Oh, lookee, boys and girls!
Here's a great -- and so WELL-TIMED -- hit-piece on Hillary!
Wow!
It's like Golden Oldies Night, replaying the top ten Obamist anti-Hillary smears!
I have like SUCH nostalgia happening!
Gimme some spin.
You want Hillary for VP? No way!
She's -- RACIST.
She's -- INCOMPETENT.
She's -- TOXIC.
She's -- TOTALLY OUTTA CONTROL.
Just in case you were wondering why presumptive nominee Barack Obama, who is not man enough to run with Hillary, is still not man enough to run with Hillary.
; )
----
Plus: "If the witch is dead, why is The Atlantic trying to drown her?"
And a reprise: Fucked In The Head
Watch
Kudos to Vast LeftWing Conspiracy.
Update: So maybe they'll "let" Hillary be nominated after all? Isn't that the rulez? Or are they just flogging a Dead Unity Pony?
9 comments:
Just don't let Mark Penn near anything important, ever again. And Hillary probably should have given that speech on gender, too -- I remember wondering at the time if she would, and then why she didn't, or hadn't already.
Also, as hit pieces go, it sure had a lot of good primary sources to draw from. :)
But you do see what I mean, do you not?
1. Oh, and Hillary couldn't give that speech on gender because -- THEN she be playing the GENDER CARD!
2. Primary sources, fine. But look at the language choices the writer is making. That's the spin, and we've seen it all before. Click through to the New Republic article. Same old same old. crazyhystericaloutofcontrol blahlblahblah. It's not about the sources, it's about the frame and the spin.
I didn't see much of the crazy / hysterical / out of control narrative there -- more of the out of touch / incompetent / reactive one. As if she had other people running her campaign while she was busy meeting people and making speeches, and she just expected them to do their jobs competently or something.
And yes, she'd get accused (by someone) of "playing the gender card", just like Obama regularly gets accused of "playing the race card". So what, I think it would have been a huge net plus for her. It would have helped to energize and unite her natural bases of support, and frame her as a more appealing and uniting figure, instead of whatever garbage Penn was going for instead. Hillary only got popular when people sympathized and identified with her; her campaign should have stuck with that, and tried to broaden that appeal.
Oh, and... New Repbublic article? Thanks, but no thanks. They're morons, no argument here.
So, this sounds intriguing...
Sounds civil.
We'll see.
If you're calling the Atlantic article a hit piece, what exactly do you feel is inaccurate or inflammatory in the article? An anointed front-runner and big name political figure losing an election, especially one in which they repeatedly appeared to sabotage their own efforts is always going to get written about. There are always articles about high profile losing efforts in politics, why is Hillary supposed to be immune to any criticism or examination?
It's the language, sweetie.
The adverb choices. The verb choices.
It's not just spin, it's the Big Lie all over again.
It's propaganda.
Post a Comment