she's an ass

and so is msm (for the most part)

Clinton Slams "Activist Base of the Democratic Party"--Private Remarks Reveal Contempt for Dems
by Dean Powers

Almost 24 hours have passed since the Huffington Post published a damning audio of Clinton disparaging the “activist base of the Democratic Party,” and the New York Times has absolutely ignored it. By this time last week, the Times had written about 258 stories about Obama’s “elitist” views, as revealed in, like, 16 words in San Francisco.
Just after her defeats on Super Tuesday last February, Hillary told the VIPs, "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."...........

you know what?

i didn't see the ad. it wouldn't have bothered me either way though. am i the ONLY one here who is seeing this irony? two words for y'all

SWIFT BOAT

perhaps i would have taken a different tactic than move on. perhaps not. i know that it's NOT petraeus i'm angry at (first and foremost). i know it's NOT HIS fault we're in iraq (and katrina victims are still suffering and our children are uninsured and our rights are being fritted away)..........
why such a furor now? why not then? why isn't there a furor for us BEING in iraq period? why are we still there?

MoveOn Unmoved By Furor Over Ad Targeting Petraeus

By Perry Bacon Jr.Washington Post Staff Writer
A few weeks before Army Gen. David H. Petraeus's much-anticipated testimony on Iraq, the leadership of MoveOn.org, the Internet-based liberal group that has rallied its 3 million members around the country to oppose the war, decided on a change in strategy.
Rather than making another appeal to moderate Republicans to join Senate Democrats in passing an antiwar resolution, they would take on the credibility of Petraeus himself. Their weapon, they decided in conjunction with Fenton Communications, its Washington-based public relations firm, would be an ad in the New York Times that provocatively played off his name with this question in large letters: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ........

and i just came across this from echidne of the snakes

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But by my calculation, more U.S. senators (72) voted today to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Gen. Petraeus than voted yesterday (56) to lengthen the time off troops get from the frontlines in Iraq, thereby reducing individual soldiers exposure to actual attacks. Am I missing something, or is that about right?

how much more right could THAT be?