“Check or checkmate”? How about “check into a mental institution”?

Just when you thought it couldn’t get more wretched than the crazed scrawling of that steaming pile of suck Andrew Malcolm at the LA Times or anything Amy Siskind burps up anywhere (Daily Beast, HuffPo, Cat Fancy, etc.), along comes Colleen O’Connor, armed with a mouth full of paste, from something called the San Diego News Network to boldly challenge both Malcolm and Siskind for the coveted title of “Worst Professional Poliblogger.” Jumpin’ jeebus in a, ummm, jumpsuit, “King Obama v. Queen Clinton — Check or Checkmate?” is perhaps the most abominable “editorial” I’ve read in my life. Here’s just a taste:

If Clinton supporter and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley wins that will make the ninth score that Clinton has settled. And it will have happened in the state that the Kennedy family once ruled.

Monday, in a surprise announcement, former President Bill Clinton just endorsed Coakley and has recorded a message to be sent to 500,000 Massachusetts voters to get out and vote for Coakley.

Ironically, it was Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama in the Iowa caucus that ended the Clintons’ dreams of reclaiming the White House, and started the vendettas.

One major problem with that festering mess o’ words: Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama on January 28th, nearly a full month after the Iowa caucuses, which were held on the 3rd, and a couple of days after he won a landslide victory in South Carolina. How can you write about politics and not get that right? And what’s with “the Clintons’ dreams” and “started the vendettas”? There is no doubt who adhered the “what the” to the “fuck” on Monday. It was Colleen O’Connor.

This isn’t a condemnation of all of Hillary’s supporters, but perpetually petulant post-primary pouters like O’Connor (read it all) are some of the most delusional, fact-challenged, teet-sucking knuckleheads I’ve ever encountered anywhere. I know I shouldn’t be shocked anymore, but when I read stuff like this I just can’t help it. Politics meets junior high diary. Seriously, what in the hell is wrong with these people?

MORE: Of course, O’Connor is a Palin fan, too…

Sarah Palin’s decision to resign as governor of Alaska so that she could, “advance in another direction,” was a brilliant political move.

She just loves Hillary and Palin so very, very much that she can’t stop writing their names in hearts on her notebook. It’s going to be so hard in 2012 deciding who is going to get her vote for president! So very, very hard! Hillary! No, Sarah! No, wait, Hillary! Okay, no, Sarah! It will drive those Kool Aid Kidz who made fun of me during recess crazy! But Hillary winning could drive them even crazier! Oh, why can’t we have two presidents?!? Why!?!

Posted by Kevin K. on 12/10/09 at 01:34 PM • Permalink

Categories: Politics • Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • Editorials • PUMAs • Our Stupid Media • Skull Hampers •

Share this post:

Mouthful of paste my yellow ass. That woman obviously has snot locker full of Krazy Glue.

Forgive me for repeating myself but no one has ever insulted H. Clinton worse than her own supporters. Now she’s some sort of revenge crazed Lady Macbeth who is still going after her enemy EVEN THOUGH HE’S DEAD. (Look, don’t ask me how supporting the Dem. candidate in this election is revenge, especially since a Kennedy didn’t run for the seat, apparently it just IS.)

Yeah. That says sane and rational. If Clinton runs and doesn’t get in the White House it will be because her biggest fans poisoned her public image.

ROAAAR!

Comment by Hunger Tallest Palin on 12/10/09 at 03:05 PM

Wow. Just. Wow.

Thank you for once again reminding me that The Stupid is not just the domain of Republicans.

Comment by Zandar on 12/10/09 at 03:11 PM

So let me get this straight: Caroline Kennedy didn’t get the nod for Hillary’s seat; John Kerry isn’t SOS; and six other sorta-kinda-not-at-all enemies of Hillary self-destructed (or didn’t) without Bill Clinton’s Wife ever raising a hand against them.

Not exactly Grandmaster-Class chess from the “patient, wily, and deft” HRC, since she had fuck-all to do with what happened to any of these people, with the possible exception of Caroline Kennedy, who hardly counts as a trophy head.

O’Connor stops short of awarding Hillary bonus points for being able to dress herself and for not—so far—being indicted as a co-conspirator in the trials of her less scrupulous fundraisers. But she’s trying way too hard to create a fantasy alibi for the only two plausible realities: 1) That Hillary is a happy, willing flunky of the Kenyan Usurper, who traded certain defeat for a powerful cabinet post and a $6 million payoff to Mark Penn; or 2) that Hillary is a vanquished, powerless enemy blackmailed into the service of Lord Obama, whose total range of independent motion in policy matters consists of deciding whether to spit or swallow.

Comment by StrangeAppar8us on 12/10/09 at 03:14 PM

Oy, you’re right—that is possibly the stupidest fucking article ever written. One of the most unintentionally hilarious parts was the breathless toting up of Obama “defeats” and HRC “victories.”

John Kerry’s admission that he might have liked to be Secretary of State? A defeat for Obama! Who appointed her instead of Kerry!

And among the Clinton “victories” is a ranking in The Daily Beast list of smartest people and a flattering article in Vanity Fair. Kinda puts the O-Man’s dumb old Nobel Peace Prize in perspective, doesn’t it? Jeebus God.

Comment by Betty Cracker on 12/10/09 at 03:15 PM

You know—crazy comes in lots of different flavors, but the aftertaste is always the same…

Comment by John Ball on 12/10/09 at 03:15 PM

Nobody did Caroline in more than well-meaning, stumbling, hesitant Caroline, though stumbling, hesitant David Paterson came close. Sure, he was a Clintonite in 08, but if Hillary were that powerful, would Paterson have taken such an agonizingly long time to put Caroline and the rest of us New Yorkers out of our misery?

The Hillary described by O’Connor is certainly a nasty, vengeful, scrofulous piece of work, but to give O’Connor and the PUMAs credit, they’re merely ascribing to Hillary what they themselves would do.

Comment by Mrs. Polly on 12/10/09 at 04:22 PM

This odd person makes a lot of assumptions. She says the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is becoming disillusioned with Obama and are therefore looking at Hillary. Huh? Obama is a couple of hairs left of center and Hillary is a hair to the right of him.

And the idea that Hillary’s approval rating is higher than the President’s, who has had to make some unpopular decisions, means everyone wishes she were President is laughable.

Comment by Glix on 12/10/09 at 04:41 PM

Presented without comment:

Comment by: mary gantt Posted: December 10, 2009, 10:09 am

Well, now that Obama got the president job he does not know what to do with it.even his black(radio) friends say he is still campaigning. Obama wanted the top job so bad and he still complains and blames Bush for over a year now,so why ,if he doesnt want to take the job as his now why doesn;t he resign and hand it over to Hillary Clinton. and stop his whining and complaining.

Comment by Kevin K. on 12/10/09 at 04:42 PM

mary gantt is a Google goldmine:

I AM NOT A OBAMA SUPPORTER, I SUPPORTED HILLARY CLINTON BUT TODAY I HEAR THE POLLS ARE SHOWING OBAMA IS WINNING THE WHITE WOMEN VOTE. HOW CAN THIS BE,IF WE HILLARY VOTERS ARE SAYING NO TO OBAMA. I WANT TO STAND WITH THE CLINTONS 4 MCCAIN ,WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. WITH THESE POLLS THE ONLY POLL I CAN FIND IS AOL AND MCCAIN IS LEADING BUT MSNBC AND CNN ARE SAYING OBAMA IS LEADING.WHERE IS THE POLLS,I WANT TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN.