“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

SCRANTON, Pa. – As Sen. Hillary Clinton was preparing to campaign here today, Sen. Barack Obama was meeting with voters at a diner and apparently pretty hungry.

“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?” he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.

Uh oh. It looks like Barry is getting a little cranky today. Did the “bitter” gun-toting Archie Bunkers hear him whining like that? I wonder what the question was? Next time, maybe Barry should have a snack before he heads to the diner for a photo op with voters.

Saturday: Revenge of the Geeks

We see your Jay-Z and raise you one Napoleon Dynamite:

Vote for Pedro!

Er, Hillary!

In other news (speculation):

• Chris Bowers thinks the FL and MI delegations will be seated, Florida as is and uncommitted delegates going to Obama in MI. OK, let the baby have his way in MI. He didn’t earn those delegates and he’s actually stealing them from Edwards and the others who weren’t on the ballot. If it had been my druthers, I’d have graciously advocated for a revote in MI, as Hillary did. But Noooo. Barry is not above taking what is not his. And we have to remember that if this report is true, Barry walked back his request for a 50/50 split in MI, which would have been worse for him since presumably, that 5% he would have taken from Hillary represented votes of real people who decided they did not want him. So, Ok, Baby Barry gets unearned delegates. His supporters at OpenLeft are not satisfied. Yep, for them, it’s just a matter of grabbing whatever you can so you can win the game, regardless of the voters. Jeez, these people have no scruples. Their parents should be ashamed. In any case, nothing is confirmed and if they aren’t guaranteed to count just like every delegation, it’s all a bunch of meaningless diversion. Not only that but it will pretty much lose Florida and MI in the fall. What a catastrophe. Lead or get out of the way, Howard.
• The NYTimes in *two* articles saw Hillary attacking Obama. The latest is “Superdelegates Unswayed by Clinton’s Attacks” (but then she picked up 3 uncommitteds Go figure.) and Nagorney wrote, “Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate”. Sometimes, I wonder if we’re watching the same debate. I’ve seen MUCH sharper “attacks” in tenser debates. It appears that words have become redefined and thresholds have been lowered substantially. She was strong and feisty but also on her game and animated. She fairly danced through a challenging debate while he struggled. It takes practice, practice, practice. But her gentle jabs at him were hardly attacks. If that’s the new standard, then Obama is toast against John McCain who isn’t even a great debater but he IS a Republican.
• One more thing: I want to revisit the WWTSBQ? rantings of the Obamasphere. You guys will just not shut up about how impossible for Hillary to win based on delegate counts and that the SDs should respect the will of the people in their states (except Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, etc). Do you guys realize how incredibly out of touch and stupid you sound? Here is the scenario you envision: They’re going to finish the primaries close to dead even with Obama winning only two big states, one of which is expected to go R and all the rest of his wins in sparsely populated R western states and the racially divided R south vs Hillary’s wins in the big electoral college states, swing states, the east, the west, the south, the rust belt. She’s given stellar debate performances and never thumbs her nose at voters. She is going to have a very strong finish. But if she has only a handful fewer pledged delegates, you want Howard Dean to say,
  

  “Well, thanks for that very nice performance, Hillary. We’ve decided to award the contest to the token male because, because, well, we don’t know why exactly but you’re a woman. Surely, you’ve faced disappointment before. Sorry, Sorry, Sorry *rolling eyes*, CA, MA, NY, NJ, PA, IN, KY, WV, AZ, AR, OK, TX, OH, MI and all the rest of you I forgot. That’s our decision, so sue me. BTW, Obama and the DNC could use some cash and this DNC convention soiree we are oblgiated to throw this year doesn’t come cheap. Oh, and Jim and his little group of zealots will be contacting you for your canvassing assignments.”

  ‘Cos that’s what it’s going to sound like. Do you guys REALLY believe we’re going to let you get away with that? Not. Bloody. Likely.

Person Hillary Attacks

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Obama just can’t stop himself

Is this Presidential behavior?

Thanks to Shainzona & Ghost2. I guess it’s Movie Night.

Riverdaughter donated a link to a longer version of Obama’s crude behavior that proves it wasn’t just an accident:

It’s like a car accident

But I can’t look away:

Addendum: Well, this is interesting.  Is there anything she can’t do (better than him)?

Tomorrow’s Headlines

Summarize the debate in one sentence.

RD:  “Hillary Battles for Dem Nomination with Incoherent Token Male”

MABlue had several:

• “Was This Combat Fair?”
• “Now Hillary is Displaying her Depth and Breadth: Is there anything she won’t do to get elected?”
• “How Hillary Clinton Destroyed The Democratic Party By Purposefully Knowing More Stuff Than Barack Obama”
• “How Hillary Destroyed The Thrill Before It Got Up Matthews’ Nuts”
• “Who Put That Usurper On The Stage?”

Go!

To our more sensitive readers

In the last couple of days, since we have roughly *doubled* our hit rate, I have noticed a new phenomenon. It appears that our commentary has a nauseating effect on some of our more sensitive readers. They write that what we have said here makes them sick. It is occurring with increasing frequency to the point that we are now able to give it a name: Conflucian Emesis Syndrome or CES. Sufferers share similar characteristics. They self-report to be formerly unbiased, giving their support to neither Obama or Clinton. They are also plagued by a new symptom which I will name hallicinographia. That is, they are reading things that are not there. It is perfectly understandable, however, if they have just arrived here from a site indulging in over-the-top Obamaphilia-like debauchery. Such sites like DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo stimulate the overexpression of neurotransmitters associated with hostility and irrationality. These neurotransmitters do not automatically refract to normal levels during the site hopping phase of an average surfing session. The result of elevated neurotransmitters is the ability to see hostility and irrationality in every post that they read subsequently. This effect may last for several hours and in some cases, days. In particular, hallucinographia prevents the reader from distiguinshing between snark and inflammatory purple prose.

Afternoon Silliness

One thing lead to another while I was searching for the Quasimodo Sanctuary video and I found this video by serendipity.  It’s too good to pass up:

Now, now, if you’re imagining the throng doused with molten lead as Obamaphiles, that would be naughty.  Perfectly understandable, but naughty.  We do not hurt our friends with hot metals.  We use our words.  😉

I’m going out for awhile.   Don’t make a mess and no wild parties.  This is an open thread.

Welcome Union Members!

I would like to extend a hand to all of the Kossacks who officially threw in the towel tonight. I know it can’t have been easy, although a few of you will assure me that it was. Please feel free to use The Confluence as your online picket line and refugee camp.

As you may have noticed, although we have only been in operation for a couple of months, our infamy has grown quite a bit. We have gotten mentioned at many fine blogs and have a reputation for offering a safe place to express your opinion with other non-Obamaphiles.

Friday- Finally!

It’s a snark lover’s dream today in the left blogosphere. It’s hard to believe at times that some bloggers make a living spouting off nonsense and yet. Here are some of the prize winning idiocies from both bloggers and campaign surrogates from around the web:

• Take Chris Bowers, Please! The man gets a tingle in his leg whenever there is the prospect of a caucus. Yes, we’re just so into the jostling, misinformation, deceptive practices and locking Clinton people out of the caucus sites by the Obama supporters, we can’t get enough of that special brand of democracy. Ooo, Ooo, why don’t we calculate when the Clinton shiftworkers will be most inconvenienced and hold one *then*? Chris doesn’t even bother to feign ignorance about the obvious advantage that Obama has in the low-hanging fruit of the caucus state. From his post yesterday, Michigan Needs to Hold a Caucus, he writes:
  

  For Clinton to narrowly eek out a victory by means of the current 80-1 Michigan delegation would be horrendous… I think seating Florida’s delegation as is (105 Clinton, 67 Obama, 13 Edwards) and holding a new Michigan caucus (with 128 pledged delegates at stake) would be an acceptable compromise (more on my Florida position here). Clinton’s advantages from the lack of campaigning in Florida would be cancelled out by Obama’s advantage in caucuses.

  Oh, yes, we must make everything Even Steven. We can’t let Clinton have any delegates that would push her over Obama. What really strikes me as absurd in the Bowers’ post was the notion that “Clinton advantages from a lack of campaigning in Florida” and somehow this must be “cancelled out”. Forget the cancelled out bit for a second and tell me how it is that Clinton benefitted in Florida by not campaigning? Does he mean that she saved herself the $1.4 M that she might have spent if she’d followed Obama’s example and bought lots of cable TV ads in Florida? She did no campaigning the first time and beat him by 17 points. Hmmm, I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that, as well as the acknowledgement by Chris that caucuses are undemocratic ways of choosing a candidate but it’s ok in this case because it levels Clinton’s advantage with Florida. Settling Florida and Michigan should not be seen as an opportunity to tweak the numbers so that it is beneficial to Obama, Chris. We’re interested in making sure the voters are not disenfranchised so they don’t take it out on the Democrats in November. If reinstating them ends up as a loss for Obama, get used to the concept. Surely, Barry can make up for it by running to the fainting couch over illusory “race-baiting” comments by the Clinton campaign just before the NC primary.

• Apparently the Kossacks and Keith Olbermann (KO) are all in a tizzy about Hillary’s latest remarks about readiness to be commander in chief:
  

  “I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

  “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

  I don’t watch KO anymore so I can’t comment on the breathless, simmering outrage of his polemic on Clinton’s assertion. No doubt it was as orgasmic as the Kossacks report it to be. I hope it wasn’t over too soon. Maybe they can get Keith to do one nice and slow so they can roll with it. And no, I don’t think she’s said anything that will permanently damage Obama in the fall because there isn’t going to *be* an Obama leading the ticket in the fall. She is merely continuing to frame him as the junior partner in her upcoming joint ticket, just as she signalled on Wednesday that she was open to the idea of making him her VP. That along with the commander in chief remark is intended to condition the remaining voters to accept the battle in the fall as being between Hillary and McCain. It makes Obama look childlike and unready. It’s very clever as they start to campaign in PA and who knows, it might even make a difference in Wyoming. And she’s absolutely right about McCain going gung-ho on National Security issues. That’s his strong point and he and the media are going to milk his POW experience for all it’s worth. Obama is going to look like a soft, spoiled yuppy next to McCain. And if the lefty blogosphere is going nuts over the comment, hey, the truth hurts. Obama is NEVER going to win the national security argument against McCain. He’s going to have to win it on a different set of strengths like, oh, I don’t know. Think of something.

• Oh my, oh my, oh my! Following up on the last point, one of Obama’s campaign surrogates really sticks her foot in her mouth. At least she is honest about her own boss: She and Samantha Power must be good friends or something. By the way, have we any idea what the Clinton campaign calls Obama?
• Normally, I wouldn’t go near the Rezko thing. It just reminds me too much of Whitewater. But I do find it interesting that Obama might have been involved in getting patronage jobs for his staffers through Tony Rezko. It reminded me of something our commenter Lori found in Newsweek a few weeks ago about Michelle Obama interviewing for a job. The whole report of the job interview process was so atypical of any HR procedure I’m familiar with:
  

  One landed on the desk of Valerie Jarrett, deputy chief of staff to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. “I interviewed Michelle, and an introductory session turned into an hour and a half,” Jarrett tells NEWSWEEK. “I offered her a job at the end of the interview—which was totally inappropriate since it was the mayor’s decision. She was so confident and committed and extremely open.” Michelle was flattered by the quick offer. But though she came across as supremely confident to Jarrett, she had doubts about whether it was the right decision. She asked Barack to meet with Jarrett to discuss the job before she accepted.

  Jarrett, who is now a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, became Michelle’s mentor. She set Michelle to work with businesses caught in red tape between city departments. It wasn’t exciting work, and it paid far less than her law-firm salary, but Michelle saw it as a first step in her new career in public service.

  What the heck is going on here with Barack’s involvement?

• So, Barry made $55M in February. Good for him! Of course, he’s lost every major state so far except Illinois and Georgia. I guess Money *Can’t* Buy You Love.

Person Samantha Power

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Invisible Man

Well, he’s not a Muslim, that’s for sure. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that) He stays carefully distant from any implication that he is in any way shape or form even tangentially connected to Islam. Oh, maybe his grandfather in Kenya was but that’s a whole different country and anyways, he’s post, um, Kenyan.

And he’s not a liberal. No, our articulate, well educated candidate is dispassionate about liberalism. He believes in common sense. Ideas are ideas and some of them are just wiser than others. But liberal is a sticky word and he doesn’t like clingy things.

Like black leaders at State of the Black Union conferences. It’s cool that their sons act as surrogates when the candidate can’t speak for himself. But does he really need to be seen on stage with them in person after they’ve already shown him support? Wouldn’t that be superfluous? And anyway, it’s not like they’re his crowd, exactly. They’re too wedded to that pre-post-racialism stuff. He’s transcendent.

He runs as a Democrat but core Democratic values, like shared responsibility aren’t values he wants to be too closely associated with because the independents and the moderate Republicans might be repulsed by that. So he doesn’t wear his party, He dissociates from it. It’s like buying your jeans from K-mart.

In fact, it’s hard to pin him down on any particular political characteristic. He floats amorphously. It’s not that in a political sense that “people refuse to see him”. It’s that he refuses to be seen.