comment #1

JohnnyCanuck says ...

I hope that is what Bill and Hillary do as well. But based on the vitriolic comments coming from the crowd ("Denver, Denver") and from Harold "Highjack'em" Ickes - I don't know if it would be a wise bet.

comment #2

hiviper says ...

have another cocktail, Harriet

comment #3

EOTW says ...

And the GOP laughs, knowing.

comment #4

lazespud says ...

As much as I hate it when Jeff get's all political on my beloved movie site, that's a hilarious, great video.

"Inadequate black man".

Yep, she's really helping Hillary here....

comment #5

Bonifer says ...

Poor Mr. Christian

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

Republicans can't govern, Democrats can't win. Same as it ever was.

comment #7

Aladdin Sane says ...

"I want to state that Mrs Christian's remarks and statements have deeply hurt and offended my good judgment of bringing her here as a rouser of the people. That being said, I think I speak for all of us when I say you're throwing this election away by not allowing me to be your Presidential nominee. I vow to fight and fight some more. I will take this all the way to the Convention floor, where I will be waving around my Constitution and a gun."

- Hillary Clinton, June 1st, 2008.

comment #8

MovieBob says ...

Y'know, it's strange...

I always assumed (hoped, really) that when the day came that there was FINALLY a schism profound enough to split one of the two parties in half sufficiently to form a - perhaps unofficial - third, it would be on the Republican side... the small-government rationalists at last declaring independence from the Jesus Freaks.

But, lo and behold, it could VERY easily (much MORE easily) now be the Democrats who snap in twain: The Hillary-ites; the rebels-turned-establishment of 68... versus the Obamaniacs; the starry-eyed lovesick Children of The Kos. Where's that line between comedy and tragedy again?

Ask yourself: WHO is the Hillary supporter, right now? What grouping(s) does the idea call to mind? You know the answer: Older professional women and working-class white males who follow politics long-term, vote on issue slightly moreso than personality and regard "The Media" as biased against them. SOUND FAMILIAR!!??

Take a good look, kids: Reliable voters, likely too socially "liberal" ("secular" really, but who uses the proper words anymore, eh?) to "be" Republicans, but no longer feeling "radical enough" for the new Obama-fied Democrat Party. A substantial, powerful political force unto themselves, potentially with numbers to swing an election if they can be wooed en-masse. This cycle, they will be the force that puts moderate-Rightie McCain into office even as they hand his Republican party a CRASHING defeat in Congressional seats. This will be their "punishment" of Barak Obama, whom they see as "the snotty punk" (and, to be fair, a depressing number of them would also throw "affirmative action hire" in there) who stole their chance at another round of glory for the Woodstock Generation AND the chance to wave "first woman president" in the faces of their husbands/fathers/male-bosses. And then, in four years when McCain SHOCKINGLY turns-down his 2nd term, they will have their way again by sweeping in Hillary Clinton after she wins an UNCONTESTED Democrat primary.

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/obama-lives-obey.php

Bob: "Take a good look, kids: Reliable voters, likely too socially "liberal" ("secular" really, but who uses the proper words anymore, eh?) to "be" Republicans, but no longer feeling "radical enough" for the new Obama-fied Democrat Party. A substantial, powerful political force unto themselves, potentially with numbers to swing an election if they can be wooed en-masse. A substantial, powerful political force unto themselves, potentially with numbers to swing an election if they can be wooed en-masse. This cycle, they will be the force that puts moderate-Rightie McCain into office"

You *really* think they're going to vote for McCain, when they're floating in debt from relentless inflation?

"This will be their "punishment" of Barak Obama, whom they see as "the snotty punk" (and, to be fair, a depressing number of them would also throw "affirmative action hire" in there) who stole their chance at another round of glory for the Woodstock Generation AND the chance to wave "first woman president" in the faces of their husbands/fathers/male-bosses."

Yuppies don't really care about trying to be relevant. They voted for Hillary, precisely because she embodies the kind of conformist and mainstream liberal agenda which keeps future progressives from rocking the boat. They're the kind of people who thought those protesters in Seattle were "trouble-makers", and the anti-war demonstrators were "hurting" the party. So good riddance to them.

"And then, in four years when McCain SHOCKINGLY turns-down his 2nd term"

You're assuming McCain would live long enough to get to a second term. And his veep would probably just take his place. No one's stupid enough to give that position up, unless, like Nixon, they know they've pushed themselves into a corner.

"they will have their way again by sweeping in Hillary Clinton after she wins an UNCONTESTED Democrat primary."

Actually, assuming Hillary loses and runs again, I'd imagine her comments would make her look even worse four years down the line, and she'd have to prove she was a has-been fossil.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

was=wasn't

comment #11

MovieBob says ...

D.Z.

I know this is like pushing a boulder up the hill, but...

Those "kids in Seattle?" The anti-war demonstrators? They ARE hurting the party. Now, likely your on their side and see them as noble and righteous crusaders for their/your just-cause. That's fine, but the two are not joined at the hip: Right or wrong, the angry lil' "anarchists" and Cindy Sheehan ARE HURTING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S CHANCE TO GET ELECTED.

Remember your history: The last time the Democrats let the angry children take the wheel, it was 1968. They didn't just LOSE, they CRUMBLED. Huge chunks of the older/more-stable party guys broke off and became centrist indies OR migrated into the Republican party and began planting the seeds of what are now called "NeoConservatives;" while the party-proper flopped around like a suffocating fish - unable to sustain victories even post-Nixon - until the Clintons came along.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "Those "kids in Seattle?" The anti-war demonstrators? They ARE hurting the party."

And yet they've managed to help most of the progressive Dems win traditionally Republican seats this year.

"Now, likely your on their side and see them as noble and righteous crusaders for their/your just-cause."

I'm on their side, because I'm still being screwed by the "moderate" policies of both parties.

"Right or wrong, the angry lil' "anarchists" and Cindy Sheehan ARE HURTING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S CHANCE TO GET ELECTED."

That's weird, because they won by a landslide a couple years after she went after Shrub...

"The last time the Democrats let the angry children take the wheel, it was 1968. They didn't just LOSE, they CRUMBLED. "

Except that the Dems didn't actually care about said angry children and picked another hawk-lite like Hillary.

"Huge chunks of the older/more-stable party guys broke off and became centrist indies OR migrated into the Republican party and began planting the seeds of what are now called "NeoConservatives;" while the party-proper flopped around like a suffocating fish - unable to sustain victories even post-Nixon - until the Clintons came along."

They broke off, because they hated black people living next door to them, and they wanted a war they could be proud of again. The Clintons came along promising something which would have made you demand we vote for a Dukakis: universal health care.

comment #13

Michael says ...

Wait a minute...there must be some mistake. That lady is from New York City? Really? It was my understanding that was a 'bubba'-type opinion.

I guess she must have been born in the south...maybe the midwest. Huh.

comment #14

Nate West says ...

And then there's Maude...

comment #15

George Prager says ...

Ask any black employee at the Forest Hills Gristedes that Harriet Christian has been shopping at for over 40 years and they will tell you that Harriet Christian is not a racist!

comment #16

MDOC says ...

One of the real pleasures of the political process is watching regular people with no real direct link to the candidates get swept up in the hyperbole and completely embarrass themselves.
Another human observation is in politics, like sports, sometime your team just doesn't win and there is nothing you can do about it. When do you think the last time was that Harriet Christian didn't get something she wanted? Probably 2004.

comment #17

Sam Adams says ...

So much for the crazy vote.

comment #18

Jesse Perry says ...

"Wait a minute...there must be some mistake. That lady is from New York City? Really? It was my understanding that was a 'bubba'-type opinion.

I guess she must have been born in the south...maybe the midwest. Huh. "

She must be from the flyover section of Manhattan.

comment #19

George Prager says ...

Here's another photo of this very lovely and vivacious lady:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1097783

comment #20

George Prager says ...

This video is hilarious and depressing at the same time. It is obvious that this 64 year-old woman was counting on HIllary to win. She wanted it so badly. It would validate her and provide her with a way to get back at all the people who had failed her.

comment #21

Movie Watcher says ...

You know McCain is laughing his ass off. How can the dems screw this up? I see a fight at the convention, and the party crashing. Maybe it's time for an alternative/liberal political party. I don't know if it's a good idea. I do know that tomorrow, O'Reilly(O'Really)/Limbaugh/Fox News, and the assorted cast of thousands, will have smiles on their faces.