About Me

My photo
Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Clinton's Funniest Spin

Obama is the establishment candidate?

Do tell...


Anonymous said...

The irony -- it burns!

How does a guy without . . . wait for it . . . 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE manage to qualify as "establishment?"

I sort of made a promise to myself that I'd send the Obama campaign a contribution every time HRC's camp comes up with one of these howlers, but I may go broke if I keep that promise.


Anonymous said...

About as funny as Obama still claiming to be the underdog... after raising $35 million in January and winning 13 states on Super Tuesday.

It's all politics.

Clinton/Obama '08!

Anonymous said...

The point, Anonymous 2, is that HRC, as usual, is trying to argue two mutually contradictory things - and as usual, assumes her audience is made up of idiots and won't be able to see through the contradictions.

If Obama is the "establishment" candidate, then that implies he's put down long roots and isn't the tyro she's been painting him as ever since he got in this race.

But then, what else would I expect from a woman who claims she was "fooled" by Dubya (funny, 23 other senators saw through him -- maybe she should have asked around a bit more before jumping on the illegal, immoral preemptive war bandwagon -- or read the full NIE, not the 5-page summary). Oh, but she still has superior judgment in foreign policy, despite voting for the worst foreign policy disaster in the last 40-plus years of American history. (Millions of dead Iraqis? Why would any real progressive give a shit about them?)

In further Hillary Hypocrisy Files, she claims her experience as First Lady is vitally relevant to her ability to lead the country, but somehow can't come to an agreement with her former-two-term-president husband (yeah, that's not Establishment) on whether or not we the voters can actually see the records from her time in the White House that are housed in the Clinton library.

Why would Obama waste his time as Hillary's Third-in-Command? Being on the ticket with a Clinton hurts future presidential aspirations. Just ask Al Gore. Obama would be better off staying in the Senate or running for governor of Illinois than helping the Billarys reclaim their dynastic imperative.


Anonymous said...

Gee, and here I was thinking what an unbeatable ticket Clinton/Obama -- or Obama/Clinton -- would be, no matter who the Republican ticket is. Guess I'm just one of those idiots in HRC's audience. But I'll happily vote for Obama or Clinton in the general election, whomever is the Democratic candidate. How about you, Kerry?

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

I'll probably vote for Clinton if I must. But I won't be happy having to support yet another warmongering neo-con. Because I do see that as a critical difference between Obama and Clinton. For some reason, most of the HRC supporters I know just tend to wave it off. "OH, the war. Well, unfortunate, but she's so good on healthcare!" (In theory.) "And otherwise, they're practically identical!"

(And if they are practically identical, why not go with the guy who was RIGHT about the war? That's a question HRC supporters haven't answered for me -- and now that the polls show that "electability" isn't a given with her, the reasons for supporting her seem even slimmer from where I sit.)

Yeah, I guess supporting the greatest foreign policy debacle of the last forty years -- one that has had real-life consequences for hundreds of thousands -- is no big whoop and I should just shut up about it and get on the pro-Hillary bandwagon.

But it would be nice if she could at least acknowledge how tragically, horribly wrong she was in her decision and stop using the bullshit "I was misled by Dubya!" excuse (especially if she wants to keep claiming superior judgment and leadership ability). Oh, and if she could come down on whether or not waterboarding is torture, that would be sweet, too. Again, picky, picky!

But I don't see any reason Obama should be her running mate -- and I frankly doubt she'd ask him. She's already going to be sharing the job with Bill. Why would she want another charismatic man getting in the spotlight?