[Peron:]
Dice are rolling, the knives are out
Would-be presidents are all around
I don't say they mean harm
But they'd each give an arm
To see us six feet underground

[Eva:]
It doesn't matter what those morons say
Our nation's leaders are a feeble crew
There's only twenty of them anyway
What is twenty next to millions who
Are looking to you?

All you have to do is sit and wait
Keeping out of everybody's way
We'll ... you'll be handed power on a plate
When the ones who matter have their say
And with chaos installed
You can reluctantly agree to be called

[Peron:]
There again we could be foolish not to quit while we're ahead
For distance lends enchantment, and that is why
All exiles are distinguished, more important, they're not dead
I could find job satisfaction in Paraguay

[Eva:]
This is crazy defeatist talk
Why commit political suicide, there's no risk
There's no call for any action at all
When you have unions on your side

[Workers:]
A new Argentina, the chains of the masses untied
A new Argentina, the voice of the people
Cannot be denied

[Eva:]
There is only one man who can lead any workers' regime
He lives for your problems, he shares your ideals and your dream
He supports you, for he loves you
Understands you, is one of you
If not, how could he love me?

[Workers:]
A new Argentina, the workers' battle song
A new Argentina, the voice of the people
Rings out loud and long

[Eva:]
Now I am a worker, I've suffered the way that you do
I've been unemployed, and I've starved and I've hated it too
But I found my salvation in Peron, may the nation
Let him save them as he saved me

[All:]
A new Argentina, a new age about to begin
A new Argentina, we face the world together
And no dissent within

[Peron:]
There again we could be foolish not to quit while we're ahead
I can see us many miles away, inactive
Sipping cocktails on a terrace, taking breakfast in bed
Sleeping easy, doing nothing, it's attractive

[Eva:]
Don't think I don't think like you
I often get those nightmares too
They always take some swallowing
Sometimes it's very difficult to keep momentum
If it's you that you are following
Don't close doors, keep an escape clause
Because we might lose the Big Apple

But would I have done what I did
If I hadn't thought, if I hadn't known
We would take the country

[Eva:]
Peron has resigned from the army and this we avow
The descamisados are those he is marching with now
He supports you, for he loves you
Understands you, is one of you
If not, how could he love me?

[All:]
A new Argentina, the chains of the masses untied
A new Argentina, the voice of the people
Cannot be, and must not be denied

[Che:]
How annoying that they have to fight elections for their cause
The inconvenience, having to get a majority
If normal methods of persuasion fail to win them applause
There are other ways of establishing authority

[All:]
A new Argentina, the chains of the masses untied
A new Argentina, the voice of the people
Cannot be, and will not be, and must not be denied.

Media waah waah. Whatever, the media has given her campaign a free pass on all of her lies and dirty tactics, not to mention her bullshit resume. The media is her best friend, if they wanted to take her down they could have easily on a thousand different occasions just by reporting facts for a change.

Anyway, she is just crazy like a wounded animal now, the most dangerous kind...kind of like the rabid dog in To Kill A Mockingbird...ol' Atticus just needs to come outside and put her down before she does anymore damage..

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27123632

Frank Rich's op-ed won't help either.

MCW, I talk to republicans every day that actually respect Obama. These are regular people, not like us (who scour the internet daily for new campaign news). Also Rush Limbaugh would disagree with you as he has linked to HRC's campaign donation site announcing "Keep her in it so we can win it."

I think the idea that Clinton would be harder to beat in general is silly. If you see two master chess players going at it who do you think is Easier to beat? The one who wins or the one who loses even pulling dirty tactics?

And don't blame it on the media, He gets good media attention because they don't have anything nasty enough to make for good ratings, and thus his good press is more interesting then his bad. HRC's blunders (as the foreseen winner) makes for better ratings, and her positive points don't rake in the viewers. So essentially the media is controlled by the will of the majority and the all mighty dollar of the advertiser. What they do or don't cover is all our faults.

What the Republicans want is a divided Democratic party going into the general. This is why the primary needs to be fought on fair and honorable terms (no sexism, no race baiting) and that we rally around the winner at the end.

Give the benefits of your candidate, but lets keep it clean folks.

Down here in Texas, I can assure you that if any hard core Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary, it will be for Clinton. Particularly in some already close contests and among State house races, Republicans were counting on waving the red meat of a Clinton candidacy in front of their constituents.

However, with Democratic early voting turnout at roughly three times that of the Republicans, and the Obama machine cranking up here, the Redcoats are starting to really get nervous.

None other than the "Dean of Texas political reporting," Texas Monthly's Paul Burka, concludes tonight that:

"Barack Obama's personality and his message are dominating politics nationwide. The last candidate to stir this kind of feeling was Ronald Reagan in 1980 and before him Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Veteran political observers like me can roll our eyes over someone running for president on a platform of "Hope" and "Change," but nothing is so powerful as an idea, even a vague one, whose time has come.

Obama is riding the whirlwind, and if he can make the moment last until November, it is going to sweep out the Republicans, even in Texas. These numbers are so overwhelming, and the fifteen counties have such a large fraction of the state's registered voters -- 7,815,906 of 12,607,466, or 62% -- that what happens in other 239 counties is unlikely to alter the trend. These numbers have made me a believer. Rick Noriega could defeat John Cornyn. The Democrats can win a majority in the Texas House of Representatives. The consummate irony is that George W. Bush, who made Texas a Republican state on his way in to the presidency, may make it a Democratic state on his way out."

Burka is a McCain supporter and up until now has been very dismissive of Democratic chances in Texas this year.

This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bravo Mr.Rich!!!!!

Heh, the funny thing is the link Readytoblowagasket put up actually is endorsing a vote for Obama, not because they think he can't win, but because they prefer him to HRC.

She was only inevitable until people started voting.

Awwww... Now I feel sorta bad for poor old Hillary.

NOT!

Publicus said "Frank Rich's op-ed won't help either."

Thanks for the heads up. Once again, Rich offers brilliant, honest, insight and analyais in his op-ed "The Audacity of Hopelessness"
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?th&emc=th

He notes about Hillary: "This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country."

And on the much hyped charge of media bias against her, he says:

"If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s 'plagiarism.' And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. ...But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall."

this is EXCELLENT NEWS!! for Hillary!

This is the bottom line:

Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

It's funny, every time I start to feel sorry for her and the bad advice that she got, she does stupid things like she did yesterday. I can't wait until 3/5, when the clintons jet off to the French Riviera to lick their wounds. AMF.

Nice companion opinion piece by Frank Rich as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=1eaf7624ae72ae11&ei=5087%0A

“It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November.

The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s.

Ok, its a stretch, but wouldn't it be a hoot if texas was in play in November. Early voting is astronomical in suburbs that were typically republican and appear to be going democratic. Can you say landslide in November? Wow.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/02/0225garcia_edit.html

By the way, stick a fork in the clintons. They are done.

One other observation, the clintons' campaign keeps touting that they are raising 1 million dollars a day on the internet. If that's the case, why is she taking time off the campaign trail to go to fund raisers in NY, Boston and Washington with so little time before Texas and Ohio. I will bet a lunch that she is not raising 1 mill a day on the internet. More clintonian triangulation - translation, lies.

In the special election coming up on March 8 for Dennis Hastert's seat in IL-14 Bill Foster has picked up a new field director. Don't know his name but I was told last Tuesday at a Dick Durbin - DuPage County candidate rally that he's come over from the Hillary campaign in OH.

Sen. Clinton is an important figure in Democratic politics and if she doesn't win the nomination she will continue to be a vital part of the Democratic governing coalition in 2009. Fellow members of the Obama cult: be graceful in victory (and only after it is assured).

I'm not impressed with Sen. Clinton's campaign staff and surrogates (including a superdelegate from Hope, AR). As we were reminded, Rev. Jesse Jackson was an eloquent speaker (Keep Hope Alive!) and he won South Carolina. But Rev. Jackson didn't get this close to the nomination. It's about time that Sen. Obama's campaign starts getting some richly deserved credit for running an effective and foresighted campaign. His campaign speaks volumes about his ability to be an effective administrator in 2009.

Be prepared for the tidal wave in November. There is nothing false about hope.

Clinton's mismanagement of her campaign totally contradicts her claim of being experienced and ready on day one. Frank Rich's comparison of Clinton's mismanagement of her campaign to Rumsfeld's mismanagement of Iraq was very apt. Will she manage taxpayer money the same way she managed her donations? Is her campaign's inability to see two moves ahead and react effectively indicative of what a Clinton administration would do? Clinton's campaign is one of the few big efforts she has really managed (another is her health care task force). Publicly failing at running a campaign demonstrates the hollowness of the claim of being ready. Obama might want to point this out.

I like the little line about Hillary's staffers taking to drink. It's so "Final Days".

Taking all of this in, I can say this: That any of the "Front Runners" when given that title take a dive in the polls.

The fact that after losing 11 straight, and a media narrative that Hillary was still in the race seems to have fueled the Obama camp.

It was almost as if that handicapping Obama was the boost he needed.

And what of the crowds? I mean simply stated, spin away the crowds. The crowds are something the pundits don't understand, and though the MSM still has great power as the 4th estate, that power was circumvented when the crowds donated to Paul and Obama over that of the MSM candidates.

Even if Hillary had the money of Rudy and MIT in the GOP it would have been the same result, no real participation at the grassroots level, where a candidate was just one of two choices, made in Nov.

Well the public doesn't share that sentiment.

I sense the public is angry this election cycle, that that is seen by the numbers that still vote against McCain and the position of Hillary.

My bet is this, that the public brands the losers who didn't get out gracefully very harshly, Rudy beyond the elite circle, which grows smaller each day is damaged goods, the same of Edwards, same of Romney, and will be the same for Hillary and Huckabee.

I'm watching the Dinousour Media still diverging further from the lives of regular Americans, as if smaller staffs and homogenized content by USA today reflect rural voters in PA, MD, and reflect anything close to the realities of the major markets where these ideas originate.

I mean honestly, only the MSM based out of NYC would imagine that the rest of the country wanted a NY Senator as a solution, especially with all the NY based news on mortgages, banking, retirement, etc. as if that was the baseline of credibility?

Possibly Huckabee can manage to navigate out of this in a better position then he entered if he rejects the establishment and continues to endorse the squireel eating segment of the society..

But what I have found interesting was that as soon as the MSM pronounced a fact, the voter refuted it.

Hillary ran a campaign that was the "last cycle campaign" and had no real feeling or way to manage the buzz and the internet phenom of Obama.

McCain had that buzz and internet magic in 2000 and does not know how to create it now.

But here is the point, it isn't buzz or magic if the MSM ndorses it, in fact nothing kills it faster.

Hillary is done, and really we are just standing by with popcorn watching to see how much damage to her political future will accrue?

The internet has a memory, has fact checking, and has 'sticky content' that has changed elections, the campaign that Hillary ran, and frankly McCain is running, was outdone by Obama and Ron Paul in their respective parties.

The next election cycle will be all about YouTube and MSM impact even less, credentials to trusted sources or content websites that one had learned to trust less than the sources of the bad investment advice and reporting, the missing weapons of mass destruction, and the type of media without the "sticky content" and fact checking that voters have, that 15% at each end of the spectrum who do vote in primaries.

Hillary is the MSM's creature and she is going along with their trendline, reduced circulation and a message that has to be "bought" when today it instead needs to be "purchased" from trusted sources.

Hillary is done, the Kerry of this year, Edwards, Rudy G, media and name recognition without a contstinuency, no wonder the internet illiterate are her voting block, and why the young have so vociferously rejected MSM coronations.

And as pre-baby boomers become less important, the trend accelerates.
No wonder the women over 60 support her, they do not use the internet and have not developed the trusted sources as the other voting groups have.

Hillary = dying message to shrinking market.

Any one- either an Obama supporter or a Hillary supporter- engaging in November predictions are hanging to notions of their comfort. As of now, for either of the candidates the political frontier doesn’t extend beyond March 4th.

November is million years away.

readytoblowgasket:

Yes, some Republicans are urging a vote against Hillary Clinton and for Obama. But read the actual article, and the reason is clear: They hate the Clintons.

They hate them so much, in fact, that they would rather end them now, and take a chance on running against Barack Obama.

Those votes won't necessarily translate into Democratic votes in the general election. But, that same passionate Clinton-hatred could unite the fractured and demoralized Republican party in November if Hillary were the nominee. In this sense, by voting for Obama, they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - forsaking one of the biggest advantages they have.

What insufferable poor (likely) winners on the Obama side! Well, at least you're staying in character with your unbroken litany of Clinton-hate filled with the innuendo-not-evidence kind of attacks that would do Newt G., Tom D., and Ken S. proud.

I am 94% sure that Barack Obama is NOT proud of you when he reads these lefty blogs (useful idiots though you may be), and that he sees things purely like the good politician he is, that is, he has nothing personal against Clinton poisoning his nature, outlook, or approach. Also, from watching the last debate, it's obvious that even through her disappointment, she genuinely likes and respects him as well.

If only some of you could be as gracious and insightful for the good of solidarity at this point, if nothing else.

Obama was always my second choice (and probably a lot of Clinton supporters'), so I'll have no problem supporting him without reservation should he finalize the win that looks likely at this point.

That said, I'm still mouth-open aghast at the sexist and rightwing nature (no evidence required) of many of the attacks against the Clintons by people who call themselves Democrats and progressives.

Senator Hillary Clinton is unquestionably a solid liberal Democrat with a lifetime of activism and service in women's, children's, labor, veteran's, civil rights, and healthcare issues (what a bitch!).

Yeah, some of her votes were bad, IMO (and I've disagreed with them too), and it's ironic that her political-cover-motivated vote on Iraq Authorization backfired on her in the promary (although it still would have served her politically in the general).

I'd be more passionate about it like some of you (legitimately) are, and even at this late date, if it wasn't obvious that Bush was going in no matter what anyway. But she never hid or ran from her votes. Overall, the ADA rated her as 95%+ progressive. Heck, even Russ Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft.

Peggy, the worst disaster is Mark Penn, who is rumored to have a pee pee. Blaming her campaign's failures on gender is not accurate, and it gives ammunition to those who say the anti-Hillary vote is sexist.

First of all, since "some of the Republicans running" only got 1-3% of the votes in their own primary (with much lower turnout than the Dems have had), getting more Republican votes than those folks doesn't mean much.

But also, given that the Republican primaries were heavily contested at least until FL, do you really think large blocks of Republican voters chose to use their vote in a conspiracy to get Obama nominated rather than for or against McCain, Romney or Huckabee?

dillumati, agreed. Not all of the folks over 55 or 60 are internet-illiterate, BTW. :)

Kash79 says "Obama supporters have not only Hijacked TPM- but also other major sites like Daily Kos and Huffpo."

LOL. It's called democracy, I think. Obama supporters are in an increasing majority.

Just remember.... Hillary Clinton (and her surrogates) have touted her "managerial accumen" as THE reason she is capable of leadingf from Day One. If her campaign is a micro-view of how and what would be HRC's style as the CEO of the United States of America, the most recent relevations paint serious reasons for us NOT to believe her assertions of "Experience".

On the other hand, Obama's camapign has managed its resources effectiuvely and wisely. Campaign cash has been wisely applied and utilized. Management has selected competent personnel to accomplish tasks and to assign or delegate other tasks to the volunteer base. Leadership, in a nutshell, has been demonstrated by Barack Obama.

To ALL you Hillary fans out there, this is your REALITY CHECK.

What disturbs me even more than the internal bickering at HRC's campaign is the emerging dependence upon "loyalty" as the prima face reason for selection of personnel to run the details of her campaign. The United States has just witnessed the impact of "LOYALTY" on managerial competence in the form of the Bush Adminstration's method of running the government.

It is very important for her followers to ask whether her style and failures of HRC's campaign will translate into future performance. Answer is simply: Future performance is predicted by prior results, outcomes, and culture.

In Austin, when Clinton triuued to call up Plagiarygate, she only got herself booed. Ironically her best line was taken from John Edwards. She says tyyhat one is dishonest to use as his own words he didn't think of personally. Yet her books were ghostwritten while he wrote his own. Who is honest?
NAFTA, which she took credit for when it seemed to help and now disowns, was a Bush creation that Clinton pushed through -- with Republican and not Democratic support. And after the fake reconcilliation, now Hilliary is giving out fake indignation and more false charges.
Hilliary, are you sick in the head? Do you not realize that sleaze won't get you out of this?
A question concerning your "pro-union" leanings.When did you get them and where were they when you were a board membed for one of the most anti-union corporations around?

Pablo another Clinton supporter essentially says that hers wasn't plagiarism because it was just a few words, and Obama used a whole passage. Obviously that argument is not consistent with the actual definition of plagiarism. I've also seem people say she was speaking "off the cuff" and so how could she have plagiarized?

Aw, Kensdad, you disappoint me. You're as bad a partisan as anyone here. His words were borrowing inappropriately, she was just appropriately responding to questions or using words that were already in the public sphere? You don't even recognize your bias. You don't want the media to focus on this stuff, but your candidate sure does. Oh, well, I had hope for you. But I guess we're all partisan junkies here. Good luck with holding back the tide.

I don't know gasket, this link is from the same website. The one you give certainly makes it look like they only want to beat Hillary...at first. The comments say otherwise and the home page does as well. In the end, it's best not to believe much of anything you see on the internet unless it's a got a bit of peer review going on :)

http://republicansforobama.org/?q=consider

Thanks Kensdad... can I borrow your hanky?

Well, Kensdad, what I was hoping for was some semblance of a reasonable answer on the plagiarism issue. You say you don't like the stuff, but you excuse it. But hey, I'm a partisan, too - I don't begrude you - was just hoping for something enlightening.

"You guys"? I guess we're all the same to you, huh?

Sure hope we can all come together for the general.

i said that i didn't consider either one plagiarism. i said that i didn't hold anything against obama on this issue. you seem to be arguing that both are plagiarism. take a look at furion3's response above.

and yes, "you guys" in the silouette look amazingly similar... maybe if you posted a photo?

what do you mean by "the dark side"? aw, pablo, you disappoint me (is that plagiarism?) i expected you to see that reasonable people can disagree and one not be bad while the other is good.

and thank you, but i'll pass on the koolaid.

furion3, maybe you and i should talk. i'm sure that you could make me more comfortable voting for Obama in the GE, so i don't have to hold my breath and hope for the best if it comes to that. though considering the mess that W has gotten us into, i think we'll all have to hold our collective breath regardless of who the nominee is...

furion3, maybe you and i should talk. i'm sure that you could make me more comfortable voting for Obama in the GE

You know, I only turned into a political junkie a couple of weeks ago. When I first started visiting the political blogs and websites, my first reaction to many of the very angry Hillary supporters was the same visceral reaction you see here and elsewhere, the sort of reaction that has earned Obama's supporters the "cult" and "Obamamania" labels.

But as time has worn on I'm finding that sort of division more and more distasteful and frankly an emotionally draining waste of time.

I realized its utility is exactly zero, for two reasons:

1. If Obama wins, we'll need every one of those Hillary votes in the GE;
2. Attacking someone for the candidate they've chosen probably isn't going to encourage them to switch sides.

KD,

Just want to reassure you that I, too, will be voting D in the GE. And one of us will be holding our breath. But my disillusionment with Hillary is nothing compared with what I feel about the possibility of a McCain presidency. Now that guy is really scary - and he's abandoned all the positions - on torture, taxes, religion - that used to earn my respect. Maybe we should declare a day of peace between Dems and attack McCain.

Pablo

I was trying to be funny and self-deprecating. Guess I missed it, eh?

Several bloggers on Huffpo are cracking up reading this post from a reader:

Hillary Clinton is a great Democratic hero. Seeing the party split, she knew there was only one way to unite it. So despite the personal sacrifice involved, she has chosen to become so bizarre that her supporters will have to admit it is probably for the best when she bows out on March 5th. Hillary, this Bud is for you.

The people of small state of RI were victims of a weird political phenomenon. Five thousand comments posted on Huffpo- and many are funny as hell.

A national embarrassment was never this funny!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPV1yd7sQg

Every one knew she will not go quietly into the night. But no one expected such a free fall.

Damn Funny!!!!!

And furion3, darling,

I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get one more vote for Obama on this site "by being the sort of voter he inspires us to be." Anyone who reads this site made up their minds months ago about their candidate.

And if you really care about reaching undecided voters for Obama, perhaps it would be best to spend your time on a site that isn't a partisan Obama love fest. TPM is purely preaching to the 95% Obamaphile choir. This site is a group-think safe haven where Obamaphiles can come to delude themselves into thinking that the entire world supports Obama. Every now and then a Clintonite comes along to remind them that just because we don't hang out on TPM doesn't mean that we don't exist. So if you really want to preach to the unconverted, I suggest that you dedicate your time elsewhere.