Ann Coulter: I’d Campaign for Hillary if McCain is GOP Candidate

Things are getting really confusing.

Colmes has no answer for this latest tirade from Ann Coulter, asking her to fill in for him next week after she declares that she’d vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain. In fact, she’d campaign for her.

Says Coulter: “She’s more conservative than he is. I think she’d be stronger on the war on terrorism. I absolutely believe that…I will campaign for her if it’s McCain. He has led the fight against torture at Guantanamo. She hasn’t done that. She hasn’t taken a position in front….He keeps going on and on about how he was the only Republican who supported the surge and other Republicans attacked him. It was so awful how he was attacked, it was worse than being held in a tiger cage. Well I looked at the record, Republicans all supported the surge. He’s not only not the only one who supported the surge. I promise you no Republican attacked him for this and you know why I think he’s saying that, Sean. I realize cause he keeps saying it every debate. He’s confusing Republicans with his liberal friends. They’re the ones who attacked him for it. His real friends…Their positions are about that far apart. When George Bush said at the State of the Union address that the surge is working in Iraq, Obama sat on his hands, Kennedy sat on his hands, Hillary leapt up and applauded that we are winning the surge in Iraq. She gave much better answers in those debates when Democrats like Obama and Biden were all saying what will we do when three cities are attacked. She said I will find who did it and I will go after them. Hillary is absolutely more conservative (than McCain). Moreover, she lies less than John McCain. She’s smarter than John McCain. So that when she’s caught shamelessly lying. At least the Cliintons know they’ve been caught lying. McCain is so stupid he doesn’t even know he’s been caught.”

Speaking of voting, is Mann Coulter even allowed to vote anymore?

Meanwhile, Dan Abrams asks if the media is rooting against Hillary. Well, if they’re giving Ann Coulter a platform to endorse her, you really do have to wonder…


  1. NowItMatters says

    Ah, the kiss of death for Hillary? This doesn’t bode well for her. Obama is the candidate for the future and of the future, but right now in 2008. Don’t be fooled by Billary’s conniving and crocodile tears.

  2. Esther Blodgett says

    Anyone, even Ann Coulter, who thinks John McCain is a ‘liberal’ does not understand the situation–indeed most likely does not understand ANY situation.

    This would be comical were it not so serious.

  3. says

    This is a surprise?

    Republicans know full well that Hillary is the only person they can beat in November, and that McCain is the only one who can beat her. They’re going to push Hillary in the media, and then start attacking McCain to get the sympathy ball rolling.

    Not hard to understand.

    By the way, Ann Coulter has been irrelevant for quite some time now. Perhaps people are tired of looking at her mannish forearms.

  4. Thomasina says

    Ann Coulter is just trying to screw with people’s minds to keep attention focused on the only thing she truly cares about: herself. She’s incredibly dangerous because 1) she’s willing to say *anything* if it will keep her on tv one second longer; and 2) a lot of her “fans” agree with her every poisonous word wholeheartedly. Just because Coulter says Hillary Clinton is “more conservative” than John McCain doesn’t make it true, any more than it is “true” when Coulter says women shouldn’t have the right to vote, or Muslims and Jews should all be converted to Christianity. There is nothing about Ann Coulter’s nasty rhetoric that a little applied critical thinking can’t easily overcome.

  5. pete says

    C’mon already. Most media is anti-Hillary.
    McCain and Obmama are the media darlings by far.
    The vitriol against Hillary from progressives turns my stomach. If democrats loose in Nov. it is because of the them.
    I don’t know 1 Hillary supporter who says bad things about Obama…but the opposite is far from true.

  6. Jimmyboyo says

    What 1 minute!!!!!!!!!!!

    FOX is NOT the media. They are 1 news outlet out of quite a few.

    Murdocuh does not own every last single piece of the media.

    FOX giving coulter the freak a platform to promote hillary is NOT the media routing against Hillary.

    Coulter is right in fact on Hillary being conservative. Obama ranks almost 10 points more liberal than she based on their voting records. More conservative than Mccain, she is wrong

  7. JJ says

    THOMASINA – Great comments! Intelligent, well written and so true. I would have just said, “she’s a douchebag” (which is still true). But yours sounds so much better.

  8. SeanR says

    It isn’t April Fool’s Day yet (two months away). Coulter is an endorsement that Hillary won’t want – AC is just a media whore, but she’s totally irrelevant. Spot on Thomasina!

    But to the woman of the hour… Hillary did brilliantly last night at the debate IMO (watched in on the net here in Dublin). Those of you waxing lyrical about Obama neglect how the sexy smile and doe-eyes disguises platitudes and soundbites. Hillary is vastly more experienced and in command of the issues. She will wipe the floor with whoever the GOP throws up as the candidate.

    Political soapbox aside tho’, this electoral race has to be one of the most interesting ones in years, and I’m really enjoying following it – cranks like AC and all!

  9. johnny says

    Oh, this one is easy to figure out. Just Ann’s way of staying in the spotlight since her share of attention has been dying of late. Like an above poster said, she’ll say or do anything to keep the cameras focused on herself. Shameless right wing hussy!

  10. David says


    I am a Hillary supporter and I say bad things about Obama everyday. I find him disingenuous, I find his rhetoric condescending and insulting, I find his policies weak and underdeveloped, I don’t buy his preachy ticket, and if I hear him say “change” one more time I’m going to have an aneurysm. When he toured with that anti-gay preacher and then backpedaled to say he didn’t endorse the anti-gay, or reform the gays, message, he lost me. He spoke out two sides of his mouth and ended up spewing blather. And I’m sick of the whining. Crying foul because the Clinton’s are distorting his record? If he is the nominee, the Republicans are going to come at him 20 times as hard. I don’t need a wet blanket crying foul when the Republicans go on the offensive.

    All of this is, of course, my opinion, and I certainly respect that there are a lot of people out there that endorse and love Obama. I don’t. I am not inspired by his fancy speech-writing and catch phrases. It turns me off. So I guess, Ann Coulter and I will be voting for the same candidate. Hot.

  11. says

    As someone who wrote a research project on how the media sensationalized every little thing in the Clinton Administration (and got an A on it from a devout progressive/communist), I feel that I can say that there is a definite media bias towards the Clintons. I will also say that they sometimes deserve it, but frankly, the whole subject of Clinton fatigue and electibility is ONLY an issue because the media has DRILLED it into our heads.

    Of course, you can look at it both ways that there really isn’t much else the press can throw at Hillary that hasn’t already been said. The real problem here is the free pass that the press has given Obama. If you think the Republicans will not take the opportunity to chew him up with even the slightest hint of impropriety with the Tony Rezko’s of the world, then you are sadly mistaken.

    My final conclusions is that the Republicans are more afraid of Hillary, hence, I think, Coulter’s endorsement of her.

  12. arkadin says

    Dittos to Thomasina. Although, interestingly enough, I believe most of what Coulter is saying here to actually be true for a change – I certainly believe that Hillary is smarter than McCain, and I believe that she lies less often than he does, and that she’d be better fighting terrorism (simply because she’d actually think about things instead of blindly pressing forward). I do not, of course, believe she’s more conservative than John McCain.

    This is a talking point that’s coming down from Rush and others, who don’t like McCain one bit because he’s “liberal.” I’m not entirely sure why they think so – perhaps McCain-Feingold got under their craw.

    I have no doubt that the MSM, on the whole, has a bias against Hillary. Fox is Fox, they have alwasy been thus and ever will be, so it’s useless talking about them. CNN is, of course, completely inept in almost everything they do. One simply had to watch the debate last night to understand why – While both candidates were articulate and performed very well, the same cannot be said for Wolfie. MSNBC, my favourite cable news network by far (marry me, Keith!), has the three-headed monster of crazy Joe Scarborough, addled Tim Russert, and misogynist Chris Matthews, the latter two of whom frequently hijack political discussions as much as possible.

    Am I saying all members of the media have an anti-Hillary bias? Of course not. Am I claiming that those who seem to have such a bias get an awful lot of airtime? Yes.

    But even aside from that, there’s a soft bias that happens here. I’ve met Hillary. I’ve talked with her. She’s incredibly warm and passionate and intelligent. “Crocodile tears”? Why would we even think that? Because the MSM focused its attention on it – they had debates about whether the tears (which weren’t even tears – her eyes simply moistened slightly during a particularly emotional moment) were calculated, whether they were real or fake. How incredibly preposterous. And how absurd to think that somehow Obama is any more genuine than any other candidate for president. As appealing as he is, he’s just another politician, just one who was lucky enough not to have been elected to a federal job when the vote on the Iraq war happened.

    Pete up above is right – I’m proud to support Hillary, because I think she’ll be better, ultimately, for gay rights than Obama. That, and I’m invested in having a woman president. These, of course, are not the only reasons, but I’m not going to enumerate them all for you here. That said, I think Obama is a terrific candidate and would likely make an excellent president. I happen to think Hillary would be better.

    The point is, both Obama and Hillary are better by leaps and bounds than anyone the republicans field. We all have to remember this – while we can all be very passionate about our candidate, whoever wins the nomination *needs* our support in November. We *cannot* let the democratic party become exactly what Coultergheist is doing here – if our candidate doesn’t win the nomination, we mustn’t vote for the dark side nor (worse yet) not vote at all. Even Obama supporters have to admit that four years of Hillary would be better than four years of McCain (which, remember, equals 100+ years in Iraq).

  13. FizziekruntNT says

    Doesn’t anyone else think Dan Abrams is HOT?

    Sorry, couldn’t help myself. I had to think happy thoughts after the initial Coultergeist account…

  14. Michael Bedwell says

    Ooops. Obviously, a lot of children, several of them queens, have been left behind.

    Ever hear of the “Trojan Horse,” people? Well, Coulter just pulled it into the campaign and many of you are going to sleep while the secret door of the horse opens and her real intent sneaks out which is to drive votes not away from McCain but from Hillary.

    Her kiss for Hillary is no less deadly because it’s fake. Coulter’s been a professional, that is she’s made a living from, attacking the Clintons forever. She’s called Hillary a dyke and Bill [and Gore and Edwards, of course] a fag.

    She knows that if she says “good” things about Hillary, she’s creating her very own guilt by association hit on her. And, I’d bet that she suspects, as I do, that the group that hates Coulter the most are gays—except for Cyd Outsports and probably Partisan Crain, of course.

    One minute she’s saying Hillary’s secretly a dyke which drives homos away from Clinton and the next she’s saying that she likes her which drives homos away from Clinton. Right before Super Tuesday when in some urban locales, such as SF, the number of gay voters equals if not surpasses black voters [whom she, of course, racist that she is, assumes will automatically vote for Obama because they’re too stupid to think beyond race].

    Note how she implied that Hillary was FOR torture. Note how she slipped Hillary the tongue of political death by claiming Hillary had a multiple orgasm when Bush mentioned the surge, thus smearing Hillary again with the false pro-Iraq label while reminding voters without even having to say it that Obama is supposedly her direct opposite. The fact he wasn’t even in the US Senate when the first vote was taken is ignored.

    Some of you have just been played with one of the oldest Republican tricks in the book. If X is for Y then voters will run to Z. Coulter will volunteer for Clinton. Cute. During the Watergate hearings, testimony revealed that Nixon’s campaign team paid people to dress like “antiwar hippies” and go to Nixon rallys, you read that right, carrying anti-Nixon / pro his opponent signs, yell epithets at him, etc. Talk of polarization in the US now contrasted with then is ludicrous, and Nixon played the “Silent Majority’s” knee jerk “patriotism” and fear and hatred for anybody who didn’t dress and act and speak like parochial school children like a violin.

    Coulter’s not trying to drive votes away from McCain, she’s trying to drive votes away from Hillary and to Barack because she knows that, unlike him, Hillary would wipe debate and interview floors with the issue-shallow, ever-more doddering guy’s white-haired head. She’ll grab his shrinking balls and never let go, trumping his moldy, cliched “patriotism” with details, details, details, and the image of a younger WOMAN representing dare I say change running against the poster boy for the 50s White Boy Establishment.

    And THAT’s what Coulter REALLY believes. Her kind of Republican fascist only cares about one thing: STAYING IN POWER. The real core of her/their hatred for the Clintons is that he ripped a second term away from George Bush pere. Four years after Saint Ronnie left the throne of his “revolution” those young, upstart, liberated problack, progay, proabortion Clintons knocked it off its tracks. If you think I exaggerate: Google the claims that incoming Bush II workers found the White House purposely trashed by vacating Clintonites. A literal attack on “those kind of people”—except it wasn’t true.

    They hated Hillary from day one because she refused to be Little Mamie Eisenhower or Little Nancy Reagan smiling silently, sweetly up at her man. That bitterness about having the country taken away from them after 12 years of believing it finally officially belonged to them [remember even Barack salutes Reagan’s gifts] and raw sexism ignited their Hillary Hatred that still burns today; yes, where Coulter’s heart should be, too.

    The saddest thing is how many gays are still deepthroating it whole.

  15. Michael Bedwell says

    Should have read, “One minute she’s saying Hillary’s secretly a dyke which drives homophobes away from Clinton and the next she’s saying that she likes her which drives homos away from Clinton.”

  16. Robert In WeHo says

    Seems to me that Man Coulter is going all Brittany Spears on us, you know, bipolar and incapable of caring for herself. Not that Coulter was ever sane in the first place but, clearly, she’s going further off the deep end than ever before…

  17. Derrick from Philly says

    What has John McCain lied about? I aint crazy about his conservatism and his inability to enter the 21st Century, but what has he lied about?

    Coulter makes Margaret Hamilton and Nancy Kulp look like beauty queens. Is Nancy Kulp still alive? If she is, I love ya’ dear–you have inner beauty. Coulter aint even got that.

  18. ZEKE says

    I think this is the first time EVER that I have agreed with Anne Coulter. I agree with just about everything she said about Hillary in that clip.

    She did support the war. She hasn’t been front and center opposing torture, Guantanamo, the surge, etc. She did applaud enthusiastically when Bush said that we were winning with the surge.

    I know that Coulter is playing compassion troll here to confuse Democrats in general and Hillary supporters in particular. Would we expect any less from her? However, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  19. says

    I don’t hate Hillary, but I’m not 100% on her bandwagon either. I don’t particularly like Obama’s philandering with the ex-gay preacher, but I’m not 100% against him either. I guess I’m one of those rare people who’s still undecided.

    The Clintonian legacy is really pretty poor when it comes to GLBT issues. We get lots of great rhetorical support, but when it comes to legislation and executive leadership, it’s been a big disappointment. I had a professor in grad school (the first time) who was a huge Reagan acolyte… it was so annoying. Anyway, he said one time that if anyone in the country should have felt betrayed by Mr. Clinton, it was the GLBT community. I had a hard time arguing with that. Yes, it’s true that Bill isn’t running… it’s Hillary. But let’s not get so excited that we start thinking that Hillary’s going to be much better. She’s been a lukewarm supporter at best, so it’s not like we’re electing fucking Margaret Cho to the White House.

    Obama has a similar lukewarm GLBT platform. The McClurkin episode last year was squalid, and I was disppointed that he even considered aligning himself with such a crackpot. Obama’s response to the controversy, a statement released on his website, was effusive but too little too late. The experience issue is not a very salient one… the presidency is by its very nature a “learn on the job” kind of gig (unless you’re an incumbent running for re-election).

    Long story short (too late, I know), we have two less-than-optimal candidates from a GLBT standpoint. The question now becomes whether we’re going to allow our dialogue to focus on GLBT issues, or whether we’ll instead look at the bigger picture. Either of these candidates will likely be better on a number of levels than any Republican that’s offered. The focus should be on who’s more electable against the Republican candidate. I just think that Hillary brings so much more baggage with her, and is such a lightning rod for conservatives in the U.S., that it’s risky to put her in as the candidate. America needs a fresh perspective and a new course, and I just don’t hear much about that from her.

    It’s also telling that Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Ann Coulter are all waxing poetic about Hillary… they fucking HATE her, but they’re supporting her bid for the Democratic primary. Why? Simple… she’s the easiest one to beat in the national election.

  20. Derrick from Philly says


    Jimmy Carter’s austere economic policies were responsible for the economic recovery of the 1980s. It was his own party that fucked him over…then again, I guess that’s what you’re saying the Democrats could do to Obama, hunh? Anyway, Reagan gave all the money Carter’s policies generated to all the greedy rich bastards through reckless tax cuts…hey, isn’t that what George Dumbya did with Big Cigar Daddy Bill’s federal budget surplus?

  21. Michael Bedwell says

    ZEKE! Just put down the Barackberry Kool Aide and step away from the voting booth—at least until your intoxication wears off.
    Apparently this is a different Zeke than the one who complainted that Obama sides with right wing religionists against marriage equality rather than agreeing with the United Church of Christ, of which both he and that Zeke are members, that supports gay marriage equality.

    For those who’ve been suckered in by the Log Heads’ propaganda, here are a few points from gay legal scholar Arthur S. Leonard on another blog:

    “We made important advances under Clinton.
    We got for the first time executive orders protecting executive branch employees from sexual orientation discrimination.
    We got a total revamping of the security clearance process that ended the “special procedures” under which gay people were frequently delayed or denied on security clearances, a real problem for people in technology occupations working for government contractors.
    We got the first openly gay federal judge, the first openly gay ambassador [James Hormel], the first openly gay people occupying positions requiring Senate confirmation (like Roberta Achtenberg), the first openly gay people in senior White House staff positions.
    We got a major advance on asylum policy when Janet Reno adopted as official precedent a decision that gays are a “distinct social group” for purposes of analyzing eligibility for political asylum in the US for people from oppressive countries.
    And we got the first president who did not spout reflexively anti-gay positions from the White House on every issue.
    What we didn’t get, unfortunately, was good pro-gay legislation, and the fault was largely because the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress for 6 out of the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.
    I agree that DADT on the military was a disaster, and that the Defense of Marriage Act represented shameless political calculation by Clinton in his 1996 re-election campaign.
    He calculated, probably correctly, that the only way to take same-sex marriage off the table as a campaign issue (and to avoid a federal constitutional amendment writing a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution) was to agree to DOMA, which was originally proposed, I believe, by Bob Dole.
    We need to remember that DOMA was passed by a Congress controlled by the Republican Party, not the Democrats (although it is surely true that Democrats, if united against it, could have filibustered it in the Senate).
    We need to think contextually about this and about DADT. I fault Clinton for failing to provide the leadership he should have provided back in 1993 when the military issue exploded. The best explanation is that he was confronted by leading Democrats, especially in the Senate, who told him that letting gays serve openly would not fly politically in Congress.

    Anyone who says we got NOTHING from the Clinton years and were set backwards is oversimplifying and misrepresenting the state of affairs. It is a mixed picture overall, and we made real progress, mainly on fronts that could be controlled solely by the executive branch due to the lack of control by Democrats of the legislative branch.
    We also, importantly, got our first major Supreme Court victory, Romer v. Evans, which was at least party attributable to Clinton’s two Supreme Court appointments, Breyer and Ginsburg, both of whom have been pretty stalwart in supporting gay rights on the Court. (They both voted our way in Lawrence v. Texas, and they both dissented in the Boy Scouts case.) Indeed, all of GW Bush’s Supreme Court appointees are firm opponents of gay rights.”

    OF COURSE, Clinton fucked up in many ways, while other times antigay Republicans AND Dems had his balls tied in a knot. But when are we going to stop judging his wife, the one ON THE BALLOT, for things he did/did not do more than a decade ago. To read all the attacks, you’d think HILLARY was the one who stained Monica’s blue dress!

    Yes, when she was 17-years old, Hillary was a “Goldwater Girl.” But so was Harvey Milk. Dare I say, “think about it”?

  22. daniel says

    I’m glad someone else has pointed out that they have noticed Obama is arrogant.
    I think he has let the adoring minions convince him that he is amazing.
    I guess if enough people told him he had blonde hair over and over, he’d probably beleive that as well.
    So let me get this right, if I become a community advocate in an inner city and then parlay that into a senate job by having some good speaking skills, that makes me the most qualified to lead over 300,000,000 in a time of unequaled problems.
    Give me a break.

  23. Derrick from Philly says

    Hey, Daniel Obama’s doing it kinda’ like the way Abraham Lincoln did it, hunh? Only the Lincoln wasn’t advocating for the ones in the inner city, he was advocating for their ancestors enslaved on the plantations.

    Lincoln became president with no more time in public service than Obama.

    I wonder if you told Hillary she had blond hair over and over, would she believe it?

  24. David says

    Granted, this website has a very liberal readership, so I understand analyzing Coulter’s statements in terms of the effect it has on Clinton/Obama… but, in my opinion, this doesn’t have an effect on the Democratic primary near as much (if at all) as it does on the Republican. Liberals and Democrats, in general, I think have learned to take Coulter for what she is, and I don’t think that her “supporting” Hillary changes much on the Dem side. People voting for Hillary (or Obama) probably aren’t going to change their mind based on what their ultraconservative enemy thinks.

    So instead, I think her comments really have to be weighed in terms of their effect on the Republican race, which, let’s not forget, is still hotly contested. Though he is the frontrunner, McCain hasn’t won yet, and I’m sure Romney is salivating over this before Super Tuesday. I’ve been watching the Republican debates with more earnest than the Democratic ones (I like the “know your enemy” approach), and the overarching issue in these debates has been which candidate can return America to a path of conservativeness. No one skews more conservative than Ann Coulter, so her vehemently pulling support for McCain accomplishes what I think she wants: Romney as the nominee. And that’s what bothers me, not a roundabout slice and dice of Clinton on Fox News of all places. I’m torn between who I want the Republicans to nominate. On the one hand, if a Republican is to win, I’d much rather it be McCain than Romney (or god forbid Huckabee). But on the other hand, I think Romney is more beatable. So do I hope for the more beatable candidate or do I hope for the nominee I like a little bit more? At the moment, I support the latter, just because I’m cynical and do think a Republican has a very legitimate shot at recapturing the White House, especially in light of our dismal Democratic Congress.

    In any event, I really have enjoyed reading these comments. It always makes me feel good to read substantive thoughts on the internet about something important rather than the bullshit that just seems to permeate our culture.

  25. Cufflinks says

    I don’t think there’s a conspiracy afoot. I don’t think Ann’s comments were supposed to help Hillary or hurt Hillary. I think Ann is realizing that Hillary-bashing is an oversaturated market. Everyone talks shit about Hillary. So Ann starts praising Hillary and all of a sudden people are scratching their heads and trying to figure Ann out. And Ann just eats the attention up with a spoon!

  26. Clint says

    Frankly, I haven’t seen any indication that Obama is just plain mean enough to be president. At least we know that Hillary can fuck somebody up when they need it and we need her to. I find that they are fairly similar on policy issues; they keep trying to highlight their differences, which are more differences in approach or in the details than differences in substance or ultimate goals.

    So it comes to this, a truth all we homos know almost intuitively, that you gotta be a bitch to be a queen.

  27. Marco says

    Lord, I am so bored with the “Hillary can be beaten” memo trotted out as fact by allegedly forward thinking, progressive people. They said the same about Bill, Gore and Hillary twice. All were elected, although one had theirs stolen.

    If Hillary wins the nomination, I fear she won’t lose the general because so many people “hate” her, it’s because the left and the Democrats don’t know how to fight and win.

  28. Matt says

    I don’t know what it is, but everytime I see or hear about Ann Coulter, all I can think is “Ann Coulter is a cunt.” I don’t know what’s wrong with me.

  29. daniel says

    Abraham Lincoln is not here in 2008 when we have an economy that is a disaster looming on the edge of recession, a dollar that basically has no value, people loosing their homes all over the country, (very similar to the Resolution Trust/Savings and Loan disaster from Reagan/Bush era) We have a broken healthcare system where people I know personally are paying $400/month for insurance to have a policy with a $5,000 deductible.

    The list of issues goes on and on and on.

    While I do think that Obama has an excellent delivery in his speeches and speaks of inspiring hope in us all, that is not what makes a great leader.

    I can go into a new job that I really have no qualifications for and no idea what I’m doing, and can tell my employers all the incredible plans I have for this new job and give them hope and excitement that I’m going to make them happy and successful, but when I start that job, if I don’t have experience or training and really know what I’m doing, I most likely will fail.

    The job of President of the United States at this point in time needs a person with experience and training.

    Like it or not, you cannot deny that Hillary has the experience from her husband’s administration…and she doesn’t need trained.

    I haven’t even addressed the Donnie McClurkin/Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr?homophobe/racist side of things…I could type all day on those issues.

  30. mccain is a liberal says

    mccain is the same as hilary, a lot of conservatives feel that way. he’s a big spender for big gov and illegal amnesty. ann coulter was being serious.

  31. nic says

    coulter, the “polemicist” is not the story here. no thinking person takes her seriusly, and her minions have no sense of irony.

    however, the abrams question is relevant and timely. he is correct in saying that the media have essentially given obama a free pass while poring over and dissecting every foible and misstep (real or imagined)in hillary’s campaign. high-flown rhetoric and, (at times, specious) speechifying is fine, but absent substance, it can only get you so far.

    the pundits’ lazy and facile coverage of the democratic campaign has amounted to little more than the breathless fawning of pubescent tweens: ooh, he’s handsome and smart. ooh, he talks pretty. look at the ginormous crowds; he’s a rock star.

    give me a fucking break. *with a wink to bill*

  32. Landis says

    Ultra right-wing media is trying to help Obama win so that he gets crushed by McCain. Hillary, on the other hand, would give it as good as it takes and would be tougher for others to take down.

    It’s all about reverse psychology.

  33. Derrick from Philly says


    Jimmy has the credentials to do some “reniggering” anytime he wants to. He’s faught some racist bitches on this blog with more ferocity than I have. Of course, he’s more butch than me, so why not?

    No, Abraham Lincoln (with his inexperience in executive office) didn’t face those modern problems you mention, he just faced the tearing apart of the Republic, and leading the country through the bloodiest war the United States ever experienced.

    Daniel, I’m just saying that the argument that Barack doesn’t have experience enough to run the country doesn’t carry much weight with a lot of folks. Ronald Reagan didn’t really run the country did he? He was a delegator, but he used the “bully pulpit” to lead the country (the conservative way) . Well, maybe Barack will be the same kind of president, a leader with a direction, but with an administration that sees to the actual plans/ strategies/details.

    Hey, what kind experience did Big Cigar Daddy Clinton have in foreien affairs?… but we elected him…same for Baby Bush.

    I wish this thing was over by next Wednesday. Barack or Hillary–I don’t give a fuck. Well, I mean, I do care, but as long as it’s a Democrat–I don’t care.

  34. Michael Bedwell says

    Nic, I certainly agree with you that the MSM have been caught up in the Obama as Elvis madness, but the gay press, with a specific and by-definiton narrow focus of issues has been worse, with rare exception. All they really do, totally unexamined, is repeat Obama campaign propaganda such as the nonsense about Section 2 of DOMA and “hearing” “gay civil rights” and “end homophobia” in his speeches [versus debate/interview answers] instead of what he’s literally—and very carefully and intentionally—saying/not saying.

    HOWEVER, repeat HOWEVER, your question to Jimmy regarding a “Freudian slip” is inexcusably racist.

  35. nic says

    Michael Bedwell,

    it was a joke! even if a very bad one. jimmyboyo knows very well that i respect his candidate (obama) and i believe he is, by jumps and starts, coming to appreciate mine (hillary). there was no racism intended.

    to my chagrin, i didn’t include the last line of my last comment which was, “you see how ridiculous this can become?” my reference was to my previous comment about the woefully puerile coverage by the msm of the democratic candidates, and more specifically their nitpicking, hairsplitting coverage of all things hillary. i was trying to demonstrate that if one picks apart the smallest mistake, one can turn it into something that it is not. hence, my unfunny joke.

    moreover, there is also the sin of omission. jimmy was misrepresenting the relative liberalism of obama and hillary and the relative conservatism of hillary and mccain. i’ll quote from fox news (ugh) and “national journal” which yearly ranks senators by ideology:

    “Despite the bitterness pervading the campaign between Clinton and Obama, the two have very similar voting records. The year-in-review showed the two differed on just 10 of the 267 measure they both voted on.
    The two candidates were like “fraternal policy twins,” demonstrating only slight differences.
    National Journal wrote that the two senators supported most measures to withdraw troops from Iraq and comprehensive immigration reform, and that they voted similarly when it came to health care, education, energy and other issues.”

    and the nyt political blog, ranking senators from 1 to 100, with 100 being the most liberal, showed obama at 84.3 and hillary at 78.8 — a hardly significant margin.

    look, i have said many times from the beginng here that i was proud that the democrats had gathered such a strong field of candidates. and i like and admire both of the remaining candidates. to my mind, though, hillary is the more qualified.

  36. Jimmyboyo says


    Ies NIC, I am becoming more and mor impressed with Hillary.

    She was good last night in the debate. I even applauded and cheered the Tv when Blitzer mentioned a joint ticket.

    Personaly I would prefer Obama/ Hillary as vs Hillary/ Obama.


  37. Michael Bedwell says

    RE the upcoming primaries: while I have made clear my preference for Sen. Clinton in the primary, I urge no one to sit this one out; to be immobilized by fear that you might vote for the wrong one, or just plain unable to decide. VOTE!

    We have to send a message to Republicans that we are not going to take their shit anymore. That they should be afraid; very afraid to the point of not knowing whether to piss or go blind; to the point of not voting themselves because they believe there’s no point! That the huge turnouts in New Hampshire and South Carolina are just the beginning. That we are not just going to take the White House back from these theocratic thugs, but give Dems a REAL majority in Congress that can crush all of their games like a beer can at a fraternity party.

    During the debate last night, just as she did during the Howard University debate when she said, “If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged outcry in this country,” Sen. Clinton caught this powerful, unprecedented moment in our History exactly when she said that when Romney, Huckabee, and McCain debated, they showed “they are more of the same. Neither of us, just by looking at us, you can tell we are not more of the same. We will change our country.”

    One or the other; together or apart; let it be so. “Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come.” -Victor Hugo.

  38. Larry Cox says

    The only problem is Clinton doesn’t know defense from toilet paper and you think her skirt chasing husband going to help her? Not a chance! And Obama? What we got here is a koran thumpin’ muslim who says he’s a christian but hasn’t renounced his Islamic ways. He won’t take the oath of office with his right hand on the Holy Bible! No, it has to be the Koran. same as when he took the oath of office for his LAST position. He won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance and he won’t sing the National Anthem. Not a good man for the Oval office if you ask me. The church he belongs to believes that the country should be led by black people! How’s that for a twist! So it’s either going to be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton for the democrats.Me, I’m going for Mitt Romney!

  39. sillyme says

    What’s interesting about Coulter’s statement, if it’s true, is that, all along, Obama supporters have been saying that Hillary is so divisive that Republicans will rally together and beat in in the general election. Maybe that’s not so true after all. If Coulter is feeling that way, other conservative women might feel the same way. The possibility of having the first female president might be more appealing to some women than supporting their party. As for me, I’m a Hillary supporter; if Obama is the candidate, I definitely will vote Republican.

  40. peter says

    My mom is a life long republican voter and the other day told she was going for Hillary much to my surprise. Not sure if that is any indication how things are going to go, but my Mom can’t be the only one.

  41. Jimmyboyo says


    Obama is not a muslim. Stop listening to rush limbaugh.

    Even if he was

    The USA constitution Article VI, section 3
    “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    Since you seem to be promoting a religious test then I would say that you SIR are the enemy of the US. You are the opposite of our founding fathers. You are a threat to the USA constitution!

    Now begone

  42. Rich says

    read this:

    If the race comes down to These two, you can bet a million dollars, Hillary will swing way to the right, and McCain will stay right where he is. Hillary is a hawk, and anyone who doesn’t believe that, well, they are master politicians, aren’t they?

    Hillary cannot be trusted, she will do her dealings behind closed doors, trying to make the lobbyists happy, it will be business as usual. McCain has always been one to speak out against the influence of lobbyists, and Obama, is a fierce lobbyist foe.

    I so badly want Obama to win. I think he has a better chance against McCain. He could get 55 or 60% of the vote. With Hillary, it will be 51-49, in either direction. Hillary certainly can’t use her experience card against him. If it comes down to Hillary vs McCain, I will vote for McCain. It will be my first vote for a Republican ever, this year of all years!

  43. Jimmyboyo says


    He took his oath of office on a bible. THOUGH no politician should take an oath on anything besides the constitution of the USA. Their duty is to uphold the constitution and not anybody’s holy book.

    The allegiance. Uhm, you do know that the pledge is a recent historical invention? The founders had no pledge of allegiance to the flag.

  44. Michael Bedwell says

    The inmates may not be running the asylum but they’re sure voting in it!

    Unmistakable signs of mental illness:

    “Obama’s a Muslim”

    “I’m going for Mitt Romney!”

    “I’m a Hillary supporter; if Obama is the candidate, I definitely will vote Republican.”

    “If it comes down to Hillary vs McCain, I will vote for McCain.”

    God bless Peter’s mom, and St. Judy help the rest of us!

  45. AStonedtemple says

    Can we just please argue FOR a ticket that consists of both Clinton and Obama? I think both candidates can be beaten. And so can McCain. And so can Romney. But a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is a shoein.

    BTW: I’m not naming names but I think people from both the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign are all over this blog just waiting for Obama/Clinton news. That, or just the Repugs playing the game called Discord. This is a pretty prominent blog after all.

  46. patrick nyc says

    Larry you are an idiot. It was Keith Ellison who took his oath on the Koran, he is a congressman from MN, who is also the first black to represent the state. Obama’s father was Muslim, Obama is a Christian, too much of one sometimes for my taste. I am not electing a preacher, but a president. Besides, it does not matter what they swear on, it does not stop all the liars like Craig or the ones now in jail over Jack Abramoff.

    I have been just as guilty as many dems in trashing the other candidate. I was for Obama until the SC fundraising flap. But after last night I am convinced that no matter who wins, this is not just history, it is vital that we get the GOP the hell out of the White House.

    The first order of business is to get new carpets, not for the lame excuse Bush gave after Clinton left, because of 8 years of horse shit that’s been thrown around there.

    As for Coulter, I don’t trust this guy, come on with that adams apple, plus no one has balls like that bastard. It’s not just Coulter. Rush and Jim Dobson have been saying they would not support McCain all week. I don’t trust these pricks at all.

    I’m going to call my 4 brothers and sister this weekend, all Irish Catholic GOP conservatives who had planned on voting for Mayor 9/11. You should have heard me shooting holes in his case over the holidays. They also watch Fox so I’ll get their spin on all this.

  47. Jimmyboyo says


    Pretty much nobody outside of NY even knows who he is.

    There was a NY poll taken last month which showed New Yorkers only giving him 25% support for the presidency.

    He is too fiscaly conservative for dems and too socialy liberal for repubs.

    Heck, if the southern baptists aren’t accepting an anglo saxon mormon from the north who says the name of jeebus they sure as heck aren’t going to accept a northern Jew.

  48. says

    This uber liberal, progressive person who didn’t think he’d ever vote for Hillary in a million years prefers him 10x to Barack Obama.

    I was an Edwards guy, but en leau of a more progressive politician, I’ll take the person who I have at least some expectation of incremental progress. Barack Obama has actually been running to the right of Hillary, with a much weaker health plan, praising Ronald Reagan and stumping about how Social Security is facing its doom – meanwhile, it’ll be solvent for over 40 years.

    I’m sick of him parroting right wing talking points and I’m sick of his supporters running rampant online, bashing anything about any other democratic candidate – as if we possibly couldn’t think Hillary or Edwards would be a better President than Obama.

  49. Jimmyboyo says


    Obama did not praise Reagan. He said that Reagan provided a vision (though a flawed one) that united large groups of america to set out a new path for the US.

    His health plan is not weaker. Just go to his website to read his proposal which is very detailed. Hillary’s penalizes those who cant not afford the mandatory requirement to get it.

    Social security is not solvent in that there is no social security lock box which AL GORE stumped for. The social security tax you pay goes to cover those now collecting from it while excess goes to bridges to nowhere in alaska and pork like that. The cap needs to be raised. How is it ok that any money made over $96,000 a year does not get taxed by SS??

    Obama is not and never has parroted right wing talking points.

    You just did what you claim Obama supporters are doing.

    Only 4 out of 10 edwards supporters feel like you and are going to Hillary. 1/4 are straight out switching to Obama and the rest undecided. If Obama and his supporters were running rampant over edwards don’t you think 90-100% of his supporters would have switched to hillary by now………..

  50. Michael Bedwell says

    Sen. Clinton has been called a liar, a triangulator, Bill in drag, and someone who probably eats little black babies. Consider:

    1. Sen. Obama says he fought for gay rights all the time he was in the Illinois legislature.

    FACT: There’s apparently no record of his having signed onto any gay rights bill until he’d been there four years. He did sign onto three but he did not initiate any of them; in fact, did not become a cosponsor until anywhere from a week to FOUR MONTHS after they were introduced. All died in committee. Though he had NINE MONTHS before his election to the US Senate to become a cosponsor of the bill that finally passed, he suddenly went AWOL on gay rights all that time, his run for that higher office apparently distracting him too much to even take 15 seconds to sign his name to the bill. Everyone’s active support was desperately needed as Equality Illinois and black LGBT groups in the state lobbied feverishly for the bill that finally only passed by a single vote.

    2. Obama claims he has the ability to bring people together; to change minds; to reach down and convert homohating lions into homoloving lambs.

    FACT: He couldn’t even get his close friend and spiritual advisor, the homohating Reverend and Illinois State Senator James Meeks, who’s complained about the “Hollywood Jews who brought us ‘Brokeback Mountain’,” to vote for the bill above, assuming he even tried. Neither Equality Illinois nor the gay “Windy City Times” make any reference to Obama in their accounts of the bill’s passage. [He couldn’t personally vote on it as he’d been elected to the US Senate by then. Priorities are priorities.]

    3. Obama insists he’s a different kind of politician; that he has integrity, is a man of his word.

    FACT: Obama promised at least twice that he would serve his full six-year US Senate term; would not run for President during it. Must be a different Barack Obama on your primary ballot.

    4. Obama claims that, though both he and Sen. Clinton support federal benefits for gay couples, he is better than Sen. Clinton because he supports a “full repeal of DOMA,” referencing the other part which talks about “states’ rights” without mandating anything either way.

    FACT: You wouldn’t know it from a gay press snoring away in Obama’s pretty poppyfields because they’ve got wood for him, but his support is nothing but a dishonest political hat trick. He’d make the toothless, meaningless part of DOMA vanish while keeping up his sleeve the fact that he totally supports a state’s right, regardless of DOMA, to legally deny gay relationships whatever they’re called. That position was revealed by his supporter and Harvard Constitutional law professor, Lawrence Tribe, who told ABC News that, “Same-sex couples [for instance] in Massachusetts are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealed except that the repeal of DOMA is a way of telling that couple that their marriage in Massachusetts is not going to be made the subject of a symbolic and ineffectual slam by the federal government.” Obama also believes a right to deny gay adoption should be left to the states.

    5. Obama called his desperate post-McClurkingate effort at damage control a “Call for Full Equality” for LGBTs, and wrote of fighting for our “real equality.”

    FACT: the air-filled essay, which was only distributed to GAY media, reiterates his refusal to support gay marriage equality [despite the fact that his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, does support it]. I don’t know how YOU define “REAL equality” and “FULL equality” but….

    6. Obama brags about talking about “gay civil rights” and “condemning homophobia” wherever he goes.

    FACT: Outside of interviews and debates where he is forced to answer questions about them explicitly, many of his speeches have no reference to gays at all. And when they do, they are almost universally passive references about gay friends or hugging us, with no mention of the word “rights” at all. Whatever people remember him saying at the 2004 Democratic convention, his actual words were only, “we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States.”

    During his 20-minute South Carolina victory speech he gave shout outs to 21 different kinds of supporters, some multiple times, such as such as blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, the elderly, Wal-Mart workers, etc, but never mentioned gay Americans. We were only there in spirit—the spirit of homophobia referenced in the sea of signs behind him that read, “Stand For Change,” purposely echoing the title of Donnie McClurkin’s Grammy-winning gospel hit, “Stand!” Whenever Obama does mention homophobia it’s only in the context being an obstacle to fighting AIDS. “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.” Those are not the words of Barack Obama but of Coretta Scott King, and she said them ten years ago.

    7. Obama’s short position paper says he’s, “been a global leader in the fight against AIDS.”

    FACT: Sen. Clinton wants to increase AIDS funding by at least TWENTY billion dollars; Obama suggests FIVE.

    8. Obama always talks about the importance of listening to different points of view, suggesting that progress and justice and what’s right will result.

    FACT: While Sen. Clinton apologized after being told that her initial response to the homophobic remarks of Gen. Pace were too tepid, and condemned him, when McClurkingate exploded, after urging from gay staff members and prominent gay donors, a conference call with the Human Rights Campaign, pleas from the National Black Justice Coalition and black writers including Keith Boykin, Pam Spaulding, Rod McCullom, and Jasmyne Cannick, to cancel McClurkin’s participation in the Obama campaign gospel show—as he had cancelled his own pastor’s participation in his very first campaign event after questions about the minister’s racial beliefs arose—Obama’s response amounted to, “Go fuck yourselves.” “Gay City News” seems to have forgotten saying at the time, “to offer up Donnie McClurkin as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, and then suggest that gay Americans unhappy at the prospect of him being a ringleader in Obama’s ‘big tent’ are culturally insensitive is flat out wrong. It is clumsy. It is insulting. And it is cynical.” But the show went on where McClurkin screeched to the adoring black crowd, “God DELIVERED ME from homosexuality” into a microphone and on a stage paid for by Obama. McCullom said, “He folded like a deck of cards. If he is going to fold on the campaign trail, why would we not think he’d fold in the Oval Office?” Black lesbian minister Irene Monroe went farther, accusing him of playing the race card for antigay votes. Even requests for Obama to simply tell the audience that he disagreed with McClurkin were denied. He appeared only by video, only saying, “The artists you’re going to hear from are some of the best in the world, and favorites of Michelle and myself.”

    That’s the same candidate running ads in which he insists, “You’ve got to tell people what they need to hear not what they want to hear.”

    And that’s what I’ve been trying to do.

  51. Jimmyboyo says

    Michael bedwell

    What has Hillary done for us?

    -Her husband enacted “Don’t ask Don’t tell”

    – she refuses to call for revoking DOMA in its entirety. In fact she says many parts of it should stay in affect

    – 2007 saw her delaying the renewal of the Ryan White Act. Just the PRIMARY federal law that helps finance tha battle against HIV/ AIDS

    sadly, neither of the top 2 dems are a gay messiah

  52. Michael Bedwell says

    Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. You’re starting to hurt my feelings because I’m beginning to take personally that you respond without carefully reading what I’ve written first.

    #4 above explains about DOMA Section 2. I do think she’s made a mistake in not explaining, but maybe she has and like so much else, it got washed away in the rivers of cum flowing for Obama. “States rights” is probably the oldest surviving political hot button we have and she’s clearly not yet ready to open up that can of worms, even for something as superfluous as DOMA Section 2 [again, see above] when she’s committed to putting so many more real ones on the table—like FEDERAL recognition of gay relationships and all the rights and benefits that come with it. That’s DOMA Section 3. The shorthand: there is NO difference in anyway that will affect our lives between her position and Obama’s [except he’s smile fucking you over it and he didn’t even take his clothes off].

    Repeat: “Same-sex couples [for instance] in Massachusetts are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealed except that the repeal of DOMA is a way of telling that couple that their marriage in Massachusetts is not going to be made the subject of a symbolic and ineffectual slam by the federal government.”

    What has she done for us? No less than Sen. Obama has, meaning she’s voted the very same way he has in the Senate.

    And yes, that’ right, HER HUSBAND, not SHE, finally agreed to sign DADT 15 years ago. Why is SHE being punished for his crime particularly when she, just like Obama has called for its repeal. True, she’s not proposed that in the Senate yet BUT NEITHER HAS HE. As Eli Stone knows, “Ya gotta have a little faith, faith, faith!”

    And the ONLY reason she delayed renewal of Ryan White is because Bush was trying to take some of the money from HIV/AIDS patients in HER state and send it to other states. As one of two senators from New York IT’S HER JOB TO FIGHT FOR THEM.

    She wrote the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which expands access to vital treatment options for low-income individuals living with HIV. WITH Obama, she sponsored the Microbicide Development Act to discover new easier, cheaper treatments and prevention methods for HIV. Her HIV/AIDS plan is 8 pages long; his his 3. But the important math is that, as indicated above, she would increase AIDS funding by $20 billion—FOUR TIMES what Obama has proposed.

    So many talk about how they don’t trust Hillary for her past when during this campaign Obama has been dishonest and misleading about his real position on states’ rights and gay relationships; when he has effectively said, “The churches own the marriage-word. Deal with it!”; when he outright lied to “The Advocate” about personally passing an LGBT rights bill in Illinois; when he told us essentially to fuck off when we said, “Please don’t give Donnie McClurkin a stage to demonize us”; when he blows us air kisses in the form of dropping the gay-word in speeches while never really saying to his audiences, “America, listen to me. I’m not just talking about hugs here. I don’t want to hear any of that hypocritcal, sanctimonious, holier than thou bull about hating the sin and loving the sinner. There IS not difference. Hating gay people is wrong! Keeping them second class citizens is wrong! And I am going to change that law by law by law!”

  53. says

    The irony is that, when you look at what Ms. Clinton actually does, rather than what she says, Clinton is more of a Republican than a Democrat.

    Remember, in 2007 Clinton actually voted for war with Iran.

  54. says

    The irony is that, when you look at what Ms. Clinton actually does, rather than what she says, Clinton is more of a Republican than a Democrat.

    Remember, in 2007 Clinton actually voted for war with Iran.

Leave A Reply