Looks like Hillary Clinton may get her hollow victory:
MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox News are all reporting that Hillary Clinton will win the Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.
The margin of victory, however, will likely make all the difference. A narrow win for Clinton may end up looking like a moral victory for Barack Obama. Indeed, there are some reports this evening that the Obama campaign’s strategy of late was to force Clinton to spend heavily for a single-digit victory, which would leave her with limited resources for the remaining contests.
I agree with Carpetbagger: I think anything at this point is a moral victory for Barak, but then, I'm partial. I like the idea of a president with a brain who's new enough to Washington to have a few fresh ideas. I guess that means I'm fucking insane.
Speaking of Barak Obama, somebody needs to explain to the boy what science means:
It’s pretty unusual for John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama to agree on a controversial subject. It’s even more unusual for them to agree and to contradict the available evidence, but apparently that’s the case today on the subject of vaccines and autism.
[snip]
Here’s Obama on the subject yesterday:
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”
Been there, done that. Debunked. I'd bash the other two, but Carpetbagger did a fine job and, not to put too fine a point on it, Obama has excellent brains and should know better.
In other news, our media continues its perfect trend of being absolute fucking losers:
I was hoping to write about the fallout from the NYT's Saturday story regarding the media's use of Pentagon-controlled "independent" military analysts, but there hasn't really been any fallout at all. Despite being accused by the NYT in a very lengthy, well-documented expose of misleadingly feeding government propaganda to their viewers and readers, virtually all media outlets continue their steadfast refusal to address or even acknowledge the story. How can "news" organizations refuse to address -- just completely ignore -- accusations which fundamentally indict their behavior as "journalists"?Easy. They clap their hands over their ears and sing, "I'm not listening, la la LA la la. Holy crap, did Obama just order orange juice? The nerve!"
Aren't you guys a little bit sick of Glenn Greenwald, not to mention the entire rest of the country, finding you such easy targets?
Our fourth estate is bankrupt, my darlings. Perhaps it's time to take our seats in the heckler's chair. Once I'm finished ripping apart the "atheists should sit quietly in a corner" crowd, I'll whip us up a letter to our vaunted press with niggling little questions like, "So why are you all such complete fucking failures? How does Bush's butt taste? Do you kiss it with or without tongue?"
Any questions you'd like to add?
No comments:
Post a Comment