Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Macy's: Department Store of Do... | Obama Says Gay Marriage Not "P... »

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

If You Think the Slog is Harsh on Hillary Clinton…

posted by on April 1 at 16:00 PM

…try Christopher Hitchens:

The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself.

RSS icon Comments


Face it, when her campaign mostly just takes videos the McCain/Bush 08 campaign sends her and repackages them as attack ads, this is the least of her problems.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 1, 2008 4:03 PM

I'm convinced Hitchens is just acting crazy as a bid to be immortalized when he's gone:

Step 1: Stake out crazy, untenable moral position

Step 2: Defend position aggressively against any and all superior logic or argument

Step 3: Get buried as a "fierce iconoclast"

I always try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's just so *crazy*!

That said, in this case he's right.

Posted by matt | April 1, 2008 4:10 PM

I don't think Slog is hard on Hillary. I just think most of you are "hard" on Obama.

Posted by Mr. Poe | April 1, 2008 4:16 PM

Did she think she could throw out a line like that and not have it thoroughly dissected, examined, and subsequently flogged and scoffed at for a few news cycles? Is that the thought process of someone with 35 years of experience in politics?

Posted by tsm | April 1, 2008 4:19 PM

Slog is fair and balanced. =)

Hitchens is a conservative tool and an insufferable cretin.

Posted by SeMe | April 1, 2008 4:30 PM

Someone needs to set ECB up on a blind date with this Hitchens fellow.

Posted by also | April 1, 2008 4:32 PM

matt: I like your theory about wanting to be immortalized, but I always assumed that promoting his "fierce iconoclast" image helps sell more books and secure more talk-show gigs while he's alive.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 1, 2008 4:33 PM

Christopher Hitchens rules. He offers a voice that doesn't hold back in its criticism of religion - particularly the plague that is Islam - and isn't afraid of offending people with his (entirely logical) arguments. Plus he has a sense of self-loathing that is matched by few.

The world needs more men like Christopher Hitchens.

And I hope that whoever said SLOG was "fair and balanced" is playing an April Fools joke on the rest of us...because even the most foolish folks who read this blog know that such a statement is false.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | April 1, 2008 4:34 PM

if you think Chris Hitchens is harsh on Hillary Clinton, you should see him go to town on a bottle of scotch...

Posted by michael strangeways | April 1, 2008 4:39 PM

Mrs. Clinton simply does not have a passion for the truth, and that is something we should expect a president to fundamentally have.

Posted by raindrop | April 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Give me a break.

tsm: that it was obviously rebuttable shows it was a mistake. Your facts undermine your borader position once again.

Meanwhile, here are the Obama lies and fibs:

1. he didn't hear any bad stuff from Wright while sitting in the pew.

What a lie.

Josh said this was "obvious bullshitting."

2. he would have resigned from the church if only Wright hadn't retired ....just in time as O. was running for pres.
Again, what a total lie.

3. The money he got from Rezko was only about $80K.

Oops, $250K. How can you expect a budding state senator to remember $250K?

4. He had no idea Rezko would buy the lawn, so Obama could buy the house. There was no arrangement or knowledge of that.
It was all a coincidence.

5. He had no idea that Rezko had slums in his district where the tenants had no heating.

6. He didn't know what was on those campaign questionnaires that have his handwritten notes on them.

7. He's for changing NAFTA. Goolsbee said this was campaign talk.

8. He's for getting out of Iraq in 16 months. The monster quote chick said this was just campaign talk, subject to change.

The HRC quote about Bosnia is wrong, but when she's written about it it seems it would be really dumb to lie about it deliberately. There are so many other things Obamatons, oops I mean some Obama supporters say about HRC that simply repeat prior lies and false attacks from the GOP it's been fairly disgusting. Look at this whole "she's against the will of the voters thing" canard -- because she expects superdelegates to do their job -- while Obama himself deprived his state senate district of any meaningful vote when he got into office by throwing 3 other candidates off the ballot.

Oh that's not the old politics, is it?

What a hype job.

Or because he wants to punish 4 million FL and MI voters for something their leaders did.....that's not old style politics is it?

What a hype job.

Oh, he's for following the voters of the state when it helps him (Washington state superdelegates) but not when it helps HRC (Kennedy; MacCaskill; Richardson).

What a hype job.

And he's for changing how politics itself. Yet he's never DONE ANYTHING or CHANGED ANYTHING through his bottom up organizing style. He complained about asbestos in a public housing building, he tried to get minorities to recycle. That's about it.

Big fucking deal. There are about 3000 community organizers in the USA every year who do as much.

So this whole high horse attitude -- that Obama and the Obamatons oops, I mean the unthinking, hare krshna like Obama supporters -- are so vastly morally superior to HRC or her supporters is a load of crap.

Let's review the erroneous statements that been peddled right here on Slog:
1. HRC fights dirty and is tacky, yet Obama folks put on a joke about OBama's cock and Hillary not having one. Pretty disgusting and tasteless, not to mention blatantly sexist.

2. Obama is going to sweep all kinds of red states. Oopsie, look at the polls, ain't happenin' and he's in danger in blue states like MN and MA.
At best we will have a nail biter.

3. Superdelegates will switch easily and rapidly.

oopsie, not happening, most Clinton ones are sticking or only switching (despite great pressure) very difficultly.

4. (Implicitly) there's no negatives about him / there's nothing to this notion he hasn't been vetted,

Oopsie!! The Rev. Wright stuff comes out. Great.

The Patriot will run against a clear Anti Patriot lover/fellow traveller/supporter.
Tons of video, they are scrubbing the church web site right now they have OBama saying he would've resigned .... except he didn't.

Much of this race started with the lie that Clinton = Bush. When under Clinton (Bill) we had 8 years of prosperity and no silly foreign wars, and his no. 1 helpeer and aide was Hillary for decades.

Her experience was constantly derided and made to appear as if it were nothing.

There was a made up tale that HRC was being racist, and that she was insulting to Obama by saying "Be my VP of course I'm on top so you have to be VP," which of course was yet another lie spread by Obamatons as she said nothing of the kind and in fact the way she said it it implicitly acknowledged Obama is qualified to be VP and it left it totally open as to who's on was a door opening attempt. Which Obamatons and the media responded to with vicious distortions and insults.

Meanwhile, no one can actually point to any significant social change Obama actually wrought thru his community organizing....or his law practice....or his law teaching...

His inspiring speeches have so far only served to get him elected to office.

I've offered observations on how he can improve and win and unify the party yet all I hear from the Obamatons is HRC sucks.

don't you all get it.

Obama is going to win. The nomination.
Start acting like it. You don't need to trash HRC anyway.
The issue is how do you and we all win in the Fall, and in that process do you want the support of HRC supporters or not?

Posted by unPC | April 1, 2008 4:45 PM

I think Christopher Hitchens is kind of a douche, and the whole Clinton-in-Bosnia thing has been beaten to death, but I think he actually makes a pretty good point. The problem is not just that she lied - it's what she lied about. It's considerably more offensive to use a genocide that your family's administration was partially complicit in as a political tool than her garden-variety politicking is.

Posted by Morgan | April 1, 2008 4:48 PM

Is anyone else profoundly disappointed that is so sparse?

Posted by Stolia | April 1, 2008 4:52 PM

Hitchens’ blow jobs, I mean commentary on Thomas Jefferson and the “founding fathers” could only impress bores.

His “elevated” language is nothing more than the cries of an attention seeking fraud. Other than his righteous rants against the stupidity of religion he is simply just a blow hard and a tool.

People in this country are easily impressed with a fading limey accent.

Posted by SeMe | April 1, 2008 4:55 PM

There! I inspired unPC to spew out another four pages of stream-of-consciousness. My work here is done.

Posted by tsm | April 1, 2008 4:56 PM

"The issue is how do you and we all win in the Fall, and in that process do you want the support of HRC supporters or not?"

Excellent point unPC, one of the major things that annoys me about Obama is the overbearing smugness of his supporters. If Obama gets the nomination--how do you get him elected if you've alienated people who should be voting for him because he's the democratic candidate?

Just because his name goes on the democratic ballot does not automatically guarantee that people who considered themselves democrats will vote for him. And weren't there some states where republicans were allowed to vote for democrats in the primaries/caucuses? Just because a republican voted for him in the primary that doesn't mean they'll do it in the general election.

The goal is to get a democrat elected in November. What do we need to do to make that happen?

Posted by PopTart | April 1, 2008 5:03 PM

The Christopher Hitchens Dossier

by Leninology

Posted by B | April 1, 2008 5:25 PM

here's a wacky idea -- when the general election rolls around, maybe people should vote for the candidate whose values most resemble their own, rather than which candidate had the fewest asshole supporters on a blog. yeah? no?

and unPC, do you not see the irony of challenging tsm's clinton critique by launching into a thousand word screed on why obama sucks so bad?

Posted by brandon | April 1, 2008 5:32 PM

Umm, one way for Obama to win in the fall would be for Clinton to quit saying that McCain is qualified to be commander in chief but that Obama is not.

Posted by Obamazombie | April 1, 2008 6:01 PM

@11 - how's that war going for you, unPC?

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 1, 2008 6:07 PM

I like how UnPc seems to draw some kind of parallel between saying something wrong (Hillary and the odd Bosnia story) and hearing somebody say something wrong (Obama hearing Rev. Wright say something nutty.)

The inability to reason seems to go hand and hand with being a Clintonian.

Posted by Mikeblanco | April 1, 2008 6:24 PM

Wait a second, I'm confused, is unPC an Obama supporter or a HRC supporter? I think I misinterpreted his screed.

p.s. Brandon, what if the candidate who matched my values already dropped out of the race? Is it OK if I choose the candidate with the least number of asshole blog supporters in that case?

Posted by PopTart | April 1, 2008 6:34 PM

I feel like there's a place for a Kingsley Amis joke here, but I can't make it work.

Posted by Ryan | April 1, 2008 9:40 PM

A drooling, incoherent, Bush apologist.

Posted by collie | April 1, 2008 9:47 PM


Are you claiming that Hillary supporters aren't smug? With their drinking Kool Aid comments? With the insistence of many of Hillary's feminist supporters that any woman who supports Obama is a stupid bimbo?

Posted by keshmeshi | April 1, 2008 11:12 PM

i love watching the ongoing implosion of UnPC as his candidate continues to whither away. The outright hysterics of Hillatons, or Hillazombies, or retards, or whatever you want to call them is just priceless.

Posted by longball | April 1, 2008 11:40 PM

HRC won't win, she can't win and everybody knows it - including ECB. However, since reality is an option as far as most women are concerned, the Clinton campaign marches on.

Posted by montex | April 2, 2008 12:34 AM

Oh gee, everything makes you angry when you're drunk.

Posted by Bob | April 2, 2008 7:09 AM

Pretty funny how all the talk is HRC should give up, yet she does BETTER THAN Obama on 4 key factors relating to electability.

from real clear politics' averages of other polls, this Weds. morn:

National: McCain +0.2 over Obama, Clinton tied with McCain.

Pennsylvania: OBAMA LOSES to McCain by 1.0 point; CLINTON WINS over McCain by 0.8 points.

Ohio OBAMA LOSES to McCain by 5.0 points; CLINTON wins over McCain by 2.5 points.
A 7.5 point difference.

Florida: OBAMA LOSES TO McCain by a 8.0 points. CLINTON LOSES to McCain by 3.0 points. [CLINTON DOES 5 POINTS BETTER THAN OBAMA]

Posted by unPC | April 2, 2008 7:45 AM

I appreciate unPC's comments to the effect that all candidates for president are sleazy liars. I agree to a point - you have to lose more integrity the higher the office you want. And as much as I prefer Obama to Clinton (and have since their divergent views on going to war in Iraq were made known), I know that he and his handlers are no cleaner than Clinton and hers.

But I think it's too early to freak out over the polls in any particular state. The numbers will change. At various times I expect we'll see McCain up, other times it will be Obama in the lead (assuming he is in fact the nominee). Luckily, for once the Democrats will have way more money to spend than Republicans on unfair, untrue attack ads. Those ads ought to move some voters over to the Dems. Will they be enough? I don't know.

We must retain a healthy balance among idealism, cynicism, and Pollyanaism if we are to win in November!!

Posted by Will in 98103 | April 2, 2008 8:48 AM

I'm guessing that not one of the commenters here actually READ Hitchens' piece. Whatever your opinion of Hitchens personally, his analysis of HRC's history as related to Bosnia is a sobering, eye-opening read. It's all fine and good to chortle over her absurd lying, but to realize that she actively campaigned to keep the US from intervening, ensuring the slaughter of more people, is mind-boggling.

Posted by AMB | April 2, 2008 9:17 AM

I talked to a friend from Serbia about this last week. He said that when you have really been shot at or under threat of sniper fire, you never, never are confused about it, can't 'misspeak' about it, because it is an entirely unique experience you will never forget. For someone who has never experienced it to pretend they did is the worst kind of charade, and an insult to the people who died in Yugoslavia on Clintons' watch. This is why (and one of the ways) McCain will absolutely destroy her if she makes it to the general election.

Her name is now spelled Hilliary.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).