They're convinced mean old WikiLeaks has it in for Hillary.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
But I've never been more estranged from that website.
Their basis for insisting WikiLeaks has it out to get Hillary?
Once Julian Assange called for Hillary Clinton to resign, and Matt Drudge plastered that call on his own front page, the topic has been bubbling. Was this latest WikiLeaks megaLeak an attempt to destroy the plucky blond lady?
Julian Assange did not call for Hillary Clinton to resign.
Maybe if you weren't so quick to smoke whatever Matt Drudge puts in front of you, you'd damn well know that.
"Hillary Clinton, resign!"
That's how you call for someone's resignation.
Julian Assange didn't even bring the issue. He was asked.
Hillary Is 44 needs to learn the difference between primary sources and secondary sources.
Did Matt Drudge speak to Julian Assange?
It was Richard Stengel of Time magazine. This is the exchange during the interview:
And he's attacked for it. Go back in real time, I came out for Hillary in the summer of 2007. I campaigned for her. I did not vote for Barack in the primary (I voted for Hillary), I did not vote for him in the general election (I voted for Ralph Nader).
Go through my archives, go through my comments in roundtables at Third. I have defended her. I have defended her strongly.
I spoke out against Barack's racist campaign when others didn't want to. I did that because (a) it was offensive to me as a Black woman and (b) it was damaging to our race ("our" being Black people, Barack is not Black, he's mixed -- how typical that a Judas race traitor like Barack -- check unemployment figures and see who's being hurt -- would be the one to play the race card and damage those of us who are Black). And I did it because I knew a lot of Black people would say it in private but not in public.
I'm not a Lambert groupie. I'm still pissed at him for pulling C.I. from the links in the summer of 2008. The Common Ills still links to him, C.I. will still note his site. But Lambert had a fit because he was accused of ripping off C.I. (And I think he did and I'm not the only one who does. A website that quoted Lambert in what I saw as a rip-off offered an apology to C.I. when the rip-off became known.) I think he's a hot head and I know he bullies women in e-mails because too many women bloggers have e-mailed me about that since Lambert pulled C.I. from the links -- after claiming, by the way, that Corrente didn't link to C.I. Uh, yeah, they did. And they started linking in 2005 and continued it through the summer of 2008. When Lambert was accused of ripping off C.I., Lambert insisted that he'd never even heard of 'the blog' and made some insulting comment about The SideShow and then, when he was hit back with the fact that The Common Ills was on Corrente's blogroll he immediately pulled the blogroll and then waited and waited to put it up. When he did, The Common Ills had been purged.
And C.I.'s never said a word about it. (Publicly or privately. When I've brought it up privately, she's just shrugged and said, "Find another topic.") She never attacked Lambert. She never called him a rip-off artist or anything like that. She just went on about her business like she does every damn day. Doing the hard work that so few bother to do.
It was C.I. who told you when the SOFA passed the Iraqi Parliament in November 2008, the day it passed, that it did not mean the war had to end. She was attacked for that and she was right. It was C.I. who called out The Myth of the Great Return. And she was trashed for that and she was right. Time and again, it's C.I. who's been proven right. And yet, she's never typed or dictated, "I was right."
So if you're not getting my point, I pretty much hate Lambert.
But he is correct that Hillary needs to be held to a standard and watch the reaction that suggestion gets.
Now I understand the reaction to a degree. Hillary has been wrongly and unfairly blamed and accused for so many things and that was especially true in 2008 when so-called Democrats were hurling mud at her from the gutter of Matt Drudge and beyond. And I understand the need to defend her.
But I don't defend her when she's wrong. If she's broken a treaty or a law, then she's wrong.
Sadly, a lot of us are becoming as knee jerk as the Cult of St. Barack. We need to take a strong look at that. And we need to prove that we were right, Hillary was the best choice in 2008.
She was the best choice because she was smarter, she had more experience, she had a better record and her core supporters were not afraid to say, "Hillary, you're wrong."
Contrast that with the so-so intelligence of Barack, the lack of experience, the sorry record and his core supporters who insist that, as Ava and C.I. like to mock, he pees rainbows.
We're not those people, we're not the Cult of St. Hillary. We know she's not perfect and we know she makes mistakes. We know we have to hold her and every other politician to a standard and we also know that even if she disagreed with us on what we saw as a standard, she would support the holding of her feet to the fire. We know that because she spoke of it time and again, how she wanted to work for us.
I love the Clintons. And I still cry a little when I think of the way Bill was falsely smeared as a racist by Barack and Barack's campaign in 2008. But I love and respect Hillary enough to call her out when I believe she's wrong.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):