Fuck you, kos!


The little Cheeto that couldn’t:

No, things would not have been any better with President Hillary Clinton

[…]

Mark Penn, of course, was Hillary Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, and before that, the architect (along with Dick Morris) of Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” (i.e. “hippy punching”). While Obama has been slow to adapt to GOP obstructionism, don’t think for a second that Clinton would’ve fared any better, particularly with Penn whispering in her ear.


First of all, Mark Penn was not Hillary’s first choice for a campaign consultant. She wanted David Axelrod, but he was already committed to Obama. So was David Plouffe.

There just aren’t many top-flight Democratic consultants to choose from. Joe Trippi was committed to John Edwards. Bob Shrum has a bad track record. James Carville is retired from campaign consulting.

Secondly, as Hillary’s campaign emails showed she didn’t always follow Penn’s advice, especially in the later stages of the campaign. Unlike Obama, she’s nobody’s puppet.

Lastly, Mr. Moulitsas, it wasn’t your call to make. If you and your ilk didn’t have your thumbs so heavily on the scale we would know for sure how good a president Hillary would have been.

The voters wanted Hillary. You helped thwart their will.

So fuck you and the donkey you rode in on.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Fuck you, kos!

  1. DandyTiger says:

    What a fucking little shit.

  2. Red Dragon says:

    Kos is lower than amoeba poop!

  3. 1539days says:

    What’s the point of that brain dump anyway? Is he saying Obama is bad and Hillary would be equal? That’s a hell of a ringing endorsement. “You think Obama is bad? Look at all the other 2008 Democrats.” If that’s his analysis of the candidate field, Democrats might as well vote for a Republican in 2012. At least the media would be critical of that person’s policies.

    • OldCoastie says:

      It rivals the new Democratic campaign slogan, “The Republicans are worse!”

      (said in a most whiny voice)

  4. crawdad says:

    Tell us what you really think.

  5. Dario says:

    Looking at 2012 is better than 2008.

    McClatchy Newspapers

    Poll: Obama expected to lose but still tops any Republican one-on-one

    By Steven Thomma
    WASHINGTON — Look out President Barack Obama, even Sarah Palin’s gaining on you.
    A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year’s election, with a majority of voters believing he’ll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they’ll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him.
    Even in potential matchups where he leads, Obama in most cases has lost ground to the Republican.
    The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn’t yet announced whether she’ll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
    After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found her trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.

    • ralphb says:

      What? Sarah polls better that Perry. And sits right under him in the primary poll should she announce. She ought to run.

      Obama leads Perry by 50 percent to 41 percent. They split independents 43-43. Obama had led Perry by 19 points in August, as Perry was joining the campaign.

    • ralphb says:

      They don’t give a link to the questions or cross tabs and I really want to see them for this poll. Bummer.

    • votermom says:

      This is an amazing jump. My guess is that the Sept 3 Crony Capitalism speech plus the news about Solyndra may be the reason.

      • ralphb says:

        That poll seems weird. The last two paragraphs are quoting numbers which are identical to or from the Fox poll from a few weeks ago. Doesn’t match the rest at all.

        Though I think you’re right about the Sept 4rd speech. It’s gotten a lot of play since in print media and on radio. That writer from the New York Times gets quoted a lot 🙂

      • Valhalla says:

        Yeah, it’s probably also why Obama’s floating all these new word fogs about taxing the rich. Palin’s gaining because she’s going with the populist argument. So out comes Obama, NOW he gives a shit about fairness.

        It’s pretty hilarious.

  6. ralphb says:

    More from Ron Suskind’s book from Naked Capitalism. Obama thinks higher unemployment figures are a good thing and a sign of productivity.

    Obama Does Not Care About Reducing Unemployment

    • DeniseVB says:

      Wouldn’t you be voting for Obama if you were getting paid to do nothing ? As the saying goes “Vote Democratic, it’s easier than working”. Even NancyP said those checks help stimulate the economy.

      Rise Up Cheetos, Our Bad is Better than Theirs! /obot

  7. Three Wickets says:

    Interesting seeing some of the chatter about the Suskind book from liberal econ bloggers today. Summers, Romer, Rahm against the more right leaning Geithner, Goolsbee, Orszag. Obama definitely on the right side of that spectrum, he believes unemployment is more structural (the ATMs replacing workers thing) than cyclical (macro effects which would have been helped by a bigger stimulus). Seems BO thinks about the economy very much like Jeffrey Immelt. Companies need to do what is necessary to get more globally competitive, unemployment is an unavoidable effect, people will have to learn to adapt. If that’s the case, would guess he’s not thrilled with the Fed’s easing programs. He’s not serious about this jobs package beyond the electoral politics. He means it when he says he wants to cut spending and deficits, but he doesn’t mean it when he says he want to tax the rich. Maybe he has a few principles of his own after all, it’s just that they are Republican principles. How Progs can continue to support him is a mystery to me.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Speaking of the Fed, Republicans are now writing letters to Bernanke. The Fed is supposed to be independent.

    • ralphb says:

      The link I posted above to Yve’s place was about that very thing. Of course, he would agree with Immelt or the other “savvy businessmen”. After all they have large contributions to make. He seems to have an extraordinarily weak mind for a president. Now if only the republicans wouldn’t put up a candidate just like him?

      While I don’t necessarily agree with Bernanke all the time, the Fed is supposed to be independent. Hopefully he will ignore McConnell et al.

  8. Three Wickets says:

    New transparency initiative from the White House, except it appears to be more about transparency from others than from itself. Could be wrong.

  9. insanelysane says:

    Kos, Obama…two peas…
    Both shallow preening fools.

    Smart people aren’t buying it anymore.
    The are experts of nothing.

  10. insanelysane says:

    The+Y= They

  11. ralphb says:

    Class Warriors

    Why David Brooks Misses the Real Source of Moral Decay – Thirty Years of Class Warfare Against the Working Class

    The New York Times told two separate stories earlier this week, with no apparent recognition that they might be related. On September 12, David Brooks published a column decrying the moral “relativism and nonjudgmentalism” of the young. On September 13, a front page story announced that “Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade,’” explaining how the economic decline of the bottom half of the population over the past decade has grown worse during the financial crisis.

    What do the two stories have to do with each other? Brooks writes as though the country has – or should have – a set of shared values. (…) In short, the decline of the middle class and the soaring poverty rates the second story describes are far more significant issues than anything in Brooks’ column.
    (…)
    What Brooks doesn’t tell you is that the real crisis in contemporary American society is the weakening of the institutions that serve those on the losing end of the American economic ladder. One of the startling observations in the Moynihan Report of the mid-sixties was his finding that as jobs disappeared from rustbelt inner cities so, too, did church attendance. A half century later, Brad Wilcox has found the same thing among the working class more generally. With economic decline that has disproportionately affected traditionalist America, the institutions that produced cohesive communities, including churches, schools, families and civic organizations, are in decay. Modernity with all its faults, however, is not the principal source of the problem. And the risk Brooks does not acknowledge is that attacks on modernity in the name of morality often become attacks on tolerance. Let’s address the real sources of institutional decay and stop conflating the challenges of the last few years with the cultural changes a millennia in the making.

  12. yttik says:

    “While Obama has been slow to adapt to GOP obstructionism, don’t think for a second that Clinton would’ve fared any better..”

    Wow, that’s a profoundly stupid statement, even for a little cheetoh.
    I guess he missed all the years of experience Hillary had with Republican obstructionism.

    I guess he missed all her speeches and debates where she tried desperately to tell Obama what it was going to be like.

    • ralphb says:

      Maybe a decade long nap through the ’90s?

      • Dario says:

        Obots were focused on Obama and dismissed anything Clinton, hence they never really weighed the two candidates on their merits, and only listened to their own echo because they never ventured outside the Obama noise machine.

      • WMCB says:

        Wasn’t he still a Republican in the 90’s? I know he worked on Reagan’s campaign, and I don’t think he appeared as a newly born “progressive” until 2000 or so.

  13. ralphb says:

    HotAir

    South Carolina’s supposed to be his southern stronghold, of course.

    Perry gets 31% and Romney 27% — within the poll’s margin of error. [Actually, it’s 30.5 to 27.3. — ed.]

    If his lead is this thin now in his “stronghold,” what happens if/when Palin jumps in and starts carving off chunks of his tea-party support?

  14. Lola-at-Large says:

    You forgot the most important part. Hillary had dealt with a hostile media and the VRWC for more than 15 years. All the Mark penns and David Axelrods in the world couldn’t have given Obama that kind of experience. It made no difference who the campaign manager was. Hillary knew how to govern. Obama doesn’t. End of story.

  15. TA says:

    KOS looks like a poor man’s John Cryer….

  16. SHV says:

    “You forgot the most important part. Hillary had dealt with a hostile media and the VRWC for more than 15 years.”
    ***********
    More like 30 by my count. The Rethug attacks on her in the early 80’s were pretty vicious.

  17. Dario says:

    Obama campaigned on a post-partisan (unity) promise, but he never showed any skill or desire to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans, the way Hillary did. A letter from McCain in 2006:

    Dear Senator Obama:

    I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

    more at
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml

    • Erica says:

      Love this letter, but McCain kind of did make the same mistake again when he pledged to use public campaign funds and then 0 bailed on that after declaring he would operate with public funds.

      • 1539days says:

        McCain had a problem because he was the campaign finance reform guy, He believed in matching funds. His opponent doesn’t believe in anything.

  18. ” She wanted David Axelrod, but he was already committed to Obama. So was David Plouffe.”

    Huh??????

Comments are closed.