Where’s Hillary?

A lot of spittle-flecked nitwits have been asking that lately, including Marty “The Slime” Peretz and Walter “Colonel Mustard” Jacobson. Ummmm, she’s right here.

Posted by Kevin K. on 07/08/09 at 07:13 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '08Hillary ClintonNuttersPoliblogsSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

That’s great news!

I guess the Nutty Professor at Legally Insane can cancel his Amber Alert for our Invisible SOS.

PS: Looks like the Google Ads are going crazy trying to find her, too.

As we explored a little in the Rumper Room, this seems to be a two-pronged attack, both from opportunists of the first water:

1. the likes of poisonous hack Amy Siskind - and now her overt PUMA kin - who feed into the victimology and associated Obama-bashing by claiming that Hillary’s being treated like the mad aunt in the attic, mainly on the inspiration of Siskind’s BFFs at Hot Air

2. the likes of Jacobsen and the Hot Air-ites, who’re praying for some signs of division within the administration, and if they can’t find ready evidence of any, trying to foment it.

In the case of (1), it was fun to see the attempted rebuttals of the excellent Purple Pose’s pertinent points (*cleans laptop screen*), including this one, which shone among the plain delusional glowing tributes to Palin’s record in office in Alaska (maybe they should run that by some of the Alaskan bloggers and those in outlying villages who all but starved last winter before they spout again):

KendallJ on July 8th, 2009 12:58 am

... You see, if Obama was called the N-word, or referred to as a shoe shine boy, or stereotypical comments were made about him that soley stemmed from a racial bias in national news, maybe you would understand. ...

You mean there’s something wrong in portraying him as a shoe-shine boy and using racial epithets and stereotypical insults towards him and his family?! I thought that was fair game last year - and still. At least you’d think so if you read PUMA PAC, the Effluence etc. etc.

The case of (2) plays into (1), and it’s difficult to see who’s feeding off whom the most.

We’re now beyond “these rats aren’t going to fuck themselves.” There’s evidently a long queue forming to do just that.

Christ, that gives Peter Dauoche’s persistent pearl cramming a run for the money.

From the same post by KendallJ—I’ve seen this cynical twist on Olbermann’s original remark several times now:

if white commentators referred to taking him “out back in the woods” and only the white guys come back, people would assume that they were referring to lynching him.

In the actual on-air segment, Howard Fineman suggested that some major Dem player needed to step in and tell Hillary it was time to stop playing games with the delegate math and concede the primary for the good of the party. Olbermann agreed, and casually invoked an “offer she can’t refuse” scenario:

Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.

As we all remember, that precipitated a clown-horn chorus of outrage over the use of “violent imagery” in the proximity of St. Hillary.

It was dumb then, but it’s even dumber now that the vastly more incendiary misremembered version is propagating freely on PUMA blogs, unchallenged and uncorrected by the Comment Wardens.

Also. From that Hot Air thread:

Having broken my right elbow (twice), I can verify that the only difficult thing to do is wipe your a**.


Flyover Country on July 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Given the quality of analysis on offer, I’d need to see evidence that this difficulty was solely the result of the injuries.

I guess the Nutty Professor at Legally Insane can cancel his Amber Alert for our Invisible SOS.

Strange, btw, I swear I meant to add Jacobson (and Peretz) to the post but forgot. Don’t want you to think I pinched w/out crediting. Saw your comment after I updated.

KK, the thought never even crossed my mind.

But now that it has, I’m really crabbed-off.

Given the quality of analysis on offer, I’d need to see evidence that this difficulty was solely the result of the injuries.

Comment by YAFB on 07/08/09 at 09:41 AM

Tee hee.

Sorry - it looks like it’s set to be a long day here.

Purple Pose may have been banned. But gdaddo has decided that she’s Betty Cracker, and proudly quoted all the media outlets foolish enough to have interviewed NAGhead Amy, as if that lent Amy credibility that Betty lacked.

I do know that Purple Pose would have pointed out that Michelle Malkin is also interviewed on those same outlets, and her blog traffic dwarfs the NAG, therefore by gdaddo’s standard, the NAGhead isn’t fit to polish Michelle’s patent leather jackboots. Unless, by the increasing similarity of their views, particularly concerning the weakness of Hillary, Amy Siskind IS Michelle Malkin.

I also am in possession of the knowledge that by mistaking Purple Pose for Betty Cracker, gdaddo flattered the hell out of Purple Pose. Made her day, in fact.

gdaddo exhibits all the symptoms and finesse of a would-be wingnut (bold mine):

gdaddo on July 7th, 2009 9:06 pm

Here’s a link to the article about the worried White House sycophants. (The ones besides the three “guest posters” with the same IP address.)

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2 009/07/harper-on-ross-clinton-et-al.html

Ha! Strike 2.

The link’s to “Sic Semper Tyrannis,” where some of the wishful thinkers are stirring the pot about allegations of conflict between Clinton and Obama as I described above. Funny thing is, they seem a little more balanced than the TNA and Hot Air crews.


gdaddo on July 8th, 2009 11:19 am


Now that the election is over and they’re beginning to realize that they were used like the tools that they are, the idiots at Rumproast have nothing to do but hijack threads on blogs that make them nervous. ...

In gdaddospeak/Siskindspeak:

hijack = attempt to inject a degree of factualism and balance

nervous = righteously annoyed

The likes of gdaddo (who doesn’t seem to do much but wallow at TNA) and Siskind are welcome to each other and their no-longer-lite PUMA blog.

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that the redoubtable Betty Cracker is the one who schooled gdaddo’s PUMAcrush Amy Siskind by revealing that Siskind was running a covert PUMA blog smear campaign against NOW’s Kim Gandy.

The New Agenda seeks to achieve safety and opportunity for all women by addressing issues which unite us and by advancing women into leadership roles.

Quelle feministe!

YAFB, the comment button at Amy’s should really be exchanged with the rumproast one, since we don’t wipe comments or ban commenters: Amy’s shouldn’t say “Speak your mind”, it should either say “submit” or “Speak Amy’s Mind”.

Since gdaddo proudly references Amy’s work on the Sullivanians, a cult within which she had the misfortune to be raise, I will remark here that it’s a shame to have survived that only to found another organization where dissent is banned.

If the NAG spent as much time actually promoting women’s and girls’ rights, as Amy does as a talking cablehead, they might be a useful organization.

Like NOW, for instance. Which wants no part of these PUMAs without pawprints.

Mrs. Polly, you just said that so much more kindly than I ever would have. I would have gone straight for “You can take the girl out of the cult, but you can’t take the cult out of the girl.”

I left a comment about Palin and Lyda Green over at NAG’s Place (wondering if they would target the shock jocks who giggled with Sarah over that “bitch” and “cancer” in the way they so successfully put David Letterman out of business), but I assume it didn’t make it through moderation and don’t care enough to check. They know they are cowards and hypocrities and liars in their “defense” of Palin, and we know that they know it. Though I wonder, given all the bandwidth Palin’s defenders spend on promulgating the nonsensical theory that we’re “afraid” of Palin’s “strength,” why they are so “afraid” of showing any dissenting viewpoints themselves? Are these warrior women or hothouse blossoms we’re talking about?

Okay, my comment is still up for now. I’m sure I’d be banned if I cared to return. I’ve never encountered a group so desperately in need of a faux-Mommy figure to kiss their boo-boos for them.

As if on cue, here’s an article that addresses Siskind’s and her fellow PUMA concern trolls’ worries, though no doubt not in a way that will provide them with any satisfaction since they’re currently hammering away with their trusty little mallets of untruth at the genius idea that Hillary should follow Palin’s example and resign, in Clinton’s case to prepare the way for a 2012 run at the presidency. But TNA’s not a refuge for PUMA holdouts - no way.


Our organization is inclusive. Folks have all sorts of different points of view.

Some of them even survive the censorship and moderator bullying.

Excerpt from the article:

At a press conference Tuesday after meeting with ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, Clinton jokingly showed off the State Department seal on her black arm sling (her hard cast was removed last week), and mentioned the intensive physical therapy regime she is subject to—six times a week, for the next six to eight weeks.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main