PoliGazette » ElectionSnark (10 May)

ElectionSnark (10 May)

Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature — Jason, Managing Editor on May 10, 2008 @ 9:27 pm CEST

ElectionSnark column briefly mis-dated. Clinton and Obama campaigns demand each other publicly apologize.

Balance of superdelegates shifts to Obama. Remaining Hillary Clinton supporters order Kool-Aid and cyanide. (Oooooo. Too soon?)

Paulistas insist that their favorite alien “deserves representation at the Republican national convention in proportion to the support he received in the primary”, but insiders report that it is unlikely they will be satisfied with that 4%. A conspiracy is rumored to be involved.

Hillary supporters openly bet on the racist hillbilly vote as her last, best hope. Democrats assure us, however, that it is the Republicans that are the racist party.

Novak reports that Democrats plan to throw Joe Lieberman out of the party if he endorses McCain while Republicans plan to do absolutely nothing about Ron Paul’s strident opposition to McCain. Democrats assure us, however, that it is the Republicans that are the intolerant party.

McCain paints portrait of Obama, using paint-by-numbers kit.

Washington Post manufactures anti-McCain story. Asked for comment, a Post source said, “Why should the New York Times get all the fun?”

General election poll shows that someone will defeat someone else in November, plus or minus 50 percentage points.

Obama endorses diplomacy in dealing with Hizbollah…um, I mean Hillary, um….was it Hamas? Something with a frickin’ H.

Obama announces expansion of U.S. to 57 states. Killing two controversies with one stone, he announces new flag lapel pin too. Glenn Greenwald predictably denounces Obama as a “warmonger”.

Role of young voters continues to grow, but they still don’t have any idea what they are talking about.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.