So, who is really Scapegoating Hillary??

I’ve been pretty chagrined at blog and media responses to some  Daily Mail Gossip article suggesting that there was some kind of finger-pointing binge between SOS Clinton and POTUS on the Benghazi tragedy. It features the side show of a cat fight between UN ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton just for that added dash of NeoCon porn fantasies.  It also smacks of right wing tropes and sexism.  Already, we discovered the WSJ sat on an interview–later to be ‘scooped’ by CNN–where Hillary clearly stated she was taking full responsibility for any lax in security and for any mistakes in conveying information made by the State Department.  So much for that right wing vision of Clinton as victimized and disgruntled!  Ever the team player, Clinton had already fallen on the sword when the WSJ let the tropes be flung. Last night, the President took responsibility saying that as Commander in Chief he was ultimately responsible.  Does this sound like the behavior of two people trying to shift blame to each other or bristling at the other’s attempts to shrug responsibility?

We didn’t write about the Daily Mail article here because it smacked of speculation and right wing wishful thinking. Today, Salon‘s Joan Walsh writes “How Hillary Clinton Is Sending the GOP to New Heights of Psycho-Sexual Rage“. Her thesis is this that “right wingers can’t appraise our first black president and his female former rival in anything other than the most degrading gender stereotypes”. I agree.  Just as the right wingers were gleefully shouting that Obama and Rice were throwing Hillary under the bus and that Hillary was not going to stand for it, Clinton had given that WSJ that interview that they sat on that would’ve basically put that entire canard to rest.  So much for the complete Foxification of the WSJ.  It’s no longer just the editorial page that can’t be trusted.  I’m also glad to see Walsh take on Jennifer Rubin who should be swiftly fired from WAPO for perverse tweets that are essentially slut slamming.

It turns out Clinton had already told the Wall Street Journal that she took responsibility for the security problems exposed in the attack almost a week ago – but the paper declined to share that information with the world, saving it instead for a forthcoming profile. Proving that was terrible news judgment, if not a deliberate effort to withhold information that might undermine the right-wing story line that Obama and Joe Biden were scapegoating Clinton, the WSJ published the remarks last night, after CNN’s interview ran.

“I take responsibility,” Clinton told the Journal’s Monica Langley. “I’m the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world. This is like a big family … It’s painful, absolutely painful.”

As clear as Clinton’s statements were,  the right immediately used them to bash Obama . Fox’s Steve Doocy claimed Clinton was “falling on her sword for the administration,” while Laura Ingraham insisted she jumped “on the grenade the day before the debate.” CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote on his RedState blog: “Doesn’t the buck stop with Barack Obama?”

But the award for most unhinged reaction goes to  the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin , who took to Twitter to unleash a psycho-sexual tirade against Clinton, Obama and even the former President Clinton. “First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat,” Rubin wrote. She went on: “yeah once you take your Yale law degree and go to Arkansas you basically are putting your career in the hands of others.” When Obama adviser David Axelrod tweeted in reply: “Sick. Mitt mouthpiece jumps shark,” Rubin shot back: “so is Obama going to hide behind her skirt Tuesday night? Why would the president let Hillary end her career in disgrace?”

It’s been clear for a while that the Clintons and the Obamas drive the right to surreal heights of psycho-sexual anxiety. They can’t decide whether, with her Benghazi statement, Clinton is somehow emasculating Obama by taking responsibility that should be his, or being abused by him.

I would like to add that some of the worst offenders of these tropes are also supposed Hillary supporters who are featured in this Buzz Feed article today on Dead-Enders.  You’ll recognize a lot names–many that I’ve been purging from my tweeter and face book stream for some time–because the hatred of Obama and nearly rabid dog hatred of anything related to Islam. It  has spilled into some pretty revealing sexist slurs of Hillary and racist slurs of Obama.  Thankfully, our past associations with people that I full admit to personally, severely misjudging is no where to be seen in the article.

But, back to how banging this drum on Hillary and Benghazi is really, really sexist.  Jennifer Rubin is an angry hack who has no place in mainstream journalism.

Let’s unpack the assumptions here.

  1. If your husband cheats on you it makes you less of a feminist.
  2. Hillary Clinton obviously doesn’t bear responsibility for ensuring that ambassadors have sufficient security despite being secretary of state — it’s safe to assume that she didn’t mess up somehow.
  3. She was just covering for Obama, who actually bears responsibility.
  4. Covering for him makes her less of a feminist, and akin to a doormat (even though she’d have obvious selfish and ideological motives for doing so).
  5. Bill Clinton’s actions toward his wife and Obama’s behavior toward his subordinate are analogous.

Rubin managed to pack a lot of inane assumptions into that one tweet! In doing so, she demonstrated the very double standard that ought to call her feminist credentials into question. In every presidential administration, appointees “fall on their swords” in ways large and small. Male appointees are described as good soldiers when they do this for the president they serve.

But a female appointee? For Rubin, a woman doing the same thing is a weak doormat who forfeits the title of feminist. It’s a charge Rubin breezily makes while dredging up the fact that, years ago, Clinton got cheated on, itself a cheap shot that is irrelevant to the controversy at hand. Rubin’s been defending her tweet. She ought to accept censure for her mistake and move on.

So, again, let’s look at what was said last night at the political debate.

President Barack Obama assumed responsibility Tuesday for the deadly terror attack in Libya last month that killed four Americans just hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to shoulder the blame for any mistakes the administration made.

“She works for me,” the president said in New York in his second presidential debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney. “I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.”

So, again, what do you believe?   The latest right wing conspiracy theory featuring harridans Rice and Clinton?

 The Mail piece features the delicious but extremely dubious claim that Clinton is still gunning for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who backed Obama over Clinton in 2008, and is thus making clear to reporters that the White House, not the State Department, was the source of Rice’s early claim that the attack was inspired by the same anti-Islam movie that was driving protests elsewhere in the region.

“State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill’s administration, was an early supporter of Obama,” Harnden reports breathlessly. “Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.” In fact, the two women became allies on the decision to intervene in Libya, and the idea that Hillary Clinton would talk directly to Toby Hernden to settle an old score with Susan Rice is straight out of the fervid fantasies of Clinton-haters everywhere.  Harnden claims that Clinton’s supposed “announcement of State Department dissent” from Rice and the rest of the Obama administration “could help protect Clinton during 2016 presidential run.” In the end, for the right wing, it all comes back to the Clintons and their ambition.

Is any one besides me getting tired of the never-ending CDS and hyped-up ODS now being turned into kind of supposed  pantomime “October Surprise”? It’s like some kind of hyper-sick form of disco dancing on the graves of four American public servants.  The Romney campaign is so freaking desperate they’ve got surrogates out spouting some of the worst stuff I’ve ever heard. But, remember, it’s all the fault of those grudge-holding, ambitious Clintons and the impossibly incompetent,lazy, and “foreign” Obama.  Who can be so stupid not to see this stuff for what it is?  It’s fricking right wing jerk-off porn for Neo Con Tools.  Any supposed Clinton fan that falls for this is pretty stupid, imho.


82 Comments on “So, who is really Scapegoating Hillary??”

  1. dakinikat says:

    Obama did call Benghazi attack an ‘act of terror’ – in Colorado — President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sparred over whether Obama called the Sept. 11 murder of four Americans in Benghazi a “terrorist” attack. In fact, Obama did refer to the attack as “an act of terror,”

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/16/obama_did_call_benghazi_attack_an_act_of_terror_in_colorado

    • RalphB says:

      Even though it’s obvious, I still hate to see RD linked with those ass clowns. Sentimental I guess but “thank god and greyhound they’re gone”.

      • Pat Johnson says:

        She dances to her own tune. The problem is that she denigrates those who don’t always march with her.

        She is a brilliant writer but she has a tendency to be condescending and though she may not have agreed with a certain front pager who eventually was asked to leave, she did so for longer than necessary allowing him to lead that blog further and further from her stated principles.

        If there was an active ratf*cker in that crowd, it was definitely him no matter what he says or how he goes about excusing it.

        She lost a boatload of readers in the interim but I will admit that I still read her from time to time because she does have an interesting slant on things whether I agree wholeheartedly or not.

      • dakinikat says:

        She had a lot of opportunity to shut stuff down but she didn’t … it’s not like she wasn’t told that she had an active infusion of tea partiers taking over the blog and that liberals were being derided and moderated and called Obots.

      • bostonboomer says:

        I see she thinks Mitt won the debate. She’s a terrific writer, but she’s still writing about the 2008 primaries. This is politics. You do the best you can and you move on. Anyone who expects fairness and perfection shouldn’t follow politics in the first place.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        “Anyone who expects fairness and perfection shouldn’t follow politics in the first place.”

        Ain’t that the truth? Politics isn’t for cry babies, it is a blood sport that often ends up in compromise for the greater good. I think that’s what we saw with Hillary and Obama. She’s done a fantastic job as SOS and would make a first-class POTUS, but honestly, considering the shape this country was in when Obama took office, I’m not sure that Hillary or anyone could have done any better. I’ve made that comment many times and pre-Bill Clinton Convention speech. I’m full of regrets over my stubborness and the anger that blinded me to the mindfuck that happened in 2008, but I’ve never regretted staying true to the liberal principles I’ve believed in all my life. I probably ought to genuflect or something because I think I just went to confession for the 1st time in 45 years.

      • Pat Johnson says:

        What bb said.

        That tired expressiom “it is what it is” speaks the to the truth.

        If the choice is between Obama and Romney I vote Obama.

        Fighting battles that can never be won is a waste of time. As liberals and progressives we must never take our eyes off what we espouse and stand for.

        Obama may not be my first choice as a prom date but Romney forces me to turn down the invite.

        I can buy my own corsage.

      • bostonboomer says:

        I don’t have many regrets. I started out as a liberal and left as a liberal. Once Obama was elected, I couldn’t see any need to keep obsessing on what happened. It was over. I stuck around for a time because I liked the community. There were other things that went on behind the scenes too that we couldn’t really talk about.

      • NW Luna says:

        What you all said.

        However, I admit to still thinking, every so often, how much better Hillary would have been for healthcare, for women’s rights, at debates….

  2. Pat Johnson says:

    Now I remember why I untied myself from the PUMA label in 2008. The “Lunatic Fringe” moved in leading the way for Right Wing talking points.

    It will be interestng to see how they turn themselves around in 2016 should Hillary annouce.

    How does one go from being a left leaning lib to a right leaning wingnut and back again?

    Oh wait, Romney did it so I guess that contortion is possible.

    Could never quite understand the rabid embrace of all things GOP simply based on a non liking ot Barack Obama. Never to this day made sense.

    • HT says:

      I must say that I found it really interesting to watch the evolution of the self-proclaimed Hillary supporters into what is now something that no true Liberal would recognize. It was disturbing to say the least, and was the last thing that Hillary would have wanted, but they didn’t care. Self immolation is not a very palatable way to self destruct. I watched (lurked actually) as many blogs I used to visit turned into right wing fests, all the while using Hillary as their excuse. Hillary would be appalled by these people.

      • RalphB says:

        Hatred isn’t the basis for a healthy life either. But they have it, in spades.

      • dakinikat says:

        What saddens me is the number of women and GLBT willing to sell their rights to indulge hatred.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        They do have it in Spades, Ralph, but without hate, they have nothin at all. And if Obama loses, WTF will they blog about? Cause it all ODS all the time. On second thought they’ll probably get on the CDS bandwagon if Obama loses anticipating that she’ll be up next.

      • RalphB says:

        I’ll bet they become CDS blogs because she sold them out somehow. Ratfuckers indeed, especially one.

      • Beata says:

        I find this whole subject difficult, having been an active member of the pro-Hillary, anti-Obama blog world in 2008. Although I still have the greatest admiration for Hillary, I have moved on. I do not want to relive 2008. Those were painful times for me, personally and politically. I remember them mostly with great sadness. I will never understand the turn many of the people we knew then ( or thought we knew ) have now taken to the far right. I was a liberal in 2008 and remain one today. And I agree with Ralph – hatred does not make for a healthy ( or happy ) life.

      • bostonboomer says:

        I agree Beata. It is painful. I feel I was taken in by some people. Maybe they were just people who didn’t really understand politics. But I also think there was a lot of racism that I never wanted (or want) to be associated with.

      • Red Dragon says:

        I agree with you HT.

        It was interesting to watch those I “thought” were Liberal morph into that which they claimed to have detested.
        I suspected a few of being the Ratf@#*$ers they showed themselves in the end to be but many took me by surprise!

      • Red Dragon says:

        Hey Kat!!!!!

      • NW Luna says:

        I am still a proud liberal. And still analytical about which politician I will support. But I no longer consider myself a Democrat.

        Amazed at what some places and people have turned into. If you support a political candidate, isn’t it for her/his policy stances? So why would you then rabidly support a candidate 180 degrees from the previously preferred one? And the virulence…..definite derangement.

    • roofingbird says:

      Agreed, and I left over the racist comments. However, your comments here made me go and look over the blog to which you refer. I feel constrained to point out that it was issued on the 15th, before the debate. There is every possibility that someone picked up on the sentiment and used it.

  3. ANonOMouse says:

    Great Post. And the BuzzFeed piece made me cringe. I believe now that the genesis of PUMA was likely not disgruntled Dems, but ratfuckers, playing on emotion. I’m certain HillBuzz was in that mix upfront and likely many others that we all frequented. I feel embarassed by my own naivete, but I began picking up on the ratfuckers in 2009 when I realized the cult of Palin didn’t have a liberal bone in their collective bodies and that both Palin and the Teaparty were nothing more than mindfuck tools of the GOP.

    I don’t know about you, but after reading that BuzzFeed piece I feel like I need a shower. Live & Learn

    • ANonOMouse says:

      And I don’t believe there are 3900 of them, more like 10’s of 10’s blogging and cross blogging with different NYMS and personas.

      • dakinikat says:

        You can get a good idea of how obscure those places are now with Alexa Rankings.

        Ours hangs around as the 150kth most read website in the word. That ranking includes every website including blogs, magazines, social networking and commercial sites. It’s absolutely everything on the web. Fire Dog Lake is around 22K. Dkos is about 2k. Ratfucking site is about 1.5 million, RD is now around 1.3 million. John Smart’s blog is like 4.5 million. Those are really really high ratings and indicate they are extremely obscure. Corrente is like 300k just to give you something comparable. Cannonfire is 328k as another indicator.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        Thanks for sharing that info, Dak. I had no idea that the data existed to track blog traffic and to rank blogs that well. It does my heart good to know the ratfuckers are basically just talking to themselves. May they rest in pieces!!!!

      • NW Luna says:

        Ours hangs around as the 150kth most read website in the word.

        Wooohooo! for SkyDancing!

    • dakinikat says:

      Yeah,The Palin fetish really got to me. It was one thing to attack the sexist attacks. It’s completely another to try to label her any kind of feminist.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        “It was one thing to attack the sexist attacks. It’s completely another to try to label her any kind of feminist.”

        Ditto!!!

      • Pat Johnson says:

        What rubbed my hackles was seeing her being described as “smart”. Christ, she was unable to string a complete sentence together let alone manage to find a point.

        The “feminist” label was bad enough but “smart”? Canny, manipulative, self serving, maybe but definitely not “smart”.

      • pdgrey says:

        Dak, I think the sexist attacks are one thing but I am still in awe of trying to make Palin a feminist. That’s like stepping off a cliff and yelling WHEEEEEEEEEE, like you enjoyed it.

      • ecocatwoman says:

        I apologize for being out of the loop by quite a bit. I too read RD’s blog frequently during the primaries as I was a Hillary supporter too. But once the Palin cheerleading started & I made 2 comments & got smacked down – hard – both times, I left & didn’t go back. Due to that I missed all that followed that all of you struggled & slogged through. No doubt most of ya’ll were much more deeply invested & closer to all the participants to easily walk away. The best thing about that blog for me was that I found kat’s blog & was fascinated with her wonderful posts on economics. I’m thrilled that so many of you migrated here. This is the best place to be fully informed, as well as to get much needed laughs through these tough and, sometimes, scary times. So – kudos to the frontpagers & regular commenters. A very wise & witty community.

        • dakinikat says:

          Ah, thanks! We’re glad you found us too! It’s nice to be part of a group that has consistent stands on things …one stupid election is not enough for me to turn over a life time of long held truths that I struggled to find.

      • Red Dragon says:

        Uh Huh. That Palin thing really left a bad taste.

    • pdgrey says:

      When i look back at that time, I could feel something happening, but didn’t “get” just how the right at over run Puma. Honestly, I look back with shame that I did not see it at the time. Also, my father was dying at the time so maybe that’s why. But as Pat says,” though she may not have agreed with a certain front pager who eventually was asked to leave” I was glad Sky Dancing started because I needed somewhere safer and like minds.
      This Wall Street shit has really pissed me off and the media needs to “front page” call it out. As far as Jennifer Rubin, she needs her ass handed to her, too, numbskull.

      • Beata says:

        PD, there were a lot of health issues I was dealing with in 2008, too. When I look back on it, I was not always thinking clearly because of meds I was on ( I am not on them now ) . I couldn’t see what was happening. I trusted people I should not have trusted. Live and learn, as Mouse says. But I was not a kid. I should have known better.

  4. Fannie says:

    Just on CNN, a man was arrest in a plot to blow up Federal Reserve Bank in New York, he is al-Qaeda connected……….I couldn’t pronounce his name, but the FBI and New York was a sting operation, and that is why he couldn’t set the bomb off.

    • dakinikat says:

      I wonder how serious it was. You always have to wonder about those sting ops. Some of them seem to capture the gang that can’t shoot straight.

  5. Pat Johnson says:

    Time to open the wine!

    Book Club tonight with a selection it took me weeks to get through because it was so badly written and devoid of interest.

    Me, who can read a book in a day is leading the discussion of all things.

    • HT says:

      C’mon Pat, what book. Interested minds need to know the ones to avoid.

      • Pat Johnson says:

        “Caleb’s Crossing” ny Geraldine Brooks.

        i limited myself to reading only 20 pages at a time trying to get through that one.

        But I managed to read the lates JK Rowling book in between. Loved it!

      • bostonboomer says:

        I heard that her “People of the Book” is good, but I haven’t read it.

      • Pilgrim says:

        Yes, People of the Book is pretty good. My book club read it while back.

  6. Fannie says:

    Thanks Dak, now I see all the pieces to the puzzle…………….I’d like to see Jennifer be a GONER for GOOD.

  7. bostonboomer says:

    Excellent post, Dak–although I have to admit it turned my stomach to have to read about the Hillary deadenders and Jennifer Rubin’s disgusting misogyny. How embarrassing that we were ever associated with some of the people in the Buzzfeed story. Ugh.

    • dakinikat says:

      I know … Jennifer Rubin’s writing makes me gag. The dead ender stuff is just pathetic. I was just trolled on facebook today about how mitt’s blinder was so wonderful … because a uk guardian article had found women in Obama’s staff to be under paid compared to me in 2011. I mean, there’s a real reason to have planned parenthood defunded, the Mexican City policy return, have the DADT put back in place, stop any laws for equal pay, and then up the military presence again in the ME. Sheesh … what a bunch of buffoons!

      • HT says:

        Any excuse is a good excuse for those who have no idea of what is appropriate. Also, in cruising around various websites today (okay, I’m retired, but I worked hard for my retirement) I’ve noticed that the republican trolls have been unleashed. One can tell because of the similarity of the postings, the hit and run action, and the sheer inanity of their responses when they deign to stay around and respond. Of course, the usual tell tale signs are evident : Libtard, libruls, democrat party, socialist, communist, marxist, kenyan, etc.
        Back in 08 I was massively offended, because these cretins didn’t know what any of those terms meant. Today, I am mildly amused that they are using the same old tactics.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Hey Obama is no feminist, but he’s beginning to understand that he needs to respond to women if he wants their votes. That’s what it’s all about–forcing him to do the right thing even if he doesn’t really want to. I wonder if Hillary and some of his other women cabinet members have helped educate him.

      • RalphB says:

        Daughters will definitely help! I have a daughter and 4 grand daughters who’ve been invaluable in opening my eyes.

    • janicen says:

      I agree. I cringe when I remind myself that I associated with them. Still and all, I forgive myself because I was heavily involved in ’08, and I saw what the Democratic party did, and it was wrong. But as was so wisely stated, it’s not ’08 anymore and we’re done fighting that battle.

      • Silent Kate says:

        I have called it DDS, Democratic Deranged Syndrome….the Dems drove me crazy in 08….enough to find “you betcha” endearing…of corse until I read her book. I thank Romney for pulling me back to reality. McCain has turned into just another “yes” man for the crazy right. Romney has such disdain for the middle class and working people that he could barely stand being at that debate last night! I detest him and sure hope he loses. Truthfully, I would love to dee Obama win and Ryan lose both of his races!

  8. roofingbird says:

    I’ve been waiting to hear more about this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html

    I loathe the idea that we use mercenaries, whether they come from Wales, or Alaska.

    • bostonboomer says:

      From what I’ve read the Blackwater types are loathed by both Libyans and foreign service members. I tend to take the Telegraph with a handful of salt, but I haven’t read the article yet.

      • roofingbird says:

        Part of the discussion so far has been over the failure to provide additional money for security. I thought I heard Issa carefully worded his statements over the lack of MARINES at the compound. Was the security money he claimed available defense, DOS, or SBA money? Who is in charge of mercenaries?

      • RalphB says:

        I’ve read that some countries will not let Blackwater in as security. Their terrible reputation precedes them

      • RalphB says:

        State is responsible for diplomatic security at Embassies and Consulates, with the possible exception of an active war zone though not always then. Marine guards are primarily responsible for security of the Embassy buildings and securing secret data/information and only tangentially protection of personnel. Personnel protection is the responsibility of the Diplomatic Security Service and they are State Dept employees. Additional use of mercs to supplement them is normal in the past 10-15 years.

        In any case, since this attack occurred at a Consulate, not an Embassy, there was certain to be less security and most likely Marine guards wouldn’t be present. Marines need the permission of the host country to operate and I don’t know the situation in Libya. A few more security agents in Benghazi would probably still have been over run by the dozens of terrorists with RPGs, mortars, and AK-47s anyway.

        This looks like an intelligence failure and not a security failure. The fact is Ambassador Stevens should have been somewhere else on Sept 11, but that would be his decision. With the CIA team operating in that annex in Benghazi, I wonder what they missed?

      • RalphB says:

        I should finish out that comment. If that CIA team didn’t miss any attack being planned earlier, then it was most likely thought up within a few hours in response to that stupid film, That may be true because the rioting in Cairo had started earlier in the day,

      • roofingbird says:

        So, in reading the transcripts of the witnesses at the hearing, it appears that burning diesel fuel was the first part of the attack, causing the inhabitants to have to scramble out through the smoke, toward the mortar fire. I guess if I were looking to improve security, I’d spend it on some slip-on construction face masks with charcoal filters, first.

        Just sayin’-

      • RalphB says:

        That would be a good first step. Interesting to me that they had no masks or, if they did, couldn’t find them or get to them.

      • RalphB says:

        Though a mask wouldn’t help for long. It would take something like fireman’s air systems to last out the raid I would imagine.

    • Fannie says:

      Last night, Kerry asked the question: Co workers and I were reading and aware of reports that the State Dept. refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi prior to the attacks that killed 4 Americans. His question “who was it that denied enhanced security”…………….Number one, Benghazi is not the embassy in Libya…………that is located in Tripoli………….this took place at the consulate.

      There are questions coming from all directions, but I am thinking about the one from a young man named Kerry last night in the debate.

      • RalphB says:

        If Kerry and/or his co-workers read right wing blogs or watch Fox, they could well have thought that Benghazi was the embassy and the most dangerous place in the world. His question will be answered when the State Dept investigation is complete and I doubt if it will be before then. Although, from the House hearing, the State security people seemed to be the ones making that decision to me.

      • RalphB says:

        Obama might have told him that no one refused a request for added security in Benghazi because no one asked for it. But we really shouldn’t expect definitive answers until the investigation is complete.

  9. dakinikat says:

    Well, here’s more Romney supporters in action:

    Islamic Inscriptions On Obama’s Wedding Ring, And Other Things I Learned At A Romney Debate Watch Party

    If I learned anything from watching last night’s presidential debate in a room full of Mitt Romney supporters, it’s that President Obama cannot speak English, wanted Americans in Benghazi to die, hopes America will be taken over by the Islamic world, carries a literal Communist Party card, and should be sent back to Mexico.

    Folks actually probably get more news than then do out of any of Rupert Murdoch’s rags … these are obviously part of the fox brietbarth, Glen Beck, Bill OReilly, Hannity, alternate reality nation of hate

  10. janicen says:

    Jennifer Rubin’s tweets make me so angry I could scream.

    Awesome post, dak. Your closing paragraph says it all.

    Sorry I wasn’t here for the debate chat. I just couldn’t force myself to watch. The debates have lost all relevance for me. When one side just stands there and makes stuff up I can’t help but feel, “What’s the point?”. I can’t wait for this election to be over.

  11. RalphB says:

    Sorry for being OT but this answers a lot of questions for me. I noticed this same thing earlier but had forgotten about it. Markos looks at the cross tabs of the Gallup tracking poll. The cross tabs are in this post and the only region of the country where Rmoney leads is in the South.

    Kos: About that Gallup poll

    Today’s Gallup 7-day tracker has Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama 51-45. Horrible, right?
    […]
    Romney’s entire advantage in this poll comes from a massive lead in the South. Now sure, some of that may be Florida, but the state-level polling certainly doesn’t show that. So Romney is driving up big margins in Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi and other such presidentially irrelevant states? Good for him! I’m sure that’ll be cold comfort as he loses the states that actually matter in the Midwest and West.

    11:07 AM PT: Latest tracking polls:

    Rasmussen (national): Romney +1, was R+2 yesterday
    Rasmussen (Swing states): Obama +3 (50-47)
    Ipsos/Reuters: Obama +3
    YouGov/Economist: Obama +1
    IBD/TIPP: Obama +1
    RAND: Obama +5

    None have included post-debate numbers, because those can’t be polled until today.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “Markos looks at the cross tabs of the Gallup tracking poll. The cross tabs are in this post and the only region of the country where Rmoney leads is in the South.”

      That splains a lot.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Markos had a good post today on how Romney once again revealed himself to be a “dick” last night. He watched the CNN instant responses and they hated Romney.

  12. RalphB says:

    John Cole at Balloon-juice…

    Man, Those Chicago Guys are Busy

    Someone get senile crank Jack Welch his hemorrhoid cushion and a vodka gimlet, because he is about to lose it:

    U.S. builders started construction on single-family homes and apartments in September at the fastest rate since July 2008, a further indication that the housing recovery is strengthening.
    The Commerce Department said Wednesday that builders broke ground on homes at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 872,000 in September. That’s an increase of 15 percent from the August level.
    Applications for building permits, a good sign of future construction, jumped nearly 12 percent to an annual rate of 894,000, also the highest since July 2008.

    The strength in September came from both single-family construction, which rose 11 percent, and apartments, which increased 25.1 percent.

    Construction activity is now 82.5 percent higher than the recession low hit in April 2009. Activity is still well below the roughly 1.5 million rate that is consistent with healthier markets.

    Man, those Chicago guys will fix all the numbers, won’t they?

  13. peregrine says:

    I can’t watch cannonfire’s lying ryan video without recalling this quote:

    “He is gifted in shrouding a cutthroat ambition in sheepish nonchalance.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/magazine/paul-ryan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0