is no insurance company involved. It's just that in self-funded plans the loss comes from the employer's bottom line. In insured cases the loss is to the insurance company's bottom line. In short, there was no external requirement for WalMart to sue. In either case, there is obviously a financial interest to sue for recovery by the affected party. It is ultimately a business decision, but if tempered with humane factors, foregoing recovery could redound to the company in terms of goodwill, which I think they finally did see, thanks to Olbermann. posted 04/01/2008 at 18:50:02

Not at all. First of all, self-funded plans don't have premiums as such; the company sets the employee contribution arbitrarily. Secondly, a large claim such as this would have been removed (above a certain stop-loss point) from the experience-rating for projection purposes, being a rare event and not expected to happen again soon. It is true that the company would have had to absorb the cost of the claim, which would eventually come from the bottom line, i.e., profits. But we're talking about one of the word's largest corporations which makes an obscene number of billionaires off the backs of poor working people. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:21:00

All indications are that it was a self-funded plan, not an insured plan. In self-funded plans the company has broad discretionary powers and could have foregone the third-party recovery based on humanitarian concerns if it wanted to. It stayed entirely in character by putting profits first. The Waltons didn't become billionaires by being good guys, did they?. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:53:43

Says Ann:

"Hillary actually has a very solid reputation as a straight shooter. Her Bosnia gaffe was just that. It played right into his attack tactics of the past 6 weeks on her character."

That's a whopper right there. Hillary may very well be a straight shooter inside her inner circle, but not when it comes to the public. This is what her detractors are concerned about, and rightly so. She's more of a duck-and-run-zigzag sort. The fabricated scene on the tarmac happens to be an incredibly striking example of her disdain for the simple truth. Not only disdain, but a seemingly self-destructive need to risk discovery and humiliation as well. And your characterization as a "gaffe" is an example of the kind of denial that seems to be necessary to be an ardent Hillary supporter. Too sad. posted 03/31/2008 at 16:22:15

Swanky, so patronage trumps everything else? What about qualifications, or the good of the country? You never mentioned them. Hate to break it to you, but this is supposed to be a democracy, not the Mafia. Unbelievable. posted 03/28/2008 at 16:40:27

"Let's let Hillary off the hook for her Bosnia boast and judge her for what she is, and not for what she sometimes says she was."

You are not thinking very clearly: Her lies were very recent and she told them repeatedly. She still is a liar. It's a part of her character structure. If that's what you want , go ahead and support her. Some of us prefer honesty and decency. posted 03/28/2008 at 13:05:22

Joseph Wilson was something of a hero in my book, too, until I read his hack-like articles here. I feel sorry for whatever circumstances compelled him to take such a strange, seemingly mindless role in Hillary's campaign. But then, this seems to be true of many of the Hill faithful. I sincerely hope the aftermath will not be too painful. posted 03/27/2008 at 17:17:14

Another thing: the Rev. Wright's sermons are certainly not to the taste of the average white middleclass audience, but it is a matter of rhetoric and tone. At least it is out there for all to see and hear. This is not true of Hillary's spiritual advisor, a certain Rev. Coe, head of The Fellowship. This is a very secretive, elitist, largely ultraconservative group that has been called a cult. They appear to believe that they have a God-given mission to work behind the scenes to impose their religious views on the nation. I would call it the evangelical version of the Opus Dei. This is scary enough, but the fact that Hillary can pretend to be so religious but then proceeds to tell outrageous lies without missing a beat indicates a very flawed character indeed. Open your eyes, people. posted 03/27/2008 at 13:01:00

It's not that she believes her own lies. Rather, she believes that she can get away with her lies, that the risk of being found out is worth taking, compared to what she can gain from it.

Hillary is right about one thing, though: it proves that she's human, as if we needed proof, but unfortunately for her, it proves more than that -- it proves that she's a dedicated Machiavellian who believes that lying is simply one of the arsenal of tactics a ruler uses to get what he/she wants. She would feel very much at home with Bush and Cheney scheming to launch a new war. She realizes that the majority of people can be quite easily stampeded in the right direction with the use of the appropriate tactics. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:18:17

True, this was not a WMD-level lie, but it was not just a wrong choice of words either; it was a deliberate misrepresentation for political effect. Character-wise it is a small step to the big lies such as launched the Iraq war. The really disturbing thing is that it seems to be second nature for Hill. She can do it without batting an eye. Truth is not important to her, only the political ends. We want this in our next president? posted 03/24/2008 at 15:25:03

It's interesting that the Clinton campaign has taken refuge in smokescreens in lieu of valid arguments in their desperate scramble for delegates. First it was "Disenfranchisement". When that one flopped, another pro-Clinton blogger tried "Integrity" with no more success. Now they have professor Keyssar floating the word "Legitimacy". Brilliant! In each case it was blatant question-begging, also known as circular reasoning. A vague, righteous-sounding word is raised, hoping that no one will question that presumption, which just happens to be precisely the whole point of the dispute. It is telling that supposedly intelligent people have to resort to such shyster tactics to defend their position. posted 03/24/2008 at 17:25:01

Thanks for this sincere, thoughtful post. And your reference to "post office" scenes is quite relevant: I'm afraid this is what we are all in for, politically, unless there is intervention. Hopefully, DNC leadership is quietly working behind the scenes to take her gently by the hand and lead her out before anyone (the entire country) gets hurt. posted 03/22/2008 at 13:05:11

No, YOU missed the point. Where do you get off begging the question, vis., that integrity equates to re-vote? You have not bothered to support that contention. It can be argued with at least equal (and IMO greater ) validity that integrity requires that the agreement that all parties swore to in advance of the primaries be honored, rather than modified after the fact. The issue of "disenfranchisement" was not an issue to the parties before the agreement. It is an artificial abstraction made up solely to garner more delegates The real lack of integrity is in the notion that the rules can be changed after an election has already taken place because you don't like the results. posted 03/21/2008 at 16:26:18