Bloggers analyze Hillary’s latest anti-Obama tactic. They also wonder about a history teacher who lambastes Southern Christians and scratch their heads over Ted Turner’s cannibalism comments.
A winning argument? “He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.” So Hillary Clinton told Gov. Bill Richardson in reference to Barack Obama, whom Richardson went on to endorse for the Democratic nomination. Richardson evidently thought likewise not too long ago. But bloggers wonder whether playing the electability card is a sign of desperation.
Steven G. Brant at Huffington Post writes: “Since Obama’s defeat is an unshakable reality in Hillary’s mind, if Barack gets the nomination I hope Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean arrange for Hillary to spend the period between the convention and the general election in some far away place (Russia? China?) where her negativity will not drag down the efforts of the rest of us to prevent the Republicans from maintaining control over the White House.”
Keith Sullivan, the Independent Liberal, says the Clintons are more “like a cartel or the mafia, choice is never something that should come into play. It’s always about entitlement and rank with them.” While John Riley at Newsday’s Spin Cycle sees them as more callow and pathetic: “the Clintons look like crybabies and sore losers. It is so undisciplined that it furthers the impression of a campaign that may be on its way down, and can’t accept the idea that somebody might actually prefer the other guy.”
Justin Gardner at Donklephant thinks the Clintonistas have made Richardson’s endorsement more valuable than it is “[Because there’s no way that the Clintons would have Carville go out there and call Richardson ‘Judas’ or start this whisper campaign if they didn’t want to destroy his credibility. And that’s what all this is designed to do … muddy the waters enough so people don’t trust him anymore. It may work with some. I certainly hope not.”
And David Knowles at AOL’s Political Machine observes: “John McCain certainly can win a Republican primary, and a whole lot of people said he couldn’t. For that matter, declaring that the person who is currently beating you is not capable of beating the next guy, thereby implying that you can, is a bit of a stretch.”
Read more about the Clinton-Richardson fracas. In Slate, John Dickerson writes: “The prediction that Obama will be a general-election failure is so taboo that now that Clinton has said it, her aides won’t repeat it.”
“Jesus Glasses”: California high schooler Chad Farnan and his family are suing a history teacher for saying that Christianity is inextricably linked to bad behavior. “What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” No mention of whether the teacher’s wanting grasp of geography is included in the suit.
At the National Review Online, Corner regular Jonah Goldberg can’t work up a sweat over this: “I think the lawsuit probably goes too far. But it’s interesting to ponder what the bureaucracy would have done to this guy if he’d employed a similar argument against blacks or Mexicans.” Significant Pursuit by Renaissance Guy agrees: “Even though it is tempting to say that turnabout is fair play, I don’t think Christians should react to being offended in the same litigious way as the politically correct elite. I think the teacher overstepped his bounds, and I think his logic is questionable, but I don’t think a lawsuit is necessary or even warranted. Unfortuantely a federal district judge thinks that it is.”
Rachel Lucas turns the teacher’s comment on its head: “Nevermind that one possible reason Christians in the U.S. are more likely to do anything is because they are 77% of the population, and that no public school teacher should ever be allowed to say any of that shit anyway, at least until they can also say shit about Islam without being fired.”
Read more about the Christian-bashing teacher.
Are you going to finish that? “Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” That’s Ted Turner, talking to Charlie Rose, on the imminent aftermath of global warming.
Reasonable Kansans’ “Forthekids” cautions not to stockpile the soylent green just yet: “[L]et’s just hope that Ted Turner doesn’t team up with Dr. Eric R. Pianka, world-renowned ecologist, and decide to take it upon themselves to do something about that ‘over population’ issue. Pianka, at one time, endorsed airborne Ebola as an efficient means for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population.”
Blue Crab Boulevard calls Turner a “dim-witted Malthus” except that the “implications in Ted Turner’s vision are a little more sinister: ‘See all the multitude of poor people who want to be rich people? How greedy of them! We can’t have them succeed at that, now can we?’ … It’s amazing that so many supposedly secular people want so desperately to be living in ‘end times.’”
Read more about Turner’s cannibalistic scenario.