According to a little-known loophole in an obscure antebellum law still on the books in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton actually owns Barack Obama. Therefore, if elected, she is entitled to bring her property, Obama, with her to the White House.

Well -- if not the White House itself, then a little shack out back behind the White House, but you get the picture.

But dudes! That's why you have to vote for Clinton! Because that way she can take Obama with her and he can work for her out back!

Only a racist would not want that to happen.

Also, by virtue of the same statute, Hillary's administration will include Tiger Woods, Will Smith, Bryant Gumbel, and Whoopi Goldberg.

My main point is that anyone who can be SEEN to be strapping on a cock is announcing that they don't have one -- that they are (in the logic of TV and white males) pussies or faggots.

I make no apologies for that language. I believe this is a precise point, not a joke.

My problem with Hillary is not that she has a vagina. And I have no problem with gays and/or submissive men or anyone else who likes to bend over. (I make no profession of my own proclivities, one way or another.)

My problem is that if you lack political skill, you can be SEEN to be putting on a cock, and when you are SEEN to be doing this, you are, quite objectively, SEEN to be saying that you NEED to strap one on because you don't have the "thing" already.

Hillary may not be running entirely on national security.

But McCain will be, and if Hillary answers him by saying, "me too," she will be SEEN to be a pussy. (In just this way, John Kerry was seen as a pussy when he walked onto the DNC stage and said, "reporting for duty"; the objective meaning of these words was, "I am here to be fucked," or, "I am here to be sexually dominated by bullying white men who like guns and buy dick pumps.")

Hillary may think she can avoid falling into this trap. She isn't focusing on national security.

But she is showing -- with the "monstrous" commander-in-chief bullshit, with the turban bullshit, with the denounce-Farrakhan bullshit, with the phone-call in the middle of the night bullshit -- that she is still speaking McCain's national security language. She is going to attempt to say, "I'm as good as McCain is at killing; I'll bomb, too; I hate Arabs, even though the Iraq war has been a fuck-up." And then she'll try to talk about something else.

But every one of those statements is, objectively, a clear announcement that she is afraid and ready to lose (i.e., bend over).

Obama, as Abote says, is better because he can touch on national security issues in a totally different way. He promises hope, he rejects the war, he speaks like a minister, he offers an image of "spiritual authority."

Now, this is bullshit, too, you may say. Fine. It is--and it is also strapping on a cock. He's trying to look like a grave, disciplined, cool, authoritative MAN.

But he straps it on more skillfully and discreetly than Hillary. And he does it in a way that is DIFFERENT from McCain. As long as a Democrat just mimics the Republican "strap-on strategy", the Democrat -- because he or she is mimicking -- can be SEEN to be strapping it on.

And that invites a fucking.

Those of you who aren't distressed by the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton are not understanding what is going on here.

The expressions of anger at Hillary (with which I am entirely in sympathy, I admit) are really beside the point.

Hillary is going to lose.

She is going to lose. And NOT because she's a woman, NOT because she's divisive, NOT because the media will conspire against her.

She is going to lose because she is going to run as "strong on national security."

This is what Kerry did (absurdly, while attempting, for the majority of the campaign, not to mention Iraq and instead to remind us of his service in the shit).

This is very, very, very, very, very, very, very simple. When Democrats run as "strong on national security," they are accepting the terms dictated to them by Republicans.

This means that the outcome of the debate is decided in advance. National security used to mean murdering blacks; then it meant napalming gooks; now it means blowing up Arabs. Everyone knows that Republicans like doing these things more than Democrats.

No matter how many Arabs Hillary Clinton promises to kill, no one will believe her. Even if she flies her campaign jet to Baghdad and drops a "Hillary '08" bunker-buster on Nasiriya, she will convince no one that she is a natural-born Arab killer.

Furthermore--and more importantly--the very act of running on "national security" is capitulation. It announces that she, like Kerry, is submitting to Republican extortion and demagoguery. The more a Democrat harps on security--no matter what he or she actually says--the more loudly is he or she heard to be screaming, "I am a faggot-assed-pussy; fuck me."

Period.

This was just as true for John Kerry as it is true for Hillary Clinton. Her vagina has nothing to do with it. It is a question of gender, not sex.

Democrats are the bend-over party, and they ask to be fukd every time they start trying to show they have big dicks.

The strap-on stands precisely for what is not there.

Hillary:

“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.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”

First: the McCage/Hillary '08 thing really isn't a joke, is it?

Second: I don't understand how Hillary has crossed this threshold of which she speaks. Was Hillary tortured in a cage? Does she have a disfigured head? If not, how exactly has she "served our country"?

Third: Despite my anger at the Hillary campaign, I have been resisting saying that I wouldn't vote for her; of course I'd vote for her if she was the Dem nominee. But honestly, if Hillary's definition a qualified commander-in-chief is someone who promises nothing but to continue to wage wars (and if her definition of "a great history of service" is murdering, being tortured in a cage, getting freed, and then doing more murdering), then I really will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

"I take him on the basis of what he says."
"No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know..." (wink!)

There will not be a Hillary/Obama ticket or an Obama/Hillary ticket. Obama is trying to win the general election and Hillary is just trying to destroy Obama. Then she will destroy herself.

How is the Clinton/Bayh ticket really going to fare in the general election? If not Bayh then it will be some other center-right "values" sap. Hillary Clinton may very well be the most despised woman in the history of our country. Millions of voters who would have otherwise stayed at home on election day will crawl over broken glass to vote against her, even if it means holding their noses and electing John McCain. Meanwhile millions of Obama supporters (and their money) vanish.

Do not shit where you eat.

This is it!! This is what needs to happen.

The ultimate fuck you to the derisive, front-running, shit-spurting media-- the ultimate turning of their methods back upon them!

No longer "either/or," but "both/and." Unfathomable-- and unstoppable.

Support for this move has to start here and now. It's the only answer.

I think this is a good example of the poisonous sort of discourse that is now coming out about Obama, particularly from Dems and leftists a generation older. It starts with this seemingly pragmatic argument against him, and descends right into sheer paranoia and racism about his electability.

To me this is about years of Bush, disappointment, and trauma. Many of us simply don't want Obama, a candidate who really has a chance against the war/shit machine, to succeed. There is as much fear of success as there is of failure. Krugman is really on crack when he talks about the need for a progressive message-- this is the country that elected Bush over Kerry, for Christ's sake!

Unity and optimism are absolutely what are needed. They are in no way shallow or baseless. They are the keys to victory by any bloc at any point in history.

On the occasion of today's big vote, here's a pic snapped by photographer and friend of AmCop Max Spitzenberger at the recent Teamsters' endorsement of Obama in Cleveland. That's James Hoffa on the left and Obama, in traditional Teamsters headgear, on the right.

Great.  So Hillary has won Ohio and Texas.  She did it!  Imam Hussein Osama can't be the president.