Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Most hideous Drudge page of the new year
"Clinton hints at sharing ticket with Obama..."
Yuck.
14 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Mar 05, 10:34:00 AM:
First, I doubt he would accept. Why would he? Second, she's being a little presumptuous, isn't she? After all, the vast majority of voters don't want her, and even an arguably "weak" candidate like John McCain, regardless of who his running mate might be, can thus beat her. Despite TH's combo of ego, ideology and hidden pathos, evebody knows that Obama can pull this off against McCain. Lord, especially after this war with Hillary.
The real war is thus definitely on the Dem. side and I predict it will destroy the party. You lot in this blog might revel in that, but it's NEVER a good idea to be near an explosion--even if you enjoy the pretty flashes and exciting bang. Besides, what results from it might be a creature you don't want to f- with, as they say in The Wire. The Clintons have no qualms about making the party their own personal maid staff. They have no trepidations about wrecking it. Indeed, there was an article in The Nation recently which exposed the concurrent deep philosophical split: Howard Dean's model of re-building the party from the ground/grassroots-up--which he copied from the more imaginitive GOP folks--was adoptedand fine tuned by Obama. The Clinton's approach is top-down, along with lists of big time donors and operatives. As for this silly notion of superdelegates, well, that's what put Mondale over the top and you see what happened after that. While John McCain is no King Ronnie I, the implications for a Clinton victory are clear, and you've already seen a mini-coup of black voters against our so-called annointed leaders. Now, if the Clintons and their party model prevails, it could the swan song of the dinosaurs. If I were a conservative, I'd be worried about the mammals scurrying around when the extinctions begin.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/berman
Of course, that's what folks like TH and Drudge want. Hillary to win, destroy the party. Frankly, I'd also be afraid of Obama being very un-Clintonesque and campaigning FOR Hillary. He's grassroots but he ain't dumb. He's the future (for those Dungeons & Dragons'Lord of Rings freaks, he and his millions of folk will Theodin and the Roharim riding to the rescue of Gondor as the Republican orcs and trolls and goblins rampage through Minas Tirith--how's THAT for nerdspeak!)Then again, I think he'll be the nominee anyway, but don't look for Bill and Hill and their gang to return the favor.
By 
, at
Wed Mar 05, 11:36:00 AM:
TH:
I'm glad that you qualified your statement by noting that it was the most hideous Drudge page "of the new year." If you'd implied for all time, it would have had some serious contention.
Drudge is a cybergossip -- what do you expect? On the other hand, I suppose he gets credit for posting a picture of Obama without darkening his skin or widening his face.
This time.
May I expound? (Doc sharpens his knives with a fine whetstone and pulls out his 3000X electron microscope...)
Matt's a fraud. His web hits are grossly inflated. You note how he doesn't open his links in a new browser window? Every time someone finishes the article and hits the 'Back' button, there's another 'visitor'. But what's even more insidious is this in the header of his home page:
var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3);
function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}
That means that every few minutes the page refreshes itself, and every single person who's on the site at the time is now a new 'visitor'. Plus, in this day of tabbed browsers, people who are opening Drudge on its own tab are allowing the page to refresh itself over and over for hours on end.
In the final analysis, the guy's a huckster. He's not a conservative, he adores global warming, he adores celebrities (if Cindy Sheehan or Madonna opens her mouth on politics, ol' Matt is right there to report it), he doesn't recognize the blogosphere (he usually puts the word "blogger" in quotes), and he's the quintessential example of the expression, "Yeah, but what have you done for us lately?" He beats the next web site by an hour in reporting the Monica scandal nine years ago and hasn't broken one important story since.
He gives people he's still on the cutting edge with his "Developing..." scoops, but, if you'll notice, virtually none of them ever 'develop'.
Also, as I understand it, Matt just kicks back in his fancy Miami Beach hotel suite and leaves most of the site work to Andrew Breitbart, primary developer of the Huffington Post. Ten bucks says Andrew was responsible for the current headline. Another ten bucks says Matt was playing poker down by the pool when it was written and could give a damn.
On the other hand, to be fair, Matt took his 15 minutes in the sun and capitalized on it like few others have, so, in the spirit of Western capitalism, he deserves a kudo or two.
Glenn Reynolds also has a lot of visitors, right? IIRC, he was ranked #1 in some category last year.
Ever notice how Glenn doesn't off-link to a new browser window? Same reason.
And -- oops -- look at what's in his own header:
META HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="1800"
Just like Drudge, that refreshes the page every few minutes. And, like Drudge in the day of tabbed browsers, people keep Instapundit open for hours and hours on end.
Persnickety little rascal, aren't I?
__________________________________
By the way, Tige, I wanted to extend my sympathies in regards to your sad condition. Until reading CC's post, I had no idea you were inflicted with hidden pathos. It must be tough dealing with something so awful.
pa·thos (pths, -thôs) n.
1. A quality, as of an experience or a work of art, that arouses feelings of pity, sympathy, tenderness, or sorrow.
2. The feeling, as of sympathy or pity, so aroused.
- America Heritage Dictionary
In other words, you've been secretly evoking pity, sympathy, tenderness and/or sorrow in we, the innocent readers, and we never even knew it???
For shame, Tiger. At this very moment, I, myself, feel nothing but pity, sympathy, tenderness and/or sorrow for all of the readers here who have been so shamefully duped by your insidious, duplicitous actions. Kind of makes a good case for an Internet Police, where deceptive miscreants like yourself could be dealt with, doesn't it? I'd suggest a probationary period first, followed up by jail time for a second offense. I'm sure Christopher would agree, given that he feels strongly enough about the subject to mention it.
Next time we'll discuss this raging, rampant ego of yours that, thankfully, CC has pointed out, else we never would have known.
By , at
Wed Mar 05, 12:10:00 PM:
I tend to think that Barak Obama should NOT run with Hillary, for his own sake as well of that of the Democrats and the country as a whole.
1) This is Hillary Clinton's last shot. If she fails in 2008, she's done as national candidate. I wouldn't tie my wagon to a falling star, would you?
2) Even if she wins in 2008, and is maybe re-elected (or not) in 2012, Barack Obama is only 54 come 2016. Prime age for a run at the White House. And anyone who comes near the Clintons ends up with their bathtub ring. Can you say Mike Espy?
As an aside, there was an Obama rally in my neighborhood last Sunday, as Barak was speaking at the local high school (they had a shot of it on Fox News). I was on my way on an errand, and the traffic was annoying, but the faces of the people going to the rally were all lit up and very excited. The man can't be all bad if so many people are so excited to see him.
I'd pay to be excused from a
Hillary rally.
-David
By , at
Wed Mar 05, 12:18:00 PM:
Drudge is not a journalist. He's more like a nerdy, conservative anti-matter version of Bill Maher.
I disagree with most of what Obama presents regarding public policy, but he's the first Democrat I've come to respect in a long while, although I have come to respect Jimmy Carter now that he's an ex-president (as long as he tends to pressing domestic issues and finding people affordable homes rather than mucking about in Israeli-Palestinian matters).
I believe Hillary will take, not earn, the nomination and that will destroy the Democratic party. Such a fracture will be the only...I repeat only reason John McCain will beat her.
By , at
Wed Mar 05, 12:26:00 PM:
Yuck is right. And yuck for another reason having nothing to do with my lunch and the concept of Hillary and Obama having a tryst. I say yuck because I must hold my nose and agree with the bulk of what Chambers said. I'm sure he was joking about the "pathos," too.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Mar 05, 01:30:00 PM:
Ha! Yes I was teasing about the pathos, but not the teasing and ideology.
By , at
Wed Mar 05, 02:21:00 PM:
Yea, right. Hillary or neocons are destroying the "Democratic" Party!
Can you comprehend self destruction?
Democrats wanted to have all votes counted in Florida, uh, I mean 4 counties in Florida. Don't count the military votes, the other votes in Republican counties, uh, count every vote in 4 counties. Right. Got it now.
Now 2008. The "Democratic" Party is disenfranchising "Democratic" voters, not in 4 Florida counties, but 2 entire states. Trainwreck Denver, here they come. The party of selective disenfranchisement. Count every vote.
Self destruction, not neocons, not Hillary. Can you scream again Howie?
SEW
By , at
Wed Mar 05, 02:39:00 PM:
SEW, it's about time we heard from the barking wingnut side on this issue! Matt Drudge's photo apparently wasn't doctored enough nor did offer any scandal.
SEW's rant aside, I think it is indeed "self" destruction, when you count the Clintonistas as part of that self, and the agent of that meltdown. Nevertheless, I also believe there is a palpable possibility (danger?) that Hillary Clinton could indeed beat John McCain despite the coming trainwreck. Acquaintances and school chums in Ohio cited to me some shameful instances where members of the Party of Diversity and Human Rights did not vote for the black candidate because he was black. Another stick of dynamite, let's say, in the traintracks to Denver.
N.B. I looked at the article CC cited in the first comment and it is very interesting. Say what you will about Howard Dean's or even Obama's politics, but their grass roots philosophy is nothing to sneer at.
By , at
Wed Mar 05, 03:29:00 PM:
Clinton's suggestion was I believe, as others have noted, classic Clintonian triangulation. "Vote for me and I'll give you some Obama too!
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Mar 05, 03:44:00 PM:
I agree with CC, as strange as that may sound. He has a very good description of the current currents within the strange wave pool that the Democrat party has become, and there are reflections of it in the Republican pool too. We also have problems between the Top-Downs (Country Club or Blueblood Republicans) and the Grassroots (Conservatives/Constutitionalists/Ron Paul wing), and there is a tendency in the Top-Downs to view Grassroots as a threat, and to convert them over to Top-Downs (Ex: the Gingrich revolution of 1994 and the slow slide away from Fiscal Conservatism afterwards).
By Gary Rosen, at
Thu Mar 06, 03:14:00 AM:
"... I predict it will destroy the party. You lot in this blog might revel in that, but it's NEVER a good idea to be near an explosion ..."
That's Chambers' real message, amidst his usual incoherent semiliterate blather. Our unknown candidate had a six-week bubble which is about to burst thanks to his arrogant elitist anti-American wife and his pal Rezko, but if you don't elect him anyway we'll tear the country apart.
By , at
Thu Mar 06, 01:52:00 PM:
It'll be very interesting to see if Obama brings more delegates to the convention but doesn't get the nod. That's a very dangerous game for the Democratic leadership - piss off the voting block of blacks, who you've used for the last 40 years by promising but not delivering, or kiss up to the Clinton's, whose day has come and perhaps gone. Obama's too young to shut the door, but I still say if I were him, and didn't get the nomination, I'd look to an independent route, at least as a bargaining chip.
The window of opportunity is only so big. Ask Dean, Kerry, Edwards ...
I'm not an Obama fan, but he's got more sizzle on the steak than McCain, who is just not inspiring. McCain's a pale, tired old guy whose entire schtick is about being a POW. As much as I can respect the service to the nation, it hardly qualifies him for the job.
By Gary Rosen, at
Fri Mar 07, 01:45:00 AM:
"... being a POW. As much as I can respect the service to the nation, it hardly qualifies him for the job."
Even if it were his only qualification, it would make him way more qualified than Obama who has approximately zero qualifications beyond the constitutional minimum.
By , at
Fri Apr 11, 04:10:00 PM:
MY GOD _ what a bunch of wanks. MATT DRUDGE is 'da MAN' -- SMARTER than the lot of you. And he IS a conservative. Conservatism does not mean u have to lynch darkies. (never did, actually) - I follow in his massive footsteps: "Lead, Follow or ..shaddap!" - Bon Vivant of www.xesenta.com | u LOV it!
